Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a
functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in
markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than
others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today.
Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of
a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be
sub-optimal.
Aye.
Mark.
It sounds like we're all in agreement that the underlying issue is that
some businesses enjoying a monopoly are allowed to design networks for
the use case of yesteryear and do not have the market pressure forcing
them to provide the use case of today's (or the future's) subscribers.
The solution seems to be competition or regulation. The current
administration supplied over $7 billion in loans and grants
(http://www.wired.com/business/2011/07/rural-fiber-internet/) for
internet providers to provide high speed last mile services as part of a
Federal stimulus package. This type of encouragement in infrastructure
and competition seem much better, to me, than regulation formed to to
nanny and punish folks that run their business unfairly. I understand
that Comcast, as an example, has a fiduciary duty to its stock holders
to make the best return possible. But I would think its recent actions
would likely fall foul to basic consumer protection regulation (failing
to provide the goods or services it sold). All of Comcast's customers
could file a complaint with the BBB, but it probably wouldn't be
productive because many of them have no other choice for high speed
internet service.
As consumers, we may also have to accept that cheap internet access
prices were based on the usage case of yesteryear. If we use internet
services twice as often today, we may need to pay twice as much as we
did yesterday. If we, as consumers, have options, but are choosing to
pay for the the bare minimum option, we may as well expect the bare
minimum service (which apparently is not very much). As long as we have
options, which today is not always true, I think the market will
function. This why events like the Comcast/TWC merger are troubling to
me. Because it means we are going in the wrong direction, back towards
monopoly. Our efforts, at present, are probably best spent encouraging
competition and fairness. As a consumer and professional, I sincerely
hope that the FCC continues on its trend to support net neutrality
because I believe it encourages both competition and fairness.
--Blake
