They can't have the right to change access in any way, even with complicated, fine line EULAs or contracts.
It's too late to keep the Google or the Federal government out of your mailbox, PC, or web site - they already have that access.
But, allowing internet providers to throttle or alter content delivery, speed, or just favor larger vendors seems like a natural right, when it isn't. Nobody "owns" the internet: Thus, NO corporation should have the right to subjectively, arbitrarily or systematically alter content or it's speed or volume, passing through its network and servers.
When monopolies happen, blame the government for allowing the free market to sort itself out and failing (reworded as authorizing the monopoly to make it sound like they are guilty through their inaction); when the government moves in to block a potential monopoly, blame the government for interfering in the free market. What should they have done to prevent the local monopolies that you'd be happy with?
This needs to happen first but then the regulations will be set and you'll benefit from them.
It could be any of those things but there's no reason why Netflix would be limiting their own service like that and have it change so abruptly:
[VIDEO]
The VPN just hides what you do from the ISP. It seems to me like they Verizon was using their position to help their own streaming service. Maybe they'll stop now that it failed:
There's massive potential for anti-competitive behaviour no matter if it happens or not and it needs to be regulated.
There doesn't need to be 5 cables from 5 companies in every street just like there aren't 5 sets of power lines, water pipes or waste pipes. Infrastructure can be shared just fine. No added costs, shared costs and regulated to ensure that users on those limited lines aren't shafted by whoever is offering service over them.
Buffered replay, which still has to average real-time streaming.
Apparently it cannot be repeated enough times, because it's still not sinking in, that it is not due to a lack of regulations that monopolies occur, it is precisely BECAUSE of government regulations that we've had monopolies in the US. Actual free markets do not result in monopolies. Over regulated markets and corporatist government DO result in monopolies, favoritism and price distortions.
Please stop repeating these lies that are treated as "common knowledge".
The government granted these monopolies, and are called a 'natural monopoly'. There were strict service standards that had to be maintained, any increase in fees had to be approved, and the request was posted in the local newspapers, so while a company was given a monopoly it was handcuffed from abusing its position. All these regulations, and safeguards had slowly been away with.
Apparently it cannot be repeated enough times, because it's still not sinking in, that it is not due to a lack of regulations that monopolies occur, it is precisely BECAUSE of government regulations that we've had monopolies in the US. Actual free markets do not result in monopolies. Over regulated markets and corporatist government DO result in monopolies, favoritism and price distortions.
You both seem to be coming to the same conclusion with opposing views. The first says the government caused the monopolies by taking away regulation preventing them, the second says monopolies only happen through over-regulation. It's like saying the government caused problems in the financial industry through deregulation when the free market proponents are the biggest supporters of deregulation.
What can't be repeated enough times is that you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that the government is to blame for failing to prevent the free market forming monopolies and also to blame when they impose regulations that do try to prevent monopolies as they are trying to do with net neutrality.
"The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up... there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous."
(I notice you seem to be pro-taxation there too but the opposite when Apple avoids taxation in Ireland).
So it's ok for the government to put measures in preventing sports monopolies but not monopolies over internet access.
Here's how a monopoly forms without any government intervention whatsoever:
- There are x number of companies all competing in the same space. No regulation.
- A small number are more successful than the others to form say 2-3 larger competitors by buying out the smaller ones. Still no government involved, no regulation.
- These giant companies build up patent portfolios (Apple, Samsung), complex product designs (e.g microchips like Intel, AMD).
- The big companies decide it would be best to merge together like Time Warner and Comcast as there's nothing to be gained from competing any more.
- We get left with one company dictating the market without competition and their business is so complex and has so much protection from patents that a newcomer can't easily build up any viable competition to them.
People might say that the patent system is a way of the government being involved but again free market proponents like the patent system because it promotes fair competition and yet is a form of regulation. But even without patents, the complexity of production that a big corporation can build up can easily be enough to maintain a monopoly position. To suggest that a monopoly can never materialize out of anything other than government involvement is ridiculous. It happens all the time in the free market without their involvement and their lack of involvement doesn't constitute blame for it happening.
Let's say the government doesn't get involved here at all and every internet service provider is free to give better streaming quality to their own video services than competing ones and in some areas, there is just one option for which service provider to use, how does this scenario get prevented? Remember, no government involvement is necessary as the free market will sort itself out. How does the free market sort this problem out?
You both seem to be coming to the same conclusion with opposing views. The first says the government caused the monopolies by taking away regulation preventing them, the second says monopolies only happen through over-regulation. It's like saying the government caused problems in the financial industry through deregulation when the free market proponents are the biggest supporters of deregulation.
What can't be repeated enough times is that you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that the government is to blame for failing to prevent the free market forming monopolies and also to blame when they impose regulations that do try to prevent monopolies as they are trying to do with net neutrality.
