|
|
#31
08-29-2005, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Supply and/or Demand?
[ QUOTE ]
People who value the money more than the hotel room, get the money -- People who value the hotel room more than the money, get the room. [/ QUOTE ] This will be true if the price is controlled as well. [ QUOTE ] And all without interference. [/ QUOTE ] This is what "fairness" comes down to, which is why it is just subjective. 
|
|
#32
08-29-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I understand it, peering agreements are set up between ISPs to physically connect networks and share traffic. But ISPs do not all have their own unique infrastructure on the user end. They in turn must pay for the right to send that data to you over the phone line or whatever other access infrastructure. And that is where you get one instance of regulation to ensure true competition. [/ QUOTE ] There are several tiers of providers. On the top, there are peering agreements, below the top all providers honor the tier 1 agreements. The competition is guaranteed because disagreement would collapse the system (but only for the dissenting party, since there is enough redundancy to heal or re-route any single defector). If I don't like my providers service, I can switch service and still have complete access to the entire www. The only thing that could make the system fail is if there was regulation. Most politicians have noticed the success. Nothing politicians have regulated has ever worked as well. I have to give them some credit, it's why all parties have been reluctant to regulate Internet.
|
|
#33
08-29-2005, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supply and/or Demand?
[ QUOTE ]
People who value the money more than the hotel room, get the money -- People who value the hotel room more than the money, get the room. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This will be true if the price is controlled as well. [/ QUOTE ] Absolutely not true. See examples I have given for gas, rooms, and tickets. The market price has got to be able to move for this statement to be true.
|
|
#34
08-29-2005, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
There are several tiers of providers. On the top, there are peering agreements, below the top all providers honor the tier 1 agreements. The competition is guaranteed because disagreement would collapse the system (but only for the dissenting party, since there is enough redundancy to heal or re-route any single defector). If I don't like my providers service, I can switch service and still have complete access to the entire www. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but these agreements themselves, which may be entered into voluntarily, depend upon a regulated system for sharing the actually infrastructure. SBC owns the phone lines and switching systems that bring telephony into my house. What is to prevent them from deciding that they will only carry SBC DSL services over these lines? The answer is regulation. This is not an abstract question. These regulations exist as written law. [ QUOTE ] The only thing that could make the system fail is if there was regulation. [/ QUOTE ] There already is plenty of regulation in many areas and the system is not failing.
|
|
#35
08-29-2005, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supply and/or Demand?
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not true. See examples I have given for gas, rooms, and tickets. The market price has got to be able to move for this statement to be true. [/ QUOTE ] If the price of a hotel room is set at $40, how is it not true that people who value the room more than $40 will rent the room and those that value the $40 more than the room will keep the money?
|
|
#36
08-29-2005, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
SBC owns the phone lines and switching systems that bring telephony into my house. What is to prevent them from deciding that they will only carry SBC DSL services over these lines? The answer is regulation. This is not an abstract question. These regulations exist as written law. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know SBC, sounds like it's a phone company -- and yes, telcos are regulated. They're not really your Internet provider, they're your access provider. If you don't like them you can switch (depending on where you're located) to satellite, cable, microwave, wireless broadband, etc. -- the number of access options just keeps increasing -- and it's that competition that keeps the price down. Public right-of-ways has been the big issue to create regulated utils in the past (phone, cable, etc). Since all services can now use a common medium, and we can packet switch multiple services using multiple access options -- these aren't really issues. Regulation ends when your access provider plugs you into the Internet backbone. I use microwave access directly to UUNET, and can at-will dial it up to about 13Mb (about 200+ phone lines) -- it's completely deregulated and I have a choice of several independent competing services.
|
|
#37
08-29-2005, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
Regulation ends when your access provider plugs you into the Internet backbone. [/ QUOTE ] I think we're just talking past each other because I am talking about regulation that affects how access providers share their physical infrastructure and you are talking about what happens afterwards. Most service still comes over telephone lines or cable lines, and these lines are controlled by access providers like SBC that are often also in the business of providing internet services. If these companies were not forced to provide use of their infrastructure to others, then they could essentially just shut out the competition.
|
|
#38
08-29-2005, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supply and/or Demand?
[ QUOTE ]
If the price of a hotel room is set at $40, how is it not true that people who value the room more than $40 will rent the room and those that value the $40 more than the room will keep the money? [/ QUOTE ] There has to be a reason to artificially set the price at $40. The most obvious is because the proprietor values it higher (why else control it?). Let's say the owner values it at $100. If there is an artificial limit set at $40, he will still rent it -- because it is an unrecoverable asset (it can't be placed into inventory). But he valued it higher. I may value it at $100 as well, so I either get a great deal -- or find it unavailable because it was artifically priced too low. In the later case, both I and the proprietor were denied the right to make a deal we both thought was fair, and the beneficiary of our loss is some unknown person who got a great deal. If the asset is recoverable, the proprietor may choose not to sell it at all. For example, you'll notice that when an event that could effect the price of gasoline occurs -- or crude oil goes up -- the price at the pump is immediately raised. This makes sense, since the owner is selling based on replacement cost -- not what he paid for the current inventory. If there was speculation that gas would go to $10 a gallon, and I had 10,000 gallons in the ground, and the govenment told me I could only charge $3 -- I would probably lock the doors and not sell it at all until the market stablized.
|
|
#39
08-29-2005, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supply and/or Demand?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People who value the money more than the hotel room, get the money -- People who value the hotel room more than the money, get the room. [/ QUOTE ] This will be true if the price is controlled as well. [/ QUOTE ] But the people who value the room the MOST will NOT necessarily get the room, and THAT is why efficiency IS degraded with pricecaps, even for products without elastic supply.
|
|
#40
08-29-2005, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
Most service still comes over telephone lines or cable lines, and these lines are controlled by access providers like SBC ... [/ QUOTE ] Smaller every day. Disappearing. It's just legacy regulations. You're crossing a public right-of-way to get onto your private property. Original point was there is not an argument for regulation or for more regulation -- there is a good example of what can be done with less.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
