[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Just name one barrier that isn’t created by regulation and I will concede my argument. [/quote]
Geographical location of non-moving natural resources.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trust me, I err on the side of not wanting regulation, but when a “market” decides it wants a regime in place for an ordered market, that isn’t necessarily a departure from the market.
[/quote]
But this is not possible without coercion – either government or otherwise.
Corporatism is exactly what free marketers do not what. We do not like the idea of the corporation in bed with government which is why we are against regulation of any kind.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But this is not possible without coercion – either government or otherwise.[/quote]
And? SROs and self-regulating entities (like accounting standards) are coercive. You want to trade your equity on the NYSE, you play by the NYSE’s rules.
I don’t like the idea of business and government climbing into bed together either, but regulation of a market to prevent fraud, improve information transparency, lower transaction costs, improve competition, and, to agree, underwrite systemic risk isn’t categorically bad.
Again, I err on the side of limits to these and I think the regulator has the burden of overcoming a presumption against regulation, but it is your mindless absolutism that simply won’t do.
EDIT: added “to prevent fraud”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Geographical location of non-moving natural resources.
[/quote]
So we need regulation to make up for the fact that we happen to be born in the wrong place or wrong abilities…?
This is not a barrier. Resources are property. They have to be produced like any other good.
So what if someone does not have access to resources, what right has any one to anything with out adding their own labor to producing it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So we need regulation to make up for the fact that we happen to be born in the wrong place or with the wrong abilities…?[/quote]
I never said we need or didn’t need regulation. I said it is a natural barrier to entry and provides an instant natural monopoly.
Bing born lucky or not is irrelevant to the question “is there a kind of monopoly not created by regulation?”
It is absolutely a barrier to entry, which is why so many want water resources to be managed by a water utility. You can agree with that approach or disagree with that approach, but whoever has the water has the monopoly.
Red herring.
The issue was: are there natural monopolies that have non-regulatory barriers to entry?
You have started blathering about who has a “right to exploit” (oddly, since you don’t believe in rights), which is irrelevant to the issue.
Be a man of your word and concede your point, as you advertised.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Be a man of your word and concede your point, as you advertised.[/quote]
Not having easy access to resources is not a barrier. One cannot be barred from entry into a market unless someone tries to stop them with coercion or violence (government). Just because I want to sell something I don’t have does not mean I cannot go get it. Maybe traveling somewhere with a truck to deliver it is more efficient that drilling for it…who knows? the market decides.
There are no natural monopolies.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
What the telcos want (i.e. those opposed to “net neutrality”) is the ability to charge for premium service (subject to service level agreements).
If Google wants to ensure a better experience for its customers, they are free to pay, say, AT&T extra fees to ensure dedicated bandwidth for customers accessing their site.
But, you see, Google doesn’t want to pay extra for this.
Therefore, Google and their lobbyists created the meme: “net neutrality”
What the telcos want is to be able to identify companies with successful internet presence, and then throttle traffic to those specific sites. Google would not be paying to ensure a “better” experience, they would be paying to ensure the same experience for customers. What the telcos - or at least Verizon - want to do is exploit their positions as gatekeepers to extort money from the other direction. They are essentially playing mafia.
Exactly.
You’re both just plain wrong. Google would be paying for better service i.e. instead of getting everyday service. And Google users would get special toll road service (bypassing normal congestion). This is simply how Telcos charge all their large corporate customers. What, exactly, is new here?
Now, in the past corporations would pay for dedicated line (ISDN, T1s, etc). But now, they can use the internet infrastructure and purchase SLAs (service level agreements) guaranteeing uptime, throughput, etc. (aka VPNs or cirtual private networks)
If this is how the telcos charge all their large corporate customers, why should Google be any different?
The truth is, you’re being bamboozled by the Google disinformation campaign.
[/quote]
They would be squeezed out by the internet providers. I know if I was running Comcast I would charge Google an arm and a leg and slow their search and would develop my own search and give it priority.
Imagine trucking company A owning half the roads in America and could charge random tolls. Do you think trucking company B would stand a chance?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not having easy access to resources is not a barrier. One cannot be barred from entry into a market unless someone tries to stop them with coercion or violence (government). Just because I want to sell something I don’t have does not mean I cannot go get it. Maybe traveling somewhere with a truck to deliver it is more efficient that drilling for it…who knows? the market decides.
There are no natural monopolies.[/quote]
Be serious.
A barrier to entry, in economics, has always meant exactly what it says.
Your definition is pure invention, because certain especially prohibitory transaction costs can be barriers to entry, as well as high fixed/sunk costs and economies of scale. None have to do with violence or government coercion.