"The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up... there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous."
(I notice you seem to be pro-taxation there too but the opposite when Apple avoids taxation in Ireland).
So it's ok for the government to put measures in preventing sports monopolies but not monopolies over internet access.
Here's how a monopoly forms without any government intervention whatsoever:
- There are x number of companies all competing in the same space. No regulation.
- A small number are more successful than the others to form say 2-3 larger competitors by buying out the smaller ones. Still no government involved, no regulation.
- These giant companies build up patent portfolios (Apple, Samsung), complex product designs (e.g microchips like Intel, AMD).
- The big companies decide it would be best to merge together like Time Warner and Comcast as there's nothing to be gained from competing any more.
- We get left with one company dictating the market without competition and their business is so complex and has so much protection from patents that a newcomer can't easily build up any viable competition to them.
People might say that the patent system is a way of the government being involved but again free market proponents like the patent system because it promotes fair competition and yet is a form of regulation. But even without patents, the complexity of production that a big corporation can build up can easily be enough to maintain a monopoly position. To suggest that a monopoly can never materialize out of anything other than government involvement is ridiculous. It happens all the time in the free market without their involvement and their lack of involvement doesn't constitute blame for it happening.
Let's say the government doesn't get involved here at all and every internet service provider is free to give better streaming quality to their own video services than competing ones and in some areas, there is just one option for which service provider to use, how does this scenario get prevented? Remember, no government involvement is necessary as the free market will sort itself out. How does the free market sort this problem out?
I honestly don't understand how you've reached your conclusions. It's possible I'm not being clear. If so, I apologize.
Sports organizations (and many others, listed below) are protected monopolies. The government's involvement is anti-competitive and that's not OK.
Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care, insurance, banks, and financial markets) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking collective action).[19] First, since the Clayton Act 1914 §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in labor unions. This was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with unequal bargaining power were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in corporations,[20] subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions.[21]
Second, professional sports leagues enjoy a number of exemptions. Mergers and joint agreements of professional football, hockey, baseball, and basketball leagues are exempt.[22]Major League Baseball was held to be broadly exempt from antitrust law in Federal Baseball Club v. National League.[23] Holmes J held that the baseball league's organization meant that there was no commerce between the states taking place, even though teams travelled across state lines to put on the games. That travel was merely incidental to a business which took place in each state. It was subsequently held in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees,[24] and then again in 1972 Flood v. Kuhn,[25] that the baseball league's exemption was an "aberration". However Congress had accepted it, and favoured it, so retroactively overruling the exemption was no longer a matter for the courts, but the legislature. In United States v. International Boxing Club of New York,[26] it was held that, unlike baseball, boxing was not exempt, and in Radovich v. National Football League (NFL),[27] professional football is generally subject to antitrust laws. As a result of the AFL-NFL merger, the National Football League was also given exemptions in exchange for certain conditions, such as not directly competing with college or high school football.[28] However, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in American Needle Inc. v. NFL characterised the NFL as a "cartel" of 32 independent businesses subject to antitrust law, not a single entity.
Apple "avoiding taxation in Ireland" has nothing to do with monopolization. You have numerous issues regarding what you would characterize as "irresponsible" business practices, since you seem to think businesses shouldn't maximize shareholder returns, which is 100% legal. You're needlessly muddling your arguments.
Patent holders have time-limited monopoly positions. Arguments could be made both for and against such protections, however, I come down in favor of the protection of individual property rights, since property rights are a constitutional right of all Americans. Libertarians are split on this issue, some in favor, some not. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm also a constitutionalist. Without a way to protect individual rights (the bedrock of our Constitution), individual freedoms become less likely, as is the case in China.
The US Federal government exists to carry out their limited powers in agreement with the states and the people. The problems arise as the Federal government overreaches, again and again. The result is the corporatist government we have today. Our country goes to war to protect oil companies. American citizens are spied on illegally and without proper oversight. Under the political realities of today, it's extremely unwise to allow government intrusion into the realm of Internet service providers.
Let providers compete. Let Google expand their fiber service (and they will because they benefit from doing this). Let Elon Musk launch his fleet of Internet-providing satellites (he'll do this because he can see a business need for this). Mesh networks are becoming a thing because people do not trust our government post-Snowden. Europe is in an uproar over US spying and they are starting to build out their own Internet. Any government entanglement (be it Democrat-led or Republican-led) is a very bad idea.
Government meddling will kill investment, which means no company will want to get into a space where they cannot make a profit. Obama is on the wrong side of things here, as usual.
It's possible I'm not being clear. If so, I apologize.
Sports organizations (and many others, listed below) are protected monopolies. The government's involvement is anti-competitive and that's not OK.
What you are calling protectionism is deregulation. You are in favor of deregulation and for government to be involved in the free market as little as possible. That's what they did with sports and you still criticize it. You are criticizing the lack of government involvement and lack of regulation.
