nanog mailing list archives
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
From: Everton Marques <everton.marques () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:01:52 -0300
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition. Monopolies can not persist without regulation.You are confused.
I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this: --xx-- The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that telephone service is a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention. Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] <http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55> In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry. (...) The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and *then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex* *post* rationalization for their monopoly power. --xx-- The Myth of Natural Monopoly http://mises.org/daily/5266/
Current thread:
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post, (continued)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Chris Boyd (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jimmy Hess (Apr 24)
- 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 Bob Evans (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jack Bates (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Wayne E Bouchard (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 24)
- 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 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Everton Marques (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 24)
- 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 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) (Apr 25)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Miles Fidelman (Apr 25)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Andris Kalnozols (Apr 24)
- 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 24)
- RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Kiriki Delany (Apr 24)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 24)
- 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 24)
- 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 24)