tw25485966

6 ms·

1.
by tw25485966 6y ago
The market process turns these tensions between suppliers and consumers into a profit opportunity for extant and would-be competitors. The sad fact is that the market process is actively interfered with by the political process. The history
2.
by tw25485966 6y ago
>Instead of saying "anyone is allowed to dig up the road, bury cables and let the customers choose the provider with the best service" we often allow only one or two cable providers and add some special rules to make them treat
3.
by tw25485966 6y ago
> ISPs either need a right of way to lay cable or a license to use RF spectrum. As I understand it, both of those can (and do) support multiple competing services. Further, regulation dealing with scarce (ostensibly government-owned) res
4.
by tw25485966 6y ago
Some would argue that those "privately held organizations" are able to avoid market pressures via regulatory capture, if not outright grants of monopoly by governments. If you want to argue that a government-granted public monopol
5.
by tw25485966 6y ago
> Classifying ISPs as the utility companies they are is the only way to end the gouging and systematic fraud. This would further entrench them as government-chartered monopolies. Heck, most of the current anti-competitive forces extend f
6.
by tw25485966 6y ago
He didn't claim it was the only barrier to entry. To extend his point, "red tape" isn't the only regulation-related problem. Don't forget that in many local governments gave monopoly grants to select ISPs. Then th
7.
by tw25485966 6y ago
>I'd love to see some sort of automatic regulation for situations of market failure. Why do you assume "market failure", and not "regulatory capture"? > the presumption should be regulation Can we first get ri