Time Warner to charge customers by bandwidth used

[Cry Havok]

I was hoping you'd respond

totally "pretend" with a defacto monopoly in place which isn't properly regulated by the government.

Natural monopolies cannot exist, it is only through government intervention that they do. The fact that government owns the roads under which utility lines are placed is enough to show this. The high prices and inevitable lobbying (which may outright lead to bills that favor them) favor big business. Interventions such as the former are the primary reasons all monopolies come into being.

If I don't "choose" to use my electric company - I have no electricity. However, they're a *regulated* monopoly, which means I have some indirect input in how they operate/profiteer via the Public Utility Commission, a government entity.

"The very term "public utility". ..is an absurd one. Every good is useful "to the public," and almost every good. . . may be considered "necessary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is completely arbitrary and unjustified." -Murray Rothbard, Power and Market

Wouldn't the you have a much stronger say in a free market, since your satisfaction with the service would be directly related to the company's success? Don't regulatory laws and paperwork logically favor big business?

As for Greenlight, you can't create competition by adding a monopolistic institution with even closer ties to the city. This is what I was trying to get at with the quotes in my last post.

[Nosauz]

Cry Havok, its ok you drank the koolaid, but we haven't yet. Nice straw man though, the issue is that TW has a monopoly, which is related to its success, and there is there are bars to entrance into the business which make it a monopoly. Just because at the moment its government sponsored doesn't mean its ok. The same applies for movie industry, these cartel are in collusion to market all movies at the same price when in fact value and movie quality should be what influence the price of product. Don't get me wrong I do want companies to make lots of money, but not at the cost of the consumer, offer me a service I want to pay for, give me that "value" and with out competition that will never happen, because tw will continue to squeeze its lines, and continue to split the end pipelines and cutting bandwidth not expanding it. Anyway 12% decrease to mainting the braodband network when revenue was up 11% and subscriber increased by 50%, what does that say, gbs are cheaper than ever and if I had to choose I would choose greenlight because they offer a service that is better than TW at the same price point. Anyway if you think about the reason why government runned business is not accepatable in a free market is b ecause of beauracracy and the clutter of government makes business unefficient but in this case greenlight is beating timewarner and will end up turning a profit just not the profit warner wants to see on its books.

Also don't forget that time warner is also a content provider on top of broadband, in economic hard times, I know many people just dropping cable as they try to make ends meet, but time warner continues to try to protect its cable tv business by trying to cap the interent.

[Cry Havok]

I think you understood what I said, but not what I was getting at.

1. Natural monopolies can't occur