And comcast should be able to satisfy the upstream demand generated by the plans they sell.
If you don't understand how networks operate, you don't have any business saying how they should work.
Individual subscribers don't get unlimited upload bandwidth as part of their Comcast network access. That does not change just because one is a popular commercial business pushing massive amounts of content over Comcast's network.
Netflix needed to buy a better upload pipe to Comcast. They did, and enjoyed better network performance after the fact.
No, it doesn't. The FCC is an independent agency of the United States. While it may have been established and granted its authority by Congress [...]
Make up your mind. You contradicted yourself within two sentences.
Can Congress pass a law tomorrow abolishing the FCC's authority and dissolving the agency? (Hint from your link: "[independent agencies are] Established through separate statutes passed by the Congress")
If yes, then that means that Congress is the FCC's boss. I shouldn't need to explain what it means when one party is paying the other's salary, or has the power to fire them at will.
Now, if the FCC exists at the whim of Congress... if the FCC's boss is Congress... does the FCC answer to Congress?
If the FCC was to tell Congress, "Quit throwing a hissy fit, you're not the boss of me!" What do you think might happen next?
And now, suddenly, Congress is throwing a hissy fit. Why? Because, as it turns out, it isn't a burgeoning industry made up of companies like Prodigy and CompuServe still. Instead, it's made up of massive media and telecommunications conglomerates like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line, and they are not happy with having an appropriate classification applied to them, given that it's a lot more fun to be a misbehaving behemoth.
The FCC answers to Congress. When your boss is not happy with your work, your boss is not throwing a "hissy fit".
Also note that there are corporations both for and against Net Neutrality. I hope you don't think that Google, Netflix, and Facebook pushing Net Neutrality is purely out of the goodness of their hearts. They're pushing rules that benefit themselves... and not necessarily the end-users.
I'm not sure what it looks like from where you're sitting, but there were some pretty obvious shenanigans at play with the whole Comcast/etc vs Netflix deal. Traffic to/from a particular site doesn't suddenly degrade in quality only on a particular ISP, and only when an argument about getting paid extra starts, only to magically vanish the moment that site agrees to pay up, all on its own. And that's after all the lawsuits that were launched to overturn previous, far less extensive regulatory attempts.
There's nothing magic or shady about paying for more bandwidth and getting more bandwidth.
The degradation in speed is consistent with a continued growth in Netflix subscribers on a fixed amount of bandwidth.
Do you think it's strange that you get higher performance upgrading to a 6 Mbps DSL plan from a 1 Mbps DSL plan? Use more, pay more.
For one thing, isn't the core fallacy of libertarianism that they try to reconcile respecting property rights with lack of government intervention, when the concept of "property" is only enforceable either by governments or by force of arms?
Libertarian isn't anarchist, so enforced property rights is only a problem for the libertarian anarchist. Minimalist government types do not have to deal with that fallacy, though they still have to figure out what a "minimalist" government actually looks like.
For another, for there to be a completely open and free market in cabling, there would have to be limitless capacity, and there certainly isn't. Put too many cable voids below the roads and you'll be undermining the foundations of your streets, so you'd have to find somewhere else to put them, and back yards are the only space you've got left.
If there are unlimited resources, you don't need a market.
Markets are for distributing scarce resources, and they do work pretty well for that. For example, food is not unlimited. Do you buy food from a market, or is it carefully distributed by a central agency?.
You're going to have to rethink this point. I think you're getting at the concept of natural monopolies - but that's not a actually a natural phenomenon. Natural monopoly is an argument that an artificial monopoly is the best solution to the nature of a certain problem.
Yes. Comcast says "We'll let you access data at this speed." They then turn around to the source as say "Pay us money so your traffic can go through at this speed." Why does Comcast get to double-tip on this?
Because they own the network. They're selling access to the network, not bandwidth to a particular endpoint or a particular set of data. (which is why it's not actually double-dipping to charge both Netflix and users for network access)
If you don't understand this and why it is, why does your opinion matter?
