nanog mailing list archives
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:31 -0400
On 14-04-25 00:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
Egg of Chicken question. Did regulation arise because of marker failure (monopoly, duopoly), did did regulation create monopolies ? When cable cos started in canada (TV only), they went to the CRTC, as part of obtaining their broadcasting licenses and demanded they be granted monopoly status for the areas they served. So fairly quickly, the country was carved up into different territories, each served by a single cable company (a couple of exceptions for border cases etc). residential telephone was almost always a monopoly. There may have been many different telcos, but each operated as the incumbent in its town. The bigger guys ended up gobbling most of them over the years. The probvlem of net neutrality does not reside in the "internet" itself. The transit industry is a functioning markletplace with many competitors and dynamic pricing pushing pricing towards costs. The problem resides in the last mile which is controlled by incumbents. The problem is that telcos and cablecos are becoming undifferentiated. Cablecos offer telephony, and telcos offer TV distribution. The difference is that not all telcos have advances and those still stuck with old DSL are becoming irrelevant, leaving only a monopoly cableco to serve customers. And whenever 100% of facilities based last mile providers are more interested in protecting their legacy TV assets, you get problems with net neutrality, just as Comcast is doing to Netflix. For large ISPs, Netflix provides caching appliances that can be inside their network, so it is not a question of transit costs. It has everything to do with a company that is heavily involved in TV, and which controls the ISP market is such a large areas of USA wanting to replace lost TV revenus by billing whoever is stealing those revenus. In other words, they use their market power to hurt competitors. While the FCC is getting the news, this should have gone to the FTC because it is clearly an anti-competitive and predatory measure that proves Comcast is using its market power to hurt competitors. As a side note in Canada, the "Competition Bureau" (FTC in USA) is getting involved with CRTC (FCC in USA) and submits into processes with arguments on competition. When there is a clear case of abuse of marlet power and anti-competive practices, (such as Comcast vs Netflix) then government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential.
Current thread:
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post, (continued)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Justin M. Streiner (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Niels Bakker (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Phil Bedard (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jay Ashworth (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Doug Barton (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Lee (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jay Ashworth (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Larry Sheldon (Apr 26)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Barry Shein (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Phil Bedard (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Bob Evans (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Barry Shein (Apr 27)