You’d do well to understand the language and concepts of economics, rather than trying to invent your own and passing them off as received wisdom.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They would be squeezed out by the internet providers. I know if I was running Comcast I would charge Google an arm and a leg and slow their search and would develop my own search and give it priority.
Imagine trucking company A owning half the roads in America and could charge random tolls. Do you think trucking company B would stand a chance?[/quote]
Zap, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes here. Let me try to boil down what I’m saying: Google has a choice. They can continue to provide what they now provide. Or, they can choose to pay up for an enhanced network/service. No one is forcing them either way. They are intentionally clouding this issue and making it sound like something it isn’t.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You’d do well to understand the language and concepts of economics, rather than trying to invent your own and passing them off as received wisdom.
[/quote]
a barrier is put there by someone. Natural barriers can be removed.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes here. Let me try to boil down what I’m saying: Google has a choice. They can continue to provide what they now provide.
Or, they can choose to pay up for an enhanced network/service. No one is forcing them either way. They are intentionally clouding this issue and making it sound like something it isn’t.
[/quote]
Here’s a quote from the CEO of SBC:
"How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! "
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They would be squeezed out by the internet providers. I know if I was running Comcast I would charge Google an arm and a leg and slow their search and would develop my own search and give it priority.
Imagine trucking company A owning half the roads in America and could charge random tolls. Do you think trucking company B would stand a chance?
Zap, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes here. Let me try to boil down what I’m saying: Google has a choice. They can continue to provide what they now provide. Or, they can choose to pay up for an enhanced network/service. No one is forcing them either way. They are intentionally clouding this issue and making it sound like something it isn’t.
[/quote]
Pay up what? A massively ballooning fee while Comcast provides their own search engine? Comcast can squeeze Google out by providing them bad service at an insanely high price while providing an alternate for the end user.
Without some sort of regulation this is exactly what will happen. The major internet providers will control almost all content on the internet. As soon as someone starts making money they will squeeze them dry while stealing the business model.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Zap, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes here. Let me try to boil down what I’m saying: Google has a choice. They can continue to provide what they now provide.
Or, they can choose to pay up for an enhanced network/service. No one is forcing them either way. They are intentionally clouding this issue and making it sound like something it isn’t.
Here’s a quote from the CEO of SBC:
"How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! "[/quote]
It is amazing isn’t it? The end user is paying for access to the pipes but he pretends that it is free.
The more I think about this issue the more concerned I get. There will be a couple of providers that completely control access to the internet if we are not careful.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Zap, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes here. Let me try to boil down what I’m saying: Google has a choice. They can continue to provide what they now provide.
Or, they can choose to pay up for an enhanced network/service. No one is forcing them either way. They are intentionally clouding this issue and making it sound like something it isn’t.
Here’s a quote from the CEO of SBC:
"How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! "[/quote]
He’s exactly right though: the telcos have created - with private money - an awesome resource. Profits - even very high profits - are the reward for creating such an awesome resource.
If companies like Google want to use this resource, they’ll have to pay for using it. If they don’t want to pay for premium networks, that’s their prerogative. Where exactly do you find fault with this? There is no coercion here. The only coercion is the coercion via regulation that Google is trying to introduce via this little campaign of theirs.
If you expect that entities (for example, Google) should be able to use resources provided by - and paid for - by others, you are either dreaming or should go live in countries like Russia, where state powers are routinely leveraged by the powerful to appropriate the property of others. This is what Google is trying to do.
In an above post, someone called the Internet the “largest free market” the world has ever seen. (It’s not really a “market,” of course, but a conduit for one, but I think we know what he meant.) In any case, let’s all agree on one thing: by “free market” we do not mean that it’s “free” in the sense that no one has to pay for anything? Right?
If a company invests billions, they expect to to earn a return on this investment (the cable and BB networks were built with private money not government/tax money). If they can’t expect to get that return, they will not invest the capital.
Without a profit incentive, state of the art networks won’t be built/maintained. Thats why municipal WIFI projects, which promised free or cheap internet, all over the US have been such a flop. The companies couldn’t make any money, thus there was/is no incentive to finish these networks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Pay up what?
[/quote]
They don’t have to “pay up” for anything. It’s their choice.
Because the Telcos know this (i.e., that companies like Google have a choice and they can continue to operate as they have been, in standard networks) the telcos can only charge so much for access to these networks.