Very few people are really entirely altruistic. I know I'm not one of them. Not by a long shot. And that's why, even if it's flawed sometimes, we really do need government regulation.
Who is writing the government regulations?
Why do you think greedy humans writing and enforcing government regulations solves a problem with human greed?
Netflix has been growing its number of subscribers constantly for the past few years.
Comcast didn't need to reduce Netflix's bandwidth. If they only kept it the same, then when (X+Y) people try to use the same amount of bandwidth as (X) people used to, they'll see a corresponding reduction in service quality.
If you want to accuse Comcast of decreasing Netflix's bandwidth, you're going to have back up it up.
So your choice. Regulated public ownership. Regulated localized monopolies. Unregulated libertarian fantasy of every american with a dream driving backhoes through your yard.
Your unregulated libertarian fantasy violates the property rights of the backyard owners, which means you're not working from a consistently libertarian fantasy.
The short of it, is that Comcast is selling the service, guaranteeing a certain speed, not providing it due to intentionally avoiding upgrading their routers, and then telling their customer that the issue is Netflix's fault because they wont pay up.
But the customers do have that speed. Just not to Netflix. And the current state of the Internet makes it the source's responsibility to pay to push packets.
If instead of Netflix, it was a small company that didn't purchase enough upload bandwidth to service Comcast's customers at the rate the customers expected... would you still blame Comcast?
Are they not both people with the Right to their Freedom of Speech? Or do you think KKK members should be treated as second class citizens with less rights than gay people?
Does the Right to Freedom of Speech of one group of people necessitate coercing actions from another group of people?
It's one thing to prevent people from censoring KKK members; it's another thing to force people to serve them in their business.
You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate?
I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.
But still worth answering. Because that's what the people refusing to bake cakes or take photos for gay couples think it is like.
Better figure out just how far you are willing to coerce someone to do business in a hypothetical situation where no one is harmed, before you start doing it with real people, where harm can occur.
Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public.
The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.
So it follows that you think a black business should be forced to serve KKK customers if the KKK customers demand it.
Which might include all sorts of legal activities: Catering for a white pride event, baking a cake with racist slogans, and printing and distributing event flyers.
That might better serve the public good, but have the honesty to acknowledge the costs of it.
No, you don't, which is why that side of the argument loses. Nobody is saying you have to celebrate same-sex marriage, just that the sexual preferences of the people involved in a business transactions shouldn't matter. How in the hell are you supposed to determine that anyway? If you own a cake shop do you make all your customers sign an affidavit that they're straight? Force them to reveal the gender of their spouse?
Does a business owner have Freedom of Speech?
Say a black family owns a cake store, and some KKK members wants them to bake a cake with various KKK anti-black slogans. The KKK has the Right to their Freedom of Speech to make such a cake.
Does the black family have a right to decide not to do business with the KKK? Or do you think the government should step in and force them to bake the cake with the threat of losing their business and their livelihoods?
Put simply, even from first principles, the idea of a solar-powered commercial airplane is just a non-starter.
And you haven't even touched on the safety/risk aspects of relying on "fuel as you get it from daylight" to transport commercial quantities of people.
At best, a "solar-powered" plane will be an electrical battery/cap-powered plane that is charged with solar-panels.
It is hilarious and tragic that an AC response accuses you of not having enough imagination. The sad thing is that he is the one who is not using his imagination to consider the costs, challenges, and risks.
Of course, I don't expect to have the local police or military shooting at me (although we do seem to be moving towards a police state); but thugs and gangsters are always able to get their hands on powerful, illegal weapons.
So when's the last time you were pinned down by machine gun fire from a thug/gangster? How much body armor do you wear for that?
How about a drone attack with a Hellfire missile? 155m artillery round? 500 pound bombs from an aircraft? Battleship 16" shell?
Well tell me then. How has your particular deity communicated with you? What was the nature of that communication, and what did this deity tell you?
You fail reading comprehension.
"I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book."
Acknowledge the point and then we'll switch topics.