When government regulates the free market, you say it's anti-competitive involvement; when they deregulate the free market (finance industry, sports), you say it's anti-competitive involvement.
The problem is you see the government as a hate-figure that needs to take the blame for everything because you have already decided that the free market is infallible. Its sustainability is more in alignment with people's natural tendency towards self-interest but it's far from infallible for the very reason that self-interest inherently promotes monopolisation, almost by definition. When have you ever seen a private company promoting their competition? Private companies fight off competition in whatever way they can and their ultimate success is to remove all competition. This goal is contrary to the very foundation of the free market. The free market naturally extinguishes itself in certain areas.
Without a way to protect individual rights (the bedrock of our Constitution), individual freedoms become less likely, as is the case in China.
So then you should be in favor of net neutrality as it promotes fair competition and your right for free speech. An ISP can't block your political views for being contrary to the ones they prefer and if you decide to run a bitcoin service, they can't throttle the blockchain downloads in order to benefit Mastercard or Visa payments through e-commerce.
The problems arise as the Federal government overreaches, again and again. The result is the corporatist government we have today. Our country goes to war to protect oil companies. American citizens are spied on illegally and without proper oversight. Under the political realities of today, it's extremely unwise to allow government intrusion into the realm of Internet service providers.
The communications intrusions among other things would have happened regardless of who was in power. This has been driven by the military, which doesn't change from one election cycle to another and has happened for decades. There was a letter published in full a few days ago apparently from the FBI to Martin (Michael) Luther King:
They had spied on him with the consent of the Kennedys and taped his multiple extra-marital sex orgies with the intention of discrediting him. He was with a woman who wasn't his wife when he was killed:
They have been requested to be unsealed in order to remove the public holiday remembering him by discrediting him as an adulterer and a fraud.
The government's involvement in communications has not been trustworthy, probably as long as communications have existed and it's why they want to make new FBI agents visit the MLK memorial:
However, it's important to clarify what the involvement is that's being objected to. If their involvement is for example, preventing private companies spying on their users then that should be as commendable as the government themselves not spying on their users. Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers.
Let providers compete. Let Google expand their fiber service (and they will because they benefit from doing this). Let Elon Musk launch his fleet of Internet-providing satellites (he'll do this because he can see a business need for this). Mesh networks are becoming a thing because people do not trust our government post-Snowden. Europe is in an uproar over US spying and they are starting to build out their own Internet. Any government entanglement (be it Democrat-led or Republican-led) is a very bad idea.
You're saying 'let them compete' as though they've been prevented from competing. The prevention comes in the form of costs and resources needed to install cabling. That's where the monopoly comes from. It would take decades for a company to dig up and lay cabling across an entire country. Wireless is an option but there are security risks to consider as well as latency and sustainable bandwidth.
Government meddling will kill investment, which means no company will want to get into a space where they cannot make a profit. Obama is on the wrong side of things here, as usual.
Again, you switch back and forth, now between it being a corporatist government that's anti-corporation. AT&T's decision is just another example of the attitude of people that promote the ideology of self-interest where if they don't get to play with their toys their way, they break everyone's toys and then nobody gets to play. This is how children act before they are taught about morality and that sharing isn't something to get upset about. But hey, if AT&T doesn't want to profit, let other companies compete and let the free market sort it out. C'mon Google announce that you'll roll out fiber where AT&T was going to go, I'm sure that'll be enough to change their minds about whether net neutrality will affect their profitability.
Now you're attempting to redefine what the word monopoly means? Sorry, you don't get to do that. In fact, "net neutrality" would turn internet access provided by government INTO A MONOPOLY:
"DEFINITION OF 'MONOPOLY'
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity."
"1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly"
That's a response which proves my point and invalidates yours. There is nothihg in that definition which says "the free market doesn't produce monopolies" because that claim is economically illiterate nonsense.
That's a response which proves my point and invalidates yours. There is nothihg in that definition which says "the free market doesn't produce monopolies" because that claim is economically illiterate nonsense.
List all of the monopolies we deal with today. You seem to be suggesting that we're in danger of being crushed by monopolies everywhere... so where are they? When businesses are allowed to compete freely with each other for their customers money, monopolies do not arise. The only monopolies I can think of are utilities and those are monopolies thanks to your friendly neighborhood Washington politicians.
What you are calling protectionism is deregulation. You are in favor of deregulation and for government to be involved in the free market as little as possible. That's what they did with sports and you still criticize it. You are criticizing the lack of government involvement and lack of regulation.
When government regulates the free market, you say it's anti-competitive involvement; when they deregulate the free market (finance industry, sports), you say it's anti-competitive involvement.
