Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:

> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
>
> > Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
> > not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
> > doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
> > non-operational now.
>
> In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its 
> monopoly power.

In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC internet services. There are no regulations that 
support that monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive permits, and build out a second cable 
system if they wanted to. However, the population density is such that even if that company captured 50% of the market, 
it would merely make the market economically unviable for both companies.

In such instances, you do indeed have “natural monopolies” which are an economic construct, not a regulatory artifact.

> > Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?
>
> Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or 
> guarantee packet loss?" and "How is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the market?"
>
> My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government entities allowing and protecting (two pretty 
> much interchangeable terms, I prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is "Huh?  What?" and to 
> the second and third "Best service for the best price is pretty good for everybody.  Except the losers that can't rip 
> you off without the FCC protection.”

How, exactly, are the governments protecting the monopolies of ILECs and Cable companies? It seems to me that it’s more 
a case of those monopolies persisting because the non-regulatory (largely economic) barriers to competition are large 
enough that they prevent viable competitors from forming. Allowing those unregulated monopolies to subsequently 
leverage that into a “content protection racket” is the internet equivalent of turning a regulatory blind eye to more 
traditional forms of extortion.

So, no, eliminating the government’s protection of monopolies (wherever you think that is occurring) will not solve the 
more general problem of monopolies that are a problem without government protection.

Owen