[mythtv-users] [Mostly OT] Comcast/net neutrality ruling - NY Times Online

[Greg Woods]

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 08:50 +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:

> I read it  as something like the ones we have over here - people who 
> think regulation is bad and it should all be left to "the market" to 
> resolve.

I am one of those people. But in order for that to work, there has to
actually be an open market to begin with. Most people I know who
advocate free markets are smart enough to realize this. I just didn't
appreciate being lumped in with the morons who don't know the difference
between a free market and a government-mandated monopoly like Comcast,
and having aspersions cast on everyone who advocates free markets. The
free market cannot control Comcast because there *is* no free market.
Therefore, the people who think that the free market *can* control
Comcast are not "free marketeers", they are idiots.

>  we usually end up with some toothless watchdog rolling 
> over while big business tickles it's tummy.


This is always a danger when the government grants a monopoly. It is
often in the government's best interest to get in bed with the monopoly
instead of protecting the consumer which is what they should be doing.
That is why we "free marketeers" oppose government-mandated monopolies
when they are not absolutely necessary. Utilities and roads, sometimes
there is no realistic alternative. Bus or taxi service, no reason for
that to be a monopoly when a free market could work quite well. etc.

Unfortunately, what we typically have today (at least in the US) is not
anything close to a free market. There is a place for government in a
free market to prevent fraud and abuse, but now there are so many
regulations and so much red tape that it is impossible for anyone but
the big guys to compete. The little guys are often forced out by the
cost of complying with regulation. This results in only a few players,
reduced competition, and an increased chance for corruption. In a
climate of heavy regulation, it becomes more profitable to lobby the
government to get rules favorable to you than it is to compete fairly in
the market. Those of us who really are "free marketeers" oppose excess
regulation for this reason: it interferes with competition. 


> 
> That's what I interpreted the bit about "free marketeers will push it 
> through under some flimsy conditions" meaning

I took that as an insult to those of us who understand what a free
market is supposed to be.

--Greg