The problem is you see the government as a hate-figure that needs to take the blame for everything because you have already decided that the free market is infallible. Its sustainability is more in alignment with people's natural tendency towards self-interest but it's far from infallible for the very reason that self-interest inherently promotes monopolisation, almost by definition. When have you ever seen a private company promoting their competition? Private companies fight off competition in whatever way they can and their ultimate success is to remove all competition. This goal is contrary to the very foundation of the free market. The free market naturally extinguishes itself in certain areas.
So then you should be in favor of net neutrality as it promotes fair competition and your right for free speech. An ISP can't block your political views for being contrary to the ones they prefer and if you decide to run a bitcoin service, they can't throttle the blockchain downloads in order to benefit Mastercard or Visa payments through e-commerce.
The communications intrusions among other things would have happened regardless of who was in power. This has been driven by the military, which doesn't change from one election cycle to another and has happened for decades. There was a letter published in full a few days ago apparently from the FBI to Martin (Michael) Luther King:
They had spied on him with the consent of the Kennedys and taped his multiple extra-marital sex orgies with the intention of discrediting him. He was with a woman who wasn't his wife when he was killed:
They have been requested to be unsealed in order to remove the public holiday remembering him by discrediting him as an adulterer and a fraud.
The government's involvement in communications has not been trustworthy, probably as long as communications have existed and it's why they want to make new FBI agents visit the MLK memorial:
However, it's important to clarify what the involvement is that's being objected to. If their involvement is for example, preventing private companies spying on their users then that should be as commendable as the government themselves not spying on their users. Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers.
You're saying 'let them compete' as though they've been prevented from competing. The prevention comes in the form of costs and resources needed to install cabling. That's where the monopoly comes from. It would take decades for a company to dig up and lay cabling across an entire country. Wireless is an option but there are security risks to consider as well as latency and sustainable bandwidth.
Again, you switch back and forth, now between it being a corporatist government that's anti-corporation. AT&T's decision is just another example of the attitude of people that promote the ideology of self-interest where if they don't get to play with their toys their way, they break everyone's toys and then nobody gets to play. This is how children act before they are taught about morality and that sharing isn't something to get upset about. But hey, if AT&T doesn't want to profit, let other companies compete and let the free market sort it out. C'mon Google announce that you'll roll out fiber where AT&T was going to go, I'm sure that'll be enough to change their minds about whether net neutrality will affect their profitability.
1. Sports organizations NFL, NBA, NFL, etc. are protected monopolies. Bad. Bad. Bad. (Also, I believe all publicly funded sports programs at colleges should be eliminated. It's the public's dollar being used to train athletes for private industry's benefit. This stuff has got to end.)
2. Technically, we have few free markets. Free markets would not be regulated. One dictionary definition of a free market is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses".
3. Competition good. Overregulation bad. The Federal government should be only as big as it needs to be to carry out its constitutional duties and all of the "extracurricular" B.S. it is entangled in needs to be stricken, defunded, whatever it takes.
4. I don't understand what you think Martin Luther King's orgies have to do with net neutrality or free markets? You seem to acknowledge that Washington cannot be trusted by the inclusion of this largely unrelated subject? Maybe you just wanted an opportunity to post this story?
5. You said, "Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers"... Well, Marvin that is exactly what free enterprise, consumer choice and competition sorts out! When companies don't give us what we pay for or want, they no longer receive our business. We don't get that with government. We're stuck with the horrendously misguided laws that are passed, the warring, the spying, and all the accompanying waste and corruption that goes with all of that. There is a universal human truth. All people are self-interested. It doesn't matter if you're a politician, a doctor, a priest, a student, or whatever. Everyone does what is in their self-interest...always! The smarter ones apply "enlightened self-interest" instead of bashing people over the head and stealing cars every chance they get.
List all of the monopolies we deal with today. You seem to be suggesting that we're in danger of being crushed by monopolies everywhere... so where are they? When businesses are allowed to compete freely with each other for their customers money, monopolies do not arise. The only monopolies I can think of are utilities and those are monopolies thanks to your friendly neighborhood Washington politicians.
Changing the goal posts again? A monopoly can be private ( most often) or public. As any link - including the link you posted shows. Also monopolies can be regional.
Pertinent to this discussion is the monopoly power of Comcast as explained here.
No, but you did in literally the very next sentence.
The very next sentence was me explaining that a monopoly can be private or public which is what ss disagrees with in his economically illiterate fashion.
The very next sentence was me explaining that a monopoly can be private or public which is what ss disagrees with in his economically illiterate fashion.
Comcast is not a monopoly. It may be dominant in the marketplace, but it is certainly NOT a monopoly.
Apple is dominant in the high-end cell phone space. Are they a monopoly? Obviously not. Amazon is dominant in the e-books space (for a variety of questionable reasons). Are they a monopoly? Obviously not.
Calling me "economically illiterate" is lazy and ignorant.
Comcast is not a monopoly. It may be dominant in the marketplace, but it is certainly NOT a monopoly.
