++1 Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com
On 5/10/14, 2:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, but it's > always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open > to intepretation. > > Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven > solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe in > a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of "fair". > > If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs > both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those > two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or > B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. > > We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of > Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough > titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - > End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular > belief, there are plenty of "Streaming Company 2s" available. Besides NF, > there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different > models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is > available. > > And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband > Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I > cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, > one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because > Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot "vote with my > wallet" and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming > Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be > clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC > thing, I'm just talking generalities.) > > Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot > be a market-based solution. > > Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing > there is. > > Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this > problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, > i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical > infrastructure. > > This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based > on service, price, features, etc., not on "who paid off my local PUC". > > And before anyone brings up the whole "the UK is more dense than the US", I > preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices > in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that > argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. > > Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own > the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the > promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the > telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but > never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be > ashamed of yourselves.) > > But hey, a guy can dream, right? > > In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be > best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they see > some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later). > > This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power > charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a > _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be. >