I would also like you to explain what goalposts I moved. Empty accusations are unbefitting a serious discussion.
Show me that you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge valid points, and we can continue. Or not. Your choice.
What goalposts have I changed? Back up the accusation.
Regarding tose early days of direct communication and even more direct intervention, are you willing to acknowledge the genocide, the incest and all the other immoral "communications"?
I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book.
Personally rejecting or disliking the religions involved is no excuse for getting basic descriptions of fact wrong.
Can you objectively describe that as a creator refusing to communicate?
Yes.
From a deity who used to be in pretty regular communication with his subjects, from Garden of eden, the destroying the world via flood after telling one family to prepare, to destroying cities with fire and brimstone (after telling one family again, to constant rules in Leviticus to moses on the mountain getting commandments to burning bushes to arks of covenant to all that contact in the bible......
You're changing the goalposts. "Refuses to communicate" and "refuses to communicate to me right now with a particular method" are different things.
Previous communication is still communication, and if you're willing to acknowledge the Garden of Eden, the Flood warning, and the 10 Commandments as communication, then my point stands.
As for "refuses to communicate right now", what have you done to seek communication with your creator? You'll be hard pressed to find any follower of Christ who believes he "refuses to communicate".
They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.
So do you want to argue that the religious group that follows Jesus has a problem where they need to explain why the creator refuses to communicate with his creation?
So even though they believe that Jesus was God incarnate, the creator interacting personally with creation; that this represents an absent creator they need an explanation for?
The documented history and the teachings objectively exist, and objectively state certain dogmas. That aspect is not subjective at all. You may not believe that it is true, but that does not justify misinterpreting what a given religious group actually believes, or what challenges go with it.
In a broader sense, Windows monopolizes the users of the large set of applications that are exclusive to Win32.
And MS has a government granted monopoly on Windows due to copyright.
So what?
If cellular weren't a cartel, then how could all four cellular carriers get away with raising pay-as-you-go texting rates at the same time?
I'm not arguing cellular is/is not a cartel.
I am arguing that natural monopolies do not naturally become monopolies. However, people do like to propose monopolies as the "best/most efficient" solution for "natural monopoly" situations.
Given how much people apparently hate cable companies and their municipal monopolies, perhaps we should revisit the assumption that "natural monopolies" are best served with an actual monopoly.
No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.
If God exists, then there are objective differences between those two scenarios, because said God controls reality.
And so when we look at the Jewish/Christian religious history, those who claim to speak for God also are agents of miraculous events, where God affirms their authority to speak for him.
Which again, demonstrates that the religion is formed around a belief that the creator is communicating with his creation. They have no problem to explain why the creator refuses to communicate, because they don't believe that!
Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing.
It means everything.
The claim was that religious people have to explain why the creator they believe in refuses to communicate.
For this particular religion, they have plenty of examples within their religious history where the creator they believe in communicates with his creation. They believe in a creator that communicates, not a creator that refuses to communicate.
As such, the challenge they face is not to explain why their creator refuses to communicate; it's to demonstrate how their examples of divine communication are actually true. Which are the points you go on to raise.
That you are unable to distinguish between these positions does no credit to your understanding.
And even so, an entity that monopolizes the FM band monopolizes the user experience of people using FM receivers.
And Windows monopolizes the users of Windows PCs. Squint hard enough, and every business is a monopoly. That doesn't make them monopolies.
At a substantial extra monthly fee that's not efficient for low-volume users.
Your point... ? Users can choose what's right for their needs. Just like all you can eat buffets aren't good value for someone who just wants a quick snack, but decent for someone who wants lots of food.
So what does any of this have to do with "natural monopolies" being monopolies?
Slashdot Mirror
And comcast should be able to satisfy the upstream demand generated by the plans they sell.
If you don't understand how networks operate, you don't have any business saying how they should work.
Individual subscribers don't get unlimited upload bandwidth as part of their Comcast network access. That does not change just because one is a popular commercial business pushing massive amounts of content over Comcast's network.