And, incidentally, even if this weren’t true (though it is), the telco sector is hugely competitive - to point of being cut-throat wrt each other, as any analyst/investor in the sector will tell you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Self-organizing is one thing. Leveraging the regulatory power of the state to further your own company’s/sector’s interests is another.
Problem - “self-organizing” is the state. It is also other things (SROs), but the state is one such arrangement.
[/quote]
To me the state - its regulatory and other kinds of authority - is an entirely different beast. Self organizing involves no coercion; state authority most certainly does.
The trouble is, how are we to know whether it’s the whole market requesting regulation, and not just a few actors pleading to leverage the regulatory authority on their own behalf vis-a-vie their competitors?
In the case we’re discussing, Google is creating noise around this “net neutrality” term to leverage state authority on their own behalf to appropriate a resource that someone else has developed and paid for. They have been very smart about it. But very deceptive too.
Actually, what I was referring to were the sectors/industries in which (say) a PM invests. They are generally very “anti-regulatory” wrt that industry (for example, “telecom”) Given how much time and thought the professional money managers put into a particular sector, this sentiment has some gravity to it.
True. I think one of the important function of the state is to establish common standards. Investors want consistency & predictable standards environment.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
If companies like Google want to use this resource, they’ll have to pay for using it. If they don’t want to pay for premium networks, that’s their prerogative. Where exactly do you find fault with this? There is no coercion here. The only coercion is the coercion via regulation that Google is trying to introduce via this little campaign of theirs.
[/quote]
They already do pay for their end of the connection.
If some of these providers have their way, Google will have to pay a fee to every single one of them if they want their service to be available to their customers at all. The internet only works as well as it does because each person pays for his end of the connection, and all the stuff in the middle takes care of itself.
But if I use company A to access the internet, who gets their service from company B, and Google pays for a connection C, which (to get to me) passes through network D, Google will have to (potentially) pay off A-D just so their content does not get intentionally slowed down on the way.
Now multiply that times all the different companies, large and small, who operate ISPs, and all the networks through which that traffic could potentially travel…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
If companies like Google want to use this resource, they’ll have to pay for using it. If they don’t want to pay for premium networks, that’s their prerogative. Where exactly do you find fault with this? There is no coercion here. The only coercion is the coercion via regulation that Google is trying to introduce via this little campaign of theirs.
They already do pay for their end of the connection.
If some of these providers have their way, Google will have to pay a fee to every single one of them if they want their service to be available to their customers at all. The internet only works as well as it does because each person pays for his end of the connection, and all the stuff in the middle takes care of itself.
But if I use company A to access the internet, who gets their service from company B, and Google pays for a connection C, which (to get to me) passes through network D, Google will have to (potentially) pay off A-D just so their content does not get intentionally slowed down on the way.
Now multiply that times all the different companies, large and small, who operate ISPs, and all the networks through which that traffic could potentially travel…[/quote]
…and it would still not add up to much because evil capitalists try not to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
If they should be stupid enough, someone else will make a lot of money offering an alternative.
[quote]orion wrote:
…and it would still not add up to much because evil capitalists try not to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
[/quote]
This is not true. Individual capitalists can be very greedy. The theory is supposed to be that extreme greed creates a greater space for competition, allowing the free market to solve the problem. Of course, this doesn’t work so well when we are talking about quasi-monopolies.
I don’t disagree. I think such an alternative would take a lot of time, however. And given the fact that we are talking about multiple toll booths along the way, it would take a lot of additional infrastructure to get around it.
We do have a certain interest in mitigating extreme changes in vital resources. The Internet is now a vital resource. What I have been talking about, and what I think other posters have been talking about, is limiting the immediate danger while allowing additional alternatives to proliferate. I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and I would like to see any sort of net neutrality provision come with a sunset period.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
…and it would still not add up to much because evil capitalists try not to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
This is not true. Individual capitalists can be very greedy. The theory is supposed to be that extreme greed creates a greater space for competition, allowing the free market to solve the problem. Of course, this doesn’t work so well when we are talking about quasi-monopolies.
If they should be stupid enough, someone else will make a lot of money offering an alternative.
I don’t disagree. I think such an alternative would take a lot of time, however. And given the fact that we are talking about multiple toll booths along the way, it would take a lot of additional infrastructure to get around it.
We do have a certain interest in mitigating extreme changes in vital resources. The Internet is now a vital resource. What I have been talking about, and what I think other posters have been talking about, is limiting the immediate danger while allowing additional alternatives to proliferate.
I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and I would like to see any sort of net neutrality provision come with a sunset period.[/quote]
A system that changes but not disruptively, artificially slowed down to achieve that purpose?