Apple is dominant in the high-end cell phone space. Are they a monopoly? Obviously not. Amazon is dominant in the e-books space (for a variety of questionable reasons). Are they a monopoly? Obviously not.
Calling me "economically illiterate" is lazy and ignorant.
No Apple is not a monopoly. Profit is not the criteria for being a monopoly, it's market share. As I said you can have local monopolies in situations where a company monopolises the provisions of goods or services in a city or region.
Comcast is not a monopoly. It may be dominant in the marketplace, but it is certainly NOT a monopoly.
Apple is dominant in the high-end cell phone space. Are they a monopoly? Obviously not. Amazon is dominant in the e-books space (for a variety of questionable reasons). Are they a monopoly? Obviously not.
Calling me "economically illiterate" is lazy and ignorant.
Are there any areas in which Comcast is the only cable company? If so then it is indeed a monopoly
Comments
The Net Neutrality issue is about fair access.
They can't have the right to change access in any way, even with complicated, fine line EULAs or contracts.
It's too late to keep the Google or the Federal government out of your mailbox, PC, or web site - they already have that access.
But, allowing internet providers to throttle or alter content delivery, speed, or just favor larger vendors seems like a natural right, when it isn't. Nobody "owns" the internet: Thus, NO corporation should have the right to subjectively, arbitrarily or systematically alter content or it's speed or volume, passing through its network and servers.
Apparently it cannot be repeated enough times, because it's still not sinking in, that it is not due to a lack of regulations that monopolies occur, it is precisely BECAUSE of government regulations that we've had monopolies in the US. Actual free markets do not result in monopolies. Over regulated markets and corporatist government DO result in monopolies, favoritism and price distortions.
Please stop repeating these lies that are treated as "common knowledge".
"Lies" lol
Yes, he's obviously knowingly telling untruths. Because yours isn't an uncontroversial opinion at all.
"Lies" lol
Repeating untruths.
You both seem to be coming to the same conclusion with opposing views. The first says the government caused the monopolies by taking away regulation preventing them, the second says monopolies only happen through over-regulation. It's like saying the government caused problems in the financial industry through deregulation when the free market proponents are the biggest supporters of deregulation.
What can't be repeated enough times is that you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that the government is to blame for failing to prevent the free market forming monopolies and also to blame when they impose regulations that do try to prevent monopolies as they are trying to do with net neutrality.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182743/nfl-fines-49ers-quarterback-10-000-for-wearing-beats-headphones-during-press-conference#post_2616165
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182743/nfl-fines-49ers-quarterback-10-000-for-wearing-beats-headphones-during-press-conference/40#post_2616721
"The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up... there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous."
(I notice you seem to be pro-taxation there too but the opposite when Apple avoids taxation in Ireland).
So it's ok for the government to put measures in preventing sports monopolies but not monopolies over internet access.
Here's how a monopoly forms without any government intervention whatsoever:
- There are x number of companies all competing in the same space. No regulation.
- A small number are more successful than the others to form say 2-3 larger competitors by buying out the smaller ones. Still no government involved, no regulation.
- These giant companies build up patent portfolios (Apple, Samsung), complex product designs (e.g microchips like Intel, AMD).
- The big companies decide it would be best to merge together like Time Warner and Comcast as there's nothing to be gained from competing any more.
- We get left with one company dictating the market without competition and their business is so complex and has so much protection from patents that a newcomer can't easily build up any viable competition to them.
People might say that the patent system is a way of the government being involved but again free market proponents like the patent system because it promotes fair competition and yet is a form of regulation. But even without patents, the complexity of production that a big corporation can build up can easily be enough to maintain a monopoly position. To suggest that a monopoly can never materialize out of anything other than government involvement is ridiculous. It happens all the time in the free market without their involvement and their lack of involvement doesn't constitute blame for it happening.
Let's say the government doesn't get involved here at all and every internet service provider is free to give better streaming quality to their own video services than competing ones and in some areas, there is just one option for which service provider to use, how does this scenario get prevented? Remember, no government involvement is necessary as the free market will sort itself out. How does the free market sort this problem out?
You're not getting it Marvin, the free market doesn't do that. It just doesn't. Like he said. Not need for proof, it just doesn't. Inconceivable!
You both seem to be coming to the same conclusion with opposing views. The first says the government caused the monopolies by taking away regulation preventing them, the second says monopolies only happen through over-regulation. It's like saying the government caused problems in the financial industry through deregulation when the free market proponents are the biggest supporters of deregulation.
What can't be repeated enough times is that you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that the government is to blame for failing to prevent the free market forming monopolies and also to blame when they impose regulations that do try to prevent monopolies as they are trying to do with net neutrality.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182743/nfl-fines-49ers-quarterback-10-000-for-wearing-beats-headphones-during-press-conference#post_2616165
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182743/nfl-fines-49ers-quarterback-10-000-for-wearing-beats-headphones-during-press-conference/40#post_2616721
"The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up... there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous."