Netflix needed to buy a better upload pipe to Comcast. They did, and enjoyed better network performance after the fact.
The FCC answers to Congress.
No, it doesn't. The FCC is an independent agency of the United States. While it may have been established and granted its authority by Congress [...]
Make up your mind. You contradicted yourself within two sentences.
Can Congress pass a law tomorrow abolishing the FCC's authority and dissolving the agency? (Hint from your link: "[independent agencies are] Established through separate statutes passed by the Congress")
If yes, then that means that Congress is the FCC's boss. I shouldn't need to explain what it means when one party is paying the other's salary, or has the power to fire them at will.
Now, if the FCC exists at the whim of Congress ... if the FCC's boss is Congress ... does the FCC answer to Congress?
If the FCC was to tell Congress, "Quit throwing a hissy fit, you're not the boss of me!" What do you think might happen next?
It's always fun watching individualist libertarians wrestle with the concept of a natural monopoly.
Please provide an example of a "natural" monopoly that came into existence without government enforcement.
Cable companies? Municipal monopolies.
Copyright? Government monopoly.
Patents? Government monopoly.
And now, suddenly, Congress is throwing a hissy fit. Why? Because, as it turns out, it isn't a burgeoning industry made up of companies like Prodigy and CompuServe still. Instead, it's made up of massive media and telecommunications conglomerates like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line, and they are not happy with having an appropriate classification applied to them, given that it's a lot more fun to be a misbehaving behemoth.
The FCC answers to Congress. When your boss is not happy with your work, your boss is not throwing a "hissy fit".
Also note that there are corporations both for and against Net Neutrality. I hope you don't think that Google, Netflix, and Facebook pushing Net Neutrality is purely out of the goodness of their hearts. They're pushing rules that benefit themselves ... and not necessarily the end-users.
I'm not sure what it looks like from where you're sitting, but there were some pretty obvious shenanigans at play with the whole Comcast/etc vs Netflix deal. Traffic to/from a particular site doesn't suddenly degrade in quality only on a particular ISP, and only when an argument about getting paid extra starts, only to magically vanish the moment that site agrees to pay up, all on its own. And that's after all the lawsuits that were launched to overturn previous, far less extensive regulatory attempts.
There's nothing magic or shady about paying for more bandwidth and getting more bandwidth.
The degradation in speed is consistent with a continued growth in Netflix subscribers on a fixed amount of bandwidth.
Do you think it's strange that you get higher performance upgrading to a 6 Mbps DSL plan from a 1 Mbps DSL plan? Use more, pay more.
For one thing, isn't the core fallacy of libertarianism that they try to reconcile respecting property rights with lack of government intervention, when the concept of "property" is only enforceable either by governments or by force of arms?
Libertarian isn't anarchist, so enforced property rights is only a problem for the libertarian anarchist. Minimalist government types do not have to deal with that fallacy, though they still have to figure out what a "minimalist" government actually looks like.
For another, for there to be a completely open and free market in cabling, there would have to be limitless capacity, and there certainly isn't. Put too many cable voids below the roads and you'll be undermining the foundations of your streets, so you'd have to find somewhere else to put them, and back yards are the only space you've got left.
If there are unlimited resources, you don't need a market.
Markets are for distributing scarce resources, and they do work pretty well for that. For example, food is not unlimited. Do you buy food from a market, or is it carefully distributed by a central agency?.
You're going to have to rethink this point. I think you're getting at the concept of natural monopolies - but that's not a actually a natural phenomenon. Natural monopoly is an argument that an artificial monopoly is the best solution to the nature of a certain problem.
Yes. Comcast says "We'll let you access data at this speed." They then turn around to the source as say "Pay us money so your traffic can go through at this speed." Why does Comcast get to double-tip on this?
Because they own the network. They're selling access to the network, not bandwidth to a particular endpoint or a particular set of data. (which is why it's not actually double-dipping to charge both Netflix and users for network access)
If you don't understand this and why it is, why does your opinion matter?
Very few people are really entirely altruistic. I know I'm not one of them. Not by a long shot. And that's why, even if it's flawed sometimes, we really do need government regulation.
Who is writing the government regulations?
Why do you think greedy humans writing and enforcing government regulations solves a problem with human greed?
Netflix has been growing its number of subscribers constantly for the past few years.
Comcast didn't need to reduce Netflix's bandwidth. If they only kept it the same, then when (X+Y) people try to use the same amount of bandwidth as (X) people used to, they'll see a corresponding reduction in service quality.
If you want to accuse Comcast of decreasing Netflix's bandwidth, you're going to have back up it up.
So your choice. Regulated public ownership. Regulated localized monopolies. Unregulated libertarian fantasy of every american with a dream driving backhoes through your yard.
Your unregulated libertarian fantasy violates the property rights of the backyard owners, which means you're not working from a consistently libertarian fantasy.
In other words, a strawman.
The short of it, is that Comcast is selling the service, guaranteeing a certain speed, not providing it due to intentionally avoiding upgrading their routers, and then telling their customer that the issue is Netflix's fault because they wont pay up.
But the customers do have that speed. Just not to Netflix. And the current state of the Internet makes it the source's responsibility to pay to push packets.
If instead of Netflix, it was a small company that didn't purchase enough upload bandwidth to service Comcast's customers at the rate the customers expected ... would you still blame Comcast?
Yes, I am.
Are they not both people with the Right to their Freedom of Speech? Or do you think KKK members should be treated as second class citizens with less rights than gay people?
Does the Right to Freedom of Speech of one group of people necessitate coercing actions from another group of people?
It's one thing to prevent people from censoring KKK members; it's another thing to force people to serve them in their business.
You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate? I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.
But still worth answering. Because that's what the people refusing to bake cakes or take photos for gay couples think it is like.
Better figure out just how far you are willing to coerce someone to do business in a hypothetical situation where no one is harmed, before you start doing it with real people, where harm can occur.
Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public. The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.
So it follows that you think a black business should be forced to serve KKK customers if the KKK customers demand it.
Which might include all sorts of legal activities: Catering for a white pride event, baking a cake with racist slogans, and printing and distributing event flyers.
That might better serve the public good, but have the honesty to acknowledge the costs of it.
No, you don't, which is why that side of the argument loses. Nobody is saying you have to celebrate same-sex marriage, just that the sexual preferences of the people involved in a business transactions shouldn't matter. How in the hell are you supposed to determine that anyway? If you own a cake shop do you make all your customers sign an affidavit that they're straight? Force them to reveal the gender of their spouse?
Does a business owner have Freedom of Speech?
Say a black family owns a cake store, and some KKK members wants them to bake a cake with various KKK anti-black slogans. The KKK has the Right to their Freedom of Speech to make such a cake.
Does the black family have a right to decide not to do business with the KKK? Or do you think the government should step in and force them to bake the cake with the threat of losing their business and their livelihoods?
Put simply, even from first principles, the idea of a solar-powered commercial airplane is just a non-starter.
And you haven't even touched on the safety/risk aspects of relying on "fuel as you get it from daylight" to transport commercial quantities of people.
At best, a "solar-powered" plane will be an electrical battery/cap-powered plane that is charged with solar-panels.
It is hilarious and tragic that an AC response accuses you of not having enough imagination. The sad thing is that he is the one who is not using his imagination to consider the costs, challenges, and risks.
Of course, I don't expect to have the local police or military shooting at me (although we do seem to be moving towards a police state); but thugs and gangsters are always able to get their hands on powerful, illegal weapons.
So when's the last time you were pinned down by machine gun fire from a thug/gangster? How much body armor do you wear for that?
How about a drone attack with a Hellfire missile? 155m artillery round? 500 pound bombs from an aircraft? Battleship 16" shell?
Well tell me then. How has your particular deity communicated with you? What was the nature of that communication, and what did this deity tell you?
You fail reading comprehension.
"I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book."
Acknowledge the point and then we'll switch topics.
