[Daryl]

If i understand all this net neutrality right, the goal is to prevent someone from creating traffic problems and then charging a toll for a fast lane to avoid the traffic problem? Sounds like a good idea, that would be awful if someone actually did that.

[joker]

[MtnGoat]

Oh yes I'm sure it has very nice intentions. Intentions are always what is sold, and the instant whatever it is is put in place, then the excuses begin. We know it's perfect, but we're trying. The reason for the lack of access is the zillion restrictions on installing new access, a problem created by 'regulators' in the first place. Cable and telecoms lobby to gain protectionism for their physical plant, and that restricts competition. Now the 'solution' is to add *another* layer of controls to address the problems inevitably created by the existing controls. Sheer stupidity. How you engender actual competition instead of the word lacking the value, is not by adding *new* problems, but by *removing* the controls causing it in the first place.

[joker]

[MtnGoat]

http://www.mackinac.org/10118 numerous layers of regulation on installing new lines which have had the impact of retarding telecom competition with cable providers, for example. I can't believe anyone would not understand how the lack of actual competition wouldn't be due to layers of govt, since that is the only means to legally inhibit competition the other issue here is the mindset of deciding someone else's property should be accessible to you simply based on your wants. When rates are too high, I dump the service and go without it. Want is not sufficient reason to use aggression against other people. On another note, all this does is remove individuals as the actual customer. Now, what companies must do first is satisfy the politicians/beaurocrats/central planners. This doesn't expand customer power, it shrinks it, and provably so because companies will not be permitted to offer customers what they want but which doesn't satisfy the planners. That's not more control, it's less.

[joker]

[MtnGoat]

A monopoly is when competition is prevented by govt. Mere market predominance is not a monopoly. I never claimed the only reason for not having other providers was regulation. In your case, and mine I might add, the issue is the economics. It may not make fiscal sense to expend the capital to sparse areas to compete for 11 houses with an existing service. No one's rights are being violated in that case. Someone's 'wants' may however not be satisifed.

[mike]

[MtnGoat]

Great. Then the question is, in which cases does a monopoly actually violate someone's rights, such that violating the rights of the seller becomes morally legitimate? So far, the basis for using the State against companies seems to be that the supporters want control over someone else's buisness or agreements,yet cannot present evidence that they have actually had their rights violated.

[mike]

The FCC regs in this case simply lay out the rules for a level playing field. A friend of mine is a higher up in the telcom industry and says that overall the new rules are OK. He's in the telephone business and feels that they didn't get the best deal but can live with it. The new regs provide some clarity and stability rather than piecemeal oversight which has been going on for the last 20yrs. And surely better than this congress could do. Actually they prefer doing it this way rather than dysfunctional congressional meddling. Now we will see what the courts say. Some of these regs will get thrown out for sure.

[joker]

[DIYSteve]

Not quite. First, evidence of certain kinds of non-competitive conduct support a per se violation under the Sherman or Clayton Acts. An example of a per se violation of the Sherman Act is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Second, a remedy for a non-per se violation of the Act is proper where there is proof of potential harm to consumers. Third, both Acts provide remedies where harm to a competing business is established.

[Pyrites]

Approximate definition of a monopoly I was taught is the ability to set price, as opposed to price being set by simple market forces. Of course there was a list of assumptions. But the key was the ability to set price, independent of cost to produce product.

[DIYSteve]

The legal definition of "monopoly" in American jurisprudence is complex and, in application, fact-specific. ETA:

[Pyrites]

Of course a legal definition would be different than an economist's definition. Economists accept that society accepts, and even encourages some monopolies. Examples are patents awarded for drugs. The theory is that this will incentivize investors to take the risk on developing drugs, some or many of which will be failures. Water and sewer systems they call "natural monopolies".