(I notice you seem to be pro-taxation there too but the opposite when Apple avoids taxation in Ireland).
So it's ok for the government to put measures in preventing sports monopolies but not monopolies over internet access.
Here's how a monopoly forms without any government intervention whatsoever:
- There are x number of companies all competing in the same space. No regulation.
- A small number are more successful than the others to form say 2-3 larger competitors by buying out the smaller ones. Still no government involved, no regulation.
- These giant companies build up patent portfolios (Apple, Samsung), complex product designs (e.g microchips like Intel, AMD).
- The big companies decide it would be best to merge together like Time Warner and Comcast as there's nothing to be gained from competing any more.
- We get left with one company dictating the market without competition and their business is so complex and has so much protection from patents that a newcomer can't easily build up any viable competition to them.
People might say that the patent system is a way of the government being involved but again free market proponents like the patent system because it promotes fair competition and yet is a form of regulation. But even without patents, the complexity of production that a big corporation can build up can easily be enough to maintain a monopoly position. To suggest that a monopoly can never materialize out of anything other than government involvement is ridiculous. It happens all the time in the free market without their involvement and their lack of involvement doesn't constitute blame for it happening.
Let's say the government doesn't get involved here at all and every internet service provider is free to give better streaming quality to their own video services than competing ones and in some areas, there is just one option for which service provider to use, how does this scenario get prevented? Remember, no government involvement is necessary as the free market will sort itself out. How does the free market sort this problem out?
I honestly don't understand how you've reached your conclusions. It's possible I'm not being clear. If so, I apologize.
Sports organizations (and many others, listed below) are protected monopolies. The government's involvement is anti-competitive and that's not OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Scope_of_antitrust_law
Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care, insurance, banks, and financial markets) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking collective action).[19] First, since the Clayton Act 1914 §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in labor unions. This was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with unequal bargaining power were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in corporations,[20] subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions.[21]
Since 1922 the courts and Congress have left Major League Baseball, as played at Chicago's Wrigley Field, from antitrust laws.
Second, professional sports leagues enjoy a number of exemptions. Mergers and joint agreements of professional football, hockey, baseball, and basketball leagues are exempt.[22] Major League Baseball was held to be broadly exempt from antitrust law in Federal Baseball Club v. National League.[23] Holmes J held that the baseball league's organization meant that there was no commerce between the states taking place, even though teams travelled across state lines to put on the games. That travel was merely incidental to a business which took place in each state. It was subsequently held in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees,[24] and then again in 1972 Flood v. Kuhn,[25] that the baseball league's exemption was an "aberration". However Congress had accepted it, and favoured it, so retroactively overruling the exemption was no longer a matter for the courts, but the legislature. In United States v. International Boxing Club of New York,[26] it was held that, unlike baseball, boxing was not exempt, and in Radovich v. National Football League (NFL),[27] professional football is generally subject to antitrust laws. As a result of the AFL-NFL merger, the National Football League was also given exemptions in exchange for certain conditions, such as not directly competing with college or high school football.[28] However, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in American Needle Inc. v. NFL characterised the NFL as a "cartel" of 32 independent businesses subject to antitrust law, not a single entity.
Apple "avoiding taxation in Ireland" has nothing to do with monopolization. You have numerous issues regarding what you would characterize as "irresponsible" business practices, since you seem to think businesses shouldn't maximize shareholder returns, which is 100% legal. You're needlessly muddling your arguments.
Patent holders have time-limited monopoly positions. Arguments could be made both for and against such protections, however, I come down in favor of the protection of individual property rights, since property rights are a constitutional right of all Americans. Libertarians are split on this issue, some in favor, some not. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm also a constitutionalist. Without a way to protect individual rights (the bedrock of our Constitution), individual freedoms become less likely, as is the case in China.
The US Federal government exists to carry out their limited powers in agreement with the states and the people. The problems arise as the Federal government overreaches, again and again. The result is the corporatist government we have today. Our country goes to war to protect oil companies. American citizens are spied on illegally and without proper oversight. Under the political realities of today, it's extremely unwise to allow government intrusion into the realm of Internet service providers.
Let providers compete. Let Google expand their fiber service (and they will because they benefit from doing this). Let Elon Musk launch his fleet of Internet-providing satellites (he'll do this because he can see a business need for this). Mesh networks are becoming a thing because people do not trust our government post-Snowden. Europe is in an uproar over US spying and they are starting to build out their own Internet. Any government entanglement (be it Democrat-led or Republican-led) is a very bad idea.
Government meddling will kill investment, which means no company will want to get into a space where they cannot make a profit. Obama is on the wrong side of things here, as usual.
