Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I guess the difference between me and photon is that I believe that for natural monopolies (and oligopolies), net social benefit should be maximized through regulation, even though that means companies are no longer free to do whatever they want.
|
How is that a difference, where did I say that natural monopolies and oligopolies
should be allowed to run unchecked?
I've been saying that if they
are allowed to run unchecked, why the wails of protest when they do what they're allowed to do???
That's not the only two alternatives too, a third would be to grant new companies equal access to this nebulous "infrastructure" that tax payers supposedly paid for.
If it can be shown that it is a natural monopoly, then I would agree that some degree of control should be exerted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
|
Or both.. but one is fixed while the other will fluctuate. The "last mile" connection, the actual cable that runs from the consumer to wherever they get aggregated (be it cable, copper, or fibre) don't move around, but the more bandwidth you deliver down each connection, the more hardware you'll need. Box A can deliver X bandwidth to Y connections, as it gets saturated, you upgrade the box or split it and add a 2nd box.. assuming your upstream connection is good enough, if that isn't you have to upgrade that too.
This is why I asked a bunch of questions in my previous reply, everyone is making a value judgment without sufficient information. What exactly was it that taxpayers paid for? What is in use now? If the network that taxpayers paid for is only 1% of the current overall network capacity of Shaw/Bell/Telus/Rogers, then the argument from taxpayer input is irrelevant. Heck Calgary has grown physically by huge amounts, taxpayers obviously haven't paid for the infrastructure to deliver Shaw to newer areas, those areas didn't exist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
|
Not really, the Netflix CEO is talking about the cost to get bandwidth, not to deliver it. The cost of delivering it isn't just the cost of the run to the outlet (as was pointed out in the other article), it's the cost of all the network hardware in between, which has to be constantly added to as demand increases.
Do we know how much those costs are? Until we do how can we say for sure it's a cash grab? I suspect it is as well, but without the proper information it's a bit foolish to say for sure.
And if it is a cash grab, what precisely is wrong with that?