utiz4321

Lets assume heavy handed regulations had been instituted during the late 1990, what woukd the internet look like? The internet works fine, it will countinue to work fine if we let it alone.

Zero companies pay taxes. Employees, share holders and customers pay taxes. VAT has merits but because it is a consumption tax not because companies "pay". The best tax system is a progressive sales tax.

What is wrong with him saying this is good for sprint and jt is hood for our customer's? It is a true statement. The taxes sprint pays are paid by employees, share holders and customers all of which got a reduction in taxes. That is a good message for a CEO to talk about.

I think they should explain to people what the lowering of the coporate tax rate means for their company and their future plans. Taxes aren't paid by companies anyway, all corporate taxes are paid by some combination of consumers, employees and shareholders. If we were being Really honest the corporate tax rate would be zero and if we wanted to tax wealth we would have a progressive consumption tax.

Charter doesnt offer a different price to you than it offers to your neighbor down the street. ATT offers you a different price because it is a different service, using a different technology and a different brand. To clarify, the price each company sets is determined at a market level. The price carries between companies.

That was the most convincing thing I have ever seen. I think I am going to through out everything that i learned studying economics because of that little emoji holding a sign that says "reality check" and your statement "dude....just stop". Grow up. Seriously.

What does me "probably" not hearimg of a Podunk town in texas have to do with anything. I know this a hard comcept for you to understand, but competition amongest ISPs doesnt happen at the individual home level. It occurs, for a variety of reason at a market level. For example, there are 20 ISPs in my market. Most residence have alternatives to choose from, some one (most of those are apartment complexes) and some there. The people with only one choice pays the same rate as the people with 3, why because it is the overall market competition that governs the price and incentives. Ps if you want comcast you can get it, move. It is inconvenient but then again so is driving 3 hours every other week to get it to a different grocery store. You are kind of proving my point with your last example.

I think it will go along way in keeping the ISPs innovative and increase investment if ISP are able to capture more of the industries profit, which isnt guaranteed at all. It might be the case That demand for services like netfilx are sufficient inelastic they wont have that ability and given that netflix brand is stronger than compainies like Comcast that might the case.

Lots of people have one grocery to choose from, for example people that live in rural areas. They arent forced to by the store brand. You might have access to one broad band provider where you live but compatition among broad band providers exist at a market level. How many providers does dallas have? https://broadbandnow.com/Texas/Dallas 45. That is a very competitive mark. But countinue being completely ignorant of have markets work.

That will not happen. You are not going to charge the end user for 100 mbs for part of the internet and then 10 for everything else unless they end users pays again to get it back up to 100. That would run into all kinds of legal issues and in against the pre-2015 FCC rules governing broadband that we are reverting too. The best way to think of "fast lanes" is two fold: a way of mananging network trafic and a way of pipe capturing a greater share of the profits on a two sides market. What would you rather have happen during peak times; everything you try to access is slowed (and streaming services impossible) or Netflix (and other) popular services to work fine and everything else is slow? Futher if pipe is able to capture a greater share of the profits their returns on investment are better and it becomes more atractive for new entrances. Pipe should not be treated as a utility unless you believe we have now or in the very near future reached the apogee of broadband internet. I don't. The industry has been incredibly Dynamic and Innovative and will continue to be so as long as regulations dont strangle it to death.

The question is do the two markets share relavent characteristics in common and they do. You should really spend some time either reading about the economics of a two side markets or just informing yourself on some the basic insights of economics before you go off and start fantasizing about the doom markets will inflict because companies "can" do something. People like you are why we cant have nice things.

I would be curious as to how the arrive at that number. I omce live in an appartment complex that had one provider wired to in because the had worked out a deal with that ISP. If the count those types of arrangments they are over counting as they are still choices. The end user has simplied allowed the property owner to make it instead of them.

You are completely ignorant about economics. It is not apple to oranges it is apples to apples. They are both two sided market in with the distributers sell their own competing product with their suppliers. If the government creates a problem with a shitty ser of laws and then kind of fixes it with another shitty set of laws, then yes the government is the problem. You all seem to forget how innovative pipe has been and that treating them like a utility might not be the best thing in the world. After all how innovative are utilities generally?

Sorry you couldnt keep up, but my statement was clear. The government is the necessary and sufficient condition for the anticompetitive regulations. The cable companies are neither necessary or sufficient therefore the cable companies cannot be causal. No where near the way you fantasize. Tell me grocery stores prevent Innovation amongst food producers? Yet, the charge both the consumer looking to shop with them, carry their own brands, charge other food producers for shelf space and some how the market works just fine.

You are missing the point, behavior is an action. There are two separate actions occurring here: one lobbying and two government instituting a policy. To lobby the government for anything isn't anti-competitive because everone can do it. It is hyper competitive actually. The government actions are the anticompetitive element in this process. Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and it is the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. The government shouldn't have this kind of authority and this example you gave of government using it's force to create anticompetitive market would not be possible if it did not or if the voters didnt accept that this is a proper thing for the government to do.

Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here. Nice Try though.

How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government. So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works. In any case the point I made from google fiber came from Schmidt himself. His answer on Google fiber starts at 37:45 Note, he didnt complain about competitors, he complains about Local government.

Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices?

Duopolies do have competition and does transfer welfare to the consumer. Look, the number efficient of players in a market is determined largely by returns to scale. The one thing the government can do to help a market have more competition and reach an efficient state is lower the fixed cost associated with regulations.

Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them. Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies.

There is a ton of backhaul competition. And even if there weren't it isnt as if a monopoly or duopoly can charge whatever they want. They are profit maximizing firms. You guys are freaking out over nothing. It would be quit amuzing to watch the melt down of the net neutral crowd if there werent bomb threats and threatening of children involved.

Why do you care that big content can use the government to rig the industry in their favor against big telecom? The market is more than capable of dealing with a two sided industry.

Scale, spectrum and content relationships. That would be the case for a merger.

It was kind of cool that he mentioned twice that he wanted to talk about the network plans before they actually go to that point. It Points to some excitement with in the company for the or plans or messaging they want the markets to hear.

Phoenix itself is really good, but there are a ton of weak areas in the east valley and Glendale. But it has improved a ton too. We need more density in the area surounding phoenix.