Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
Except that isn't what is happening here. If you want a fair comparison, it would be what would happen if the GOVERNMENT told FedEx that you can't compete with UPS in these states and in exchange, UPS can't compete with you in these states.
You know, just like how the government tells BOTH UPS and FedEx they can't compete with USPS in ANY STATE to deliver mail.
Except it isn't the Federal Government
that regulates where Time Warner and Comcast can have local monopolies. Local monopolies are the result of local government incompetence. I'm not going to blame the Fed because my city has its head in the gutter.
Besides. All the local cities have done is put up high entry costs. If the private sector was so innovative, where is the capital from venture capitalists to fund competition? Nowhere. Because no private interests will ever invest into "risky" ventures like building a cable competitor with high investment costs and a potentially tough fight with established giants like Comcast. That's why private interests never routinely "compete" with each other. Or have you guys not had enough of price fixing scandals from huge international corporations?
In fact UPS/USPS/Fed Ex is the perfect example
of why we need
Government intervention in order to facilitate healthy competition in our cities. USPS has long been considered a sub-par service compared to UPS/Fed Ex. Yet USPS provides a baseline service that UPS and Fed Ex have to exceed in order to be competitive. I call that healthy competition.
I don't think any seriously large group of people are complaining about lack of competition when it comes to mail. It's almost considered a utility and some people don't even like getting mail. They'd rather go paperless.
Again, it is GOVERNMENT who is PREVENTING competition in markets with LAWS that they have passed.
Government regulations made sure that there is widespread Internet Access. I don't agree with a lot of the things the Government does, but local franchises were absolutely vital to achieve wide market coverage. Are they in the way now to create small, high-quality competitors to Comcast? Absolutely, this is why we need government intervention from the federal level to introduce nation-wide competition to local cable-opolies. Because private interests will seldom invest large amounts of capital in an established market. It truly takes a "revolutionary" mind to crack it open, and even then it doesn't happen without the foundations being laid by the government in the form of high-risk, high-capital investments to facilitate changing or opening a market.
Edit: Just as an example, here's a case for Seattle and Municipal Broadband.
It is cited to be impossible due to high capital costs involved in building it. Hmmm, I wonder what entity could and would be willing to provide huge amounts of capital, at low interest rates and limited liability with the sole goal of providing an affordable, high-quality service to it's customer base.Edited by HanSomPa - 11/7/15 at 11:57am