Comments on: All Circuits Aren’t Busy

By: Craig Goodrich

Craig Goodrich — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:17:42 +0000

Where, exactly, does the FCC get the authority to regulate ISPs in the first place? Do we just assume the Feds can regulate whatever the brouhaha of the moment is?

And as to monopolies, everywhere I’ve lived for the last decade there have been at least two ISPs vying for my business — generally the cable and the telco — so I don’t see any problem there at the moment — except that prices are too high on both. If the TV satellites could only figure out how to go duplex…

By: mrek

mrek — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:56:11 +0000

Long ago, I saw a theory that in a mature market there will be 2 1/2 competitors: 2 that are roughly equivalent, owning substantially all of the market, and a gaggle of others that collectively are about 1/2 of one of the Big Boys. It seems to work. And the 2 that own the market always collude, so the effect is that of a natural monopoly. At that point, government regulation is necessary to prevent to ones that own the market from gouging those who have no practical alternative. The Last Mile has been subject to that problem almost forever, and in recent years it’s been the telco vs cable local monopolies that compete (sort of) rather than companies with similar technologies (when was the last time you heard of telco-telco competition, really? have you checked cell phone rates lately? have you found any real differences between main-line companies in actual service cost/terms?). Of course, cable & telco provide the same services for the same price, so with only minor differences it’s kind of a coin-flip unless you happen to have somebody else in the area to upset things or the Regulators can keep the small-customer-gouging from getting ridiculous.

By: Fawn Liebowitz

Fawn Liebowitz — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:29:04 +0000

Blad_Rnr – less Fox News, more analysis. Parrotting the line about Acorn, Socialism and Barney Frank is just the standard unthinking response of those who are told what to say.

It’s as if George Bush and team were never in power from 2000-2008. Apparently Barney Frank, despite being in the minority, caused it all.

By: Fed Up with multinationals

Fed Up with multinationals — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:31:10 +0000

Get your facts right. The banks lobbied the Bush administration to remove as much regulation as possible from the books. The Bush administration promply did the bidding of the banks. The banks then went wild with no control on the switch. Free markets without regulation do not work. 200 hundred years of the American experiment have proven that. Go research the railroad industry of the 1800’s and early 1900’s, and the robber barons and you will see quite a bit of parallel. Much of the anti-trust and monopoly regulation in place today is a direct result of those times. It is interesting to see the banks haven’t learned anything and once again are lobbying against any regulation, even after being bailed out by the public.

By: Alexander Chalkidis

Alexander Chalkidis — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:41:55 +0000

I actually read ALL these comments which made for amazingly interesting reading. Thank you very much everyone!

Anyway you look at it, you have to hand it to Bob for the way he writes. Stepping a fine line between conspiracy theory and insight, controversy building and inside knowledge, he obviously manages to attract really knowledgable readers.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:19:38 +0000

Bob,

I’ve valued your opinions on technology (and still do) for a long time now, and told many people about your column, however – you seem to be confusing a free market for the corporatism masquerading as one currently.

The big banks on Wall St. are the complete opposite of a free market. Goldman Sachs has a revolving door policy in the US treasury and other parts of governments, bailouts proliferate everywhere, etc, etc, etc. If there was a free market, the big firms that got overleveraged would all be bankrupt, providing an important lesson to future investors about the need for due diligence when investing. Instead no one has learned a lesson since the government has elected to prop up a failed system.

This has nothing to do with a free market, no matter what MSNBC calls it.

Again, with real estate – more government intervention. Tax credits for first time homebuyers, tax deductible interest payments, etc all aim to keep housing prices high, and homeowners deep in debt. Prices are deliberately being manipulated this week to keep prices high, so the illusion of wealth can continue. If the free market were allowed to function, the prices would drop and housing would become cheaper to buy.

The Banks comment re free markets is ludicrous – banks now operate on a FIAT money system, the exact opposite of a free market in money, which is forced on us by government created legal tender laws. There is not even remotely a free market.

I agree with your criticisms, but your labels are far from correct, and you’re unfairly besmirching the free market.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:44:39 +0000

I agree with Bob’s statement “Network operators will get out of the content business, which will be handled for the most part by Google/Hulu/whomever using shipping containers filled with servers docked at the local Network Operations Center – shipping containers for which the network (formerly cable and telco) operators will collect rent just like grocery chains now make their profit by renting out shelf space to Proctor & Gamble, not by selling things.”

I worked for a few operating companies. They have tons of cash, and every so often they decide to dable in something “more exciting” like content in hope to drive up usage. In the end, they realize its a completely different business, and they return focus on what they know best. I don’t see it ending any different with Comcast.

Max

By: Leo

Leo — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:40:27 +0000

Thats it, change your shade a little so the self-righteous can deflect the blame… ha ha ha.. Leo

By: TJGodel

TJGodel — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:58:07 +0000

Very timely post!! I thought of this post instantly when I read about Comcast/NBC deal in the works

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125438284720055575.html?mod=djemITP

It seems Comcast CEO Brian Roberts of Comcast can see the future and they want to diversify into content from dumb pipes. I’d like to hear Bob take on this potential deal.

By: Jim A

Jim A — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:46:32 +0000

Right on Todd.
As a Service Provider who owns the Last “Wired” Mile we need Content/Apps as a differentiator.
Without it we are a dumb pipe and will immediately be ByPassed by the emergence of some 4-5 Broadband Wireless Networks due to begin operating in our markets in the next 2-3 Years.
(LTE/WiMAX/3.5G). This Content/Apps needs to be combined with Value Add Tech Support (Maintenance) Services that not only support systems (Routers/WiFi/FemotCell/Home Automation Systems/Video Surveillance etc.) we sell bundled in with our Broadband Links.
I agree that the Content Aggregators and OTT Service providers will be Cloud Based, as in Google/Yahoo/Amazon and others like Hulu/Netflix etc. and dominate as the main Source for VIdeo/Data APPs etc.. We need to partner, via Cached Media Servers in local Data Centers as proposed by Googles OpenEdge service, with these Providers if we are to survive.
Dumb Pipes are a non starter.

Jim A.