What you are calling protectionism is deregulation. You are in favor of deregulation and for government to be involved in the free market as little as possible. That's what they did with sports and you still criticize it. You are criticizing the lack of government involvement and lack of regulation.
When government regulates the free market, you say it's anti-competitive involvement; when they deregulate the free market (finance industry, sports), you say it's anti-competitive involvement.
The problem is you see the government as a hate-figure that needs to take the blame for everything because you have already decided that the free market is infallible. Its sustainability is more in alignment with people's natural tendency towards self-interest but it's far from infallible for the very reason that self-interest inherently promotes monopolisation, almost by definition. When have you ever seen a private company promoting their competition? Private companies fight off competition in whatever way they can and their ultimate success is to remove all competition. This goal is contrary to the very foundation of the free market. The free market naturally extinguishes itself in certain areas.
So then you should be in favor of net neutrality as it promotes fair competition and your right for free speech. An ISP can't block your political views for being contrary to the ones they prefer and if you decide to run a bitcoin service, they can't throttle the blockchain downloads in order to benefit Mastercard or Visa payments through e-commerce.
The communications intrusions among other things would have happened regardless of who was in power. This has been driven by the military, which doesn't change from one election cycle to another and has happened for decades. There was a letter published in full a few days ago apparently from the FBI to Martin (Michael) Luther King:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html
They had spied on him with the consent of the Kennedys and taped his multiple extra-marital sex orgies with the intention of discrediting him. He was with a woman who wasn't his wife when he was killed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day
Some files have been sealed until 2027:
http://library.truman.edu/microforms/martin_luther_king.asp
They have been requested to be unsealed in order to remove the public holiday remembering him by discrediting him as an adulterer and a fraud.
The government's involvement in communications has not been trustworthy, probably as long as communications have existed and it's why they want to make new FBI agents visit the MLK memorial:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-director-says-new-agents-must-visit-mlk-memorial
However, it's important to clarify what the involvement is that's being objected to. If their involvement is for example, preventing private companies spying on their users then that should be as commendable as the government themselves not spying on their users. Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers.
You're saying 'let them compete' as though they've been prevented from competing. The prevention comes in the form of costs and resources needed to install cabling. That's where the monopoly comes from. It would take decades for a company to dig up and lay cabling across an entire country. Wireless is an option but there are security risks to consider as well as latency and sustainable bandwidth.
Again, you switch back and forth, now between it being a corporatist government that's anti-corporation. AT&T's decision is just another example of the attitude of people that promote the ideology of self-interest where if they don't get to play with their toys their way, they break everyone's toys and then nobody gets to play. This is how children act before they are taught about morality and that sharing isn't something to get upset about. But hey, if AT&T doesn't want to profit, let other companies compete and let the free market sort it out. C'mon Google announce that you'll roll out fiber where AT&T was going to go, I'm sure that'll be enough to change their minds about whether net neutrality will affect their profitability.
That's a response which proves my point and invalidates yours. There is nothihg in that definition which says "the free market doesn't produce monopolies" because that claim is economically illiterate nonsense.
That's a response which proves my point and invalidates yours. There is nothihg in that definition which says "the free market doesn't produce monopolies" because that claim is economically illiterate nonsense.
List all of the monopolies we deal with today. You seem to be suggesting that we're in danger of being crushed by monopolies everywhere... so where are they? When businesses are allowed to compete freely with each other for their customers money, monopolies do not arise. The only monopolies I can think of are utilities and those are monopolies thanks to your friendly neighborhood Washington politicians.
What you are calling protectionism is deregulation. You are in favor of deregulation and for government to be involved in the free market as little as possible. That's what they did with sports and you still criticize it. You are criticizing the lack of government involvement and lack of regulation.
When government regulates the free market, you say it's anti-competitive involvement; when they deregulate the free market (finance industry, sports), you say it's anti-competitive involvement.
The problem is you see the government as a hate-figure that needs to take the blame for everything because you have already decided that the free market is infallible. Its sustainability is more in alignment with people's natural tendency towards self-interest but it's far from infallible for the very reason that self-interest inherently promotes monopolisation, almost by definition. When have you ever seen a private company promoting their competition? Private companies fight off competition in whatever way they can and their ultimate success is to remove all competition. This goal is contrary to the very foundation of the free market. The free market naturally extinguishes itself in certain areas.
So then you should be in favor of net neutrality as it promotes fair competition and your right for free speech. An ISP can't block your political views for being contrary to the ones they prefer and if you decide to run a bitcoin service, they can't throttle the blockchain downloads in order to benefit Mastercard or Visa payments through e-commerce.
