An Enlightened People, Examples

[bobover3 (imported)]

Moi, please re-read my post. I wrote "before 1970," not after 1970. Cerebrate more.

[moi621 (imported)]

Moi, please re-read my post. I wrote "before 1970," not after 1970. Cerebrate more.

Okay,

Dyslexics believe in DOG !

But what is this rubbish about,

Natural Monopolies?

Competitive Capitalism when convenient?

Moi

Don't forget, your Corporate Centrist representing YOU believes in,

Socialized losses, Privatized profits.

[moi621 (imported)]

You'd better believe this. They use separate cabling. Most of the buildings were built before the internet age. So cat5 is installed on demand.

<sigh> so Russian.

So every provider manages their own cables into the web you describe.

Sounds like the early days of electricity and telephone lines.

Regarding my first post,

Never mind!

Moi

Is satellite TV / Internet available in St. Petersburg?

[bobover3 (imported)]

"Natural monopolies" are an old and universally accepted economic concept. Sometimes a single provider delivers the best value to the public for the lowest cost. I gave the example of AT&T in the early 20th century. Similar examples would be electric, gas, and water utilities. (It's only recent computer technology that has allowed such services to be unbundled and distributed.)

Many of the functions of government are also natural monopolies: police, fire, and emergency services spring to mind. In 19th century NYC, there were multiple competing police and fire departments. They fought with one another for turf, and often shook down the public they were supposed to help. Theodore Roosevelt rose to prominence when he became NYC's Police Commissioner and united the departments. No progressive/liberal/socialist/Marxist can doubt the importance of natural monopolies, since it's on that concept that the edifice of Statism stands.

Fhunter gives an excellent counter-example: provision of telecommunications cabling is another natural monopoly; that it's not done so in Russia leads to gross inefficiency and waste, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the public. In the US, all the competing telecom providers use the wire provided by the local exchange carriers. The cable companies are the exception, and they can only afford to sell their service where both content providers and end users are willing to pay premium prices.

[moi621 (imported)]

Stupid question as Moi does not understand economics.

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/show

thread.php?p=148619#post148619

Why can't the reception and the cable be maintained separately possibly

municipally and the decoder box subscription and rent from a variety of

providers?

Seem so simple and pro competition that I must be missing something?

Moi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President%27s_Analyst

Remember when The Phone Company could plausibly, 'rule the world'?

[Dave (imported)]

"Natural monopolies" are an old and universally accepted economic concept...

...

It turns out that in developing countries, a distributed electrical generating system is cleaner, cheaper and more efficient.

So when you see an "old and universally accepted" concept, it pays to challenge that concept and upset the old order.

It's the old excuse of "we always did it this way" and that doesn't bind your kids or grandkids to the same old, same old. Throw the gray haired old bastards out to pasture.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Moi, what you describe is exactly what's done with phone lines. This works because the phone networks are all electronically interconnected, so that one company can seamlessly hand its transmissions to another. Tariffs exist in each State governing this, and setting the proportional remuneration of the companies involved.

The cable business has a different history. It required provision of coaxial cable, which was not available in most buildings, and is relatively costly to provide. Unlike phone lines, which already existed and could simply be shared, cable installations wouldn't have happened unless the installing company could recover its cost. Now my understanding is that cable providers offer content from many sources. Isn't the breadth of programing one of cable's selling points?

[bobover3 (imported)]

Dave, what determines a natural monopoly obviously changes with the possibilities offered by technology. A century ago, telephones were a natural monopoly, which is why the government actively encouraged the monopoly. Now that computerized switches can easily transmit signals from any source, the advantage of a monopoly has disappeared. The law followed the technology, and there's no longer a phone monopoly. The same can be said for any industry. No monopoly is inevitable, but sometimes it's desirable.