Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Internet Monopolies
scrm writes "'The Federal Communications Commission is quietly handing over control of the broadband Internet to a handful of massive corporations according to this Salon article." Very important stuff; Slashdot has covered this before, but this is a great article which sums up everything that has gone on over the past few years.
The article describes oligarchy, not monopoly. "Monopoly" has more emotional impact, and it is used just for this effect. Either that, or those with limited vocabulary do not even know what an oligarchy is.
This might be nitpicking, but for this item, the error is right there in the title (the word "monopolies")
Okay, first stop misusing the word "momopoly", it is defined as ONE entity controlling a market.
Second, figure out what market you are talking about. If it is high-speed data access then one company owning the local/regional/national cable infrastructure is not a monopoly IF (as is the case) there are DLS and other providers within that territory. Lookup the famous monopoly case against Celophane, the Celophane manufacturer won because the market was wrapping material, not the fact that one manufacturer makes one wildly popular product.
Look folks, the more we keep bastardizing the language the more confusing it will be to communicate.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Where in the constitution can you assume that or justify that the above is inaliable or even a civil/moral right
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Yep, and back in the day it was all controlled by ONE company, unntil that one company ASKED to no longer be the monopoly utility for LD service.
It was the government that made ATT a regulated monopoly and it was business that introduced competition.
Boy, isn't this some spin!
ATT agreed to divest of their LOCAL phone monopoly as part of a settlement to an anti-trust action brought against them by the DOJ. Seems a little upstart named MCI complained that ATT did anti-competitive things to prevent their entry in the long distance business.
They never ASKED to no longer be a LD monopoly. That was forced upon them by the anti-trust suit. In their defense, their settlement offer was unexpected and they could have dragged it out for years and years. But, it seems they thought that they could compete well in certain technology areas that had been denied them before.
In return for this settlement, ATT got the right to compete in other technology areas, like computers, that they had been denied due to Telecommunications and Anti-Trust law up to that time.
Their computers and software flopped completely. How you could fail at making money selling UNIX during it's growth haydays of mid-80s to early 90s is beyond me. Their computers were actually interesting, but somehow they couldn't market them.
Their telecom/networking products, now mostly Lucent Corp., did have some success awhile back, but now Lucent is doing pretty poorly.
We have phone companies with 500 customers in a rate area, claiming a big fat block of 10,000 numbers for them. That's 9,500 wasted numbers. THAT's why we have the explosion in area codes.
First, Let's refer to...
Marriam-Webster
1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2. exclusive possession or control
3. a commodity controlled by one party
Notice the word exclusive as in exclusive ownership, exclusive control, exclusive possession
Litmus Test
Q. Do the Baby Bell's have exclusive control over the publicly owned telephone telecommunications infrastructure?
A. No, They currently have Primary Control now as they are required to share thier control with other providers.
Q. If the current FCC proposal allowing Baby Bells to deny access to the network access, will the Baby Bells return to thier Monopoly status?
A. Yes, The current FCC proposal will give EXCLUSIVE rights to the public infrastructure, making the Baby Bells Regional Monopolies. IE, No more Covad or Flashcom.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
AT&T before deregulation was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
AT&T had acheived monopoly status by the 1930's. It chose to submit to a set of business restrictions (primarily other markets, e.g. computers) in order to be allowed to remain a monopoly in 1956. It was hardly a passive entity, before or after.
By definition, a private corporation in competition with other private corporations couldn't have survived behaving that way.
By definition, a monopoly isn't in competition, leaving very few mechanisms for "forcing them" to do anything.
I live in Australia where there is a "Duopoly" (2 companies own all the cable/ phone lines)
We now can't buy an affordable plan with more than about a 3 to 4.5 GB limit any more.
Check it out:
Aussie Broadband Choice Web site
No I don't think having a monopoly would be in any way a good thing.
Sorry guys.
Sorry, Capitalism doesn't really assume that people will be good, but it does assume that they will play fair.
Somehow when an area is dominated by one corporation who is overcharging for bad service, a small company is supposed to be able to start up and offer some innovatice new approach which will lead to competition, improved service, and cheaper prices for everyone. After all, when confronted with a cheaper better product, the larger company will have to improve to stay competitive, right?
Well what if instead of playing fair the big competitor does a little more marketing, and then drops the price on their product to less than it costs to make it? Or if there's a high barrier to entry into the market, they don't even need to drop it that low, just below the price for the new company to provide the service given the added entry costs. Wait a few months, new company goes bankrupt, big company raises the rates again.
That's not how capitalism is supposed to work, and the only reason it doesn't happen more often is because the Government stepped in and made laws to try and make the coporations "play nice."
Yeah, communism is even more idealistic and way ahead of it's time, but Capitalism takes a lot of things on faith too.
If the corporations ever got big enough and the government looked the other way long enough, you would eventually find corporations buying "compulsion" lisences, either secretly or out in the open. Mafioso guys showing up at your door to convince you to shut down your new startup operation is not what Capitalism is supposed to be about, but it is a realistic extension of the idea.
Even Adam Smith himself believe that fair play was needed in order for capitalism to work successfully.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank