Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@HeadCandy.com> Cc: hardware@freebsd.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607071943.F20669-0100000@zoo.toronto.edu> In-Reply-To: <199607070539.WAA01617@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >...As I said above: they own the wires, so there's not a lot of
> >room to maneuver. If you don't like monopolies, start lobbying now for
> >competitive cable and phone services.
>
> Uh, the economics of that are rather unworkable. These are
> "controlled monopolies"... This is comonly done where public
> access is limited in some way (such as redundant infrastructure wiring
> costs), and granting a controlled monopoly is actually in the public
> interest.
That is the standard party line, but it's worth noting that this idea was
invented by one of its major beneficiaries -- Bell -- and not by some
disinterested third party.
I'm told that in the few places where there are multiple cable companies
(and where they serve the same neighborhoods, rather than cosily dividing
the city into regional monopolies), prices actually often are lower
*despite* the redundant infrastructure, because competition controls
costs better than government regulators do.
The original problem with multiple phone companies was not redundant
infrastructure, but their unwillingness to interoperate so that customers
would see a seamless network. That problem can be solved quite easily
without monopolies.
Henry Spencer
henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.3.89.9607071943.F20669-0100000>