The communications intrusions among other things would have happened regardless of who was in power. This has been driven by the military, which doesn't change from one election cycle to another and has happened for decades. There was a letter published in full a few days ago apparently from the FBI to Martin (Michael) Luther King:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html
They had spied on him with the consent of the Kennedys and taped his multiple extra-marital sex orgies with the intention of discrediting him. He was with a woman who wasn't his wife when he was killed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day
Some files have been sealed until 2027:
http://library.truman.edu/microforms/martin_luther_king.asp
They have been requested to be unsealed in order to remove the public holiday remembering him by discrediting him as an adulterer and a fraud.
The government's involvement in communications has not been trustworthy, probably as long as communications have existed and it's why they want to make new FBI agents visit the MLK memorial:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-director-says-new-agents-must-visit-mlk-memorial
However, it's important to clarify what the involvement is that's being objected to. If their involvement is for example, preventing private companies spying on their users then that should be as commendable as the government themselves not spying on their users. Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers.
You're saying 'let them compete' as though they've been prevented from competing. The prevention comes in the form of costs and resources needed to install cabling. That's where the monopoly comes from. It would take decades for a company to dig up and lay cabling across an entire country. Wireless is an option but there are security risks to consider as well as latency and sustainable bandwidth.
Again, you switch back and forth, now between it being a corporatist government that's anti-corporation. AT&T's decision is just another example of the attitude of people that promote the ideology of self-interest where if they don't get to play with their toys their way, they break everyone's toys and then nobody gets to play. This is how children act before they are taught about morality and that sharing isn't something to get upset about. But hey, if AT&T doesn't want to profit, let other companies compete and let the free market sort it out. C'mon Google announce that you'll roll out fiber where AT&T was going to go, I'm sure that'll be enough to change their minds about whether net neutrality will affect their profitability.
1. Sports organizations NFL, NBA, NFL, etc. are protected monopolies. Bad. Bad. Bad. (Also, I believe all publicly funded sports programs at colleges should be eliminated. It's the public's dollar being used to train athletes for private industry's benefit. This stuff has got to end.)
2. Technically, we have few free markets. Free markets would not be regulated. One dictionary definition of a free market is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses".
3. Competition good. Overregulation bad. The Federal government should be only as big as it needs to be to carry out its constitutional duties and all of the "extracurricular" B.S. it is entangled in needs to be stricken, defunded, whatever it takes.
4. I don't understand what you think Martin Luther King's orgies have to do with net neutrality or free markets? You seem to acknowledge that Washington cannot be trusted by the inclusion of this largely unrelated subject? Maybe you just wanted an opportunity to post this story?
5. You said, "Private companies won't naturally do whatever is in the best interest of their customers"... Well, Marvin that is exactly what free enterprise, consumer choice and competition sorts out! When companies don't give us what we pay for or want, they no longer receive our business. We don't get that with government. We're stuck with the horrendously misguided laws that are passed, the warring, the spying, and all the accompanying waste and corruption that goes with all of that. There is a universal human truth. All people are self-interested. It doesn't matter if you're a politician, a doctor, a priest, a student, or whatever. Everyone does what is in their self-interest...always! The smarter ones apply "enlightened self-interest" instead of bashing people over the head and stealing cars every chance they get.
Changing the goal posts again? A monopoly can be private ( most often) or public. As any link - including the link you posted shows. Also monopolies can be regional.
Pertinent to this discussion is the monopoly power of Comcast as explained here.
http://consumerist.com/2014/05/29/netflix-ceo-says-comcast-is-coming-for-the-whole-internet/
No, but you did in literally the very next sentence.
The very next sentence was me explaining that a monopoly can be private or public which is what ss disagrees with in his economically illiterate fashion.
Comcast is not a monopoly. It may be dominant in the marketplace, but it is certainly NOT a monopoly.
Apple is dominant in the high-end cell phone space. Are they a monopoly? Obviously not. Amazon is dominant in the e-books space (for a variety of questionable reasons). Are they a monopoly? Obviously not.
Calling me "economically illiterate" is lazy and ignorant.
No Apple is not a monopoly. Profit is not the criteria for being a monopoly, it's market share. As I said you can have local monopolies in situations where a company monopolises the provisions of goods or services in a city or region.
Are there any areas in which Comcast is the only cable company? If so then it is indeed a monopoly
Regional monopoly power? I'd be curious to see where this is still the case and how much local government sweetheart deals play into the matter.
Oh, and by the way... There is this perception that Comcast owns the "vast majority" of markets, which is patently absurd. According to this article from Forbes, a COMBINED Comcast and Time Warner Cable (something which hasn't happened, by the way) would only amount to 35% of the entire wired cable market! That is far from monopoly power: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/2014/11/13/net-neutrality-review-could-give-comcast-an-out-in-the-time-warner-cable-deal/?referrer=
Beyond that, wired cable isn't the only way to access the Internet. Have people ever heard of satellite? Mesh networks? Cellular?
What this is really about is people want something for nothing!
I doubt that. What gave you that idea?
Do you not believe that a monopoly can be public or private?