I would also like you to explain what goalposts I moved. Empty accusations are unbefitting a serious discussion.
Show me that you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge valid points, and we can continue. Or not. Your choice.
Sorry, but your definition does allow for lack of communication to be communication.
Nonsense. I have offered no special definition of communication, and I've only used explicit actions/events as examples of communication.
I have said nothing about "silence" as communication. That you could take my silence on the topic as a specific stance is ridiculous.
Am I supposed to be impressed at your failed mind-reading?
He wrote, while changing the goalposts.
What goalposts have I changed? Back up the accusation.
Regarding tose early days of direct communication and even more direct intervention, are you willing to acknowledge the genocide, the incest and all the other immoral "communications"?
I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book.
Personally rejecting or disliking the religions involved is no excuse for getting basic descriptions of fact wrong.
Can you objectively describe that as a creator refusing to communicate?
Yes.
From a deity who used to be in pretty regular communication with his subjects, from Garden of eden, the destroying the world via flood after telling one family to prepare, to destroying cities with fire and brimstone (after telling one family again, to constant rules in Leviticus to moses on the mountain getting commandments to burning bushes to arks of covenant to all that contact in the bible......
You're changing the goalposts. "Refuses to communicate" and "refuses to communicate to me right now with a particular method" are different things.
Previous communication is still communication, and if you're willing to acknowledge the Garden of Eden, the Flood warning, and the 10 Commandments as communication, then my point stands.
As for "refuses to communicate right now", what have you done to seek communication with your creator? You'll be hard pressed to find any follower of Christ who believes he "refuses to communicate".
They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.
So do you want to argue that the religious group that follows Jesus has a problem where they need to explain why the creator refuses to communicate with his creation?
So even though they believe that Jesus was God incarnate, the creator interacting personally with creation; that this represents an absent creator they need an explanation for?
The documented history and the teachings objectively exist, and objectively state certain dogmas. That aspect is not subjective at all. You may not believe that it is true, but that does not justify misinterpreting what a given religious group actually believes, or what challenges go with it.
In a broader sense, Windows monopolizes the users of the large set of applications that are exclusive to Win32.
And MS has a government granted monopoly on Windows due to copyright.
So what?
If cellular weren't a cartel, then how could all four cellular carriers get away with raising pay-as-you-go texting rates at the same time?
I'm not arguing cellular is/is not a cartel.
I am arguing that natural monopolies do not naturally become monopolies. However, people do like to propose monopolies as the "best/most efficient" solution for "natural monopoly" situations.
Given how much people apparently hate cable companies and their municipal monopolies, perhaps we should revisit the assumption that "natural monopolies" are best served with an actual monopoly.
No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.
If God exists, then there are objective differences between those two scenarios, because said God controls reality.
And so when we look at the Jewish/Christian religious history, those who claim to speak for God also are agents of miraculous events, where God affirms their authority to speak for him.
Which again, demonstrates that the religion is formed around a belief that the creator is communicating with his creation. They have no problem to explain why the creator refuses to communicate, because they don't believe that!
Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing.
It means everything.
The claim was that religious people have to explain why the creator they believe in refuses to communicate.
For this particular religion, they have plenty of examples within their religious history where the creator they believe in communicates with his creation. They believe in a creator that communicates, not a creator that refuses to communicate.
As such, the challenge they face is not to explain why their creator refuses to communicate; it's to demonstrate how their examples of divine communication are actually true. Which are the points you go on to raise.
That you are unable to distinguish between these positions does no credit to your understanding.
And even so, an entity that monopolizes the FM band monopolizes the user experience of people using FM receivers.
And Windows monopolizes the users of Windows PCs. Squint hard enough, and every business is a monopoly. That doesn't make them monopolies.
At a substantial extra monthly fee that's not efficient for low-volume users.
Your point ... ? Users can choose what's right for their needs. Just like all you can eat buffets aren't good value for someone who just wants a quick snack, but decent for someone who wants lots of food.
So what does any of this have to do with "natural monopolies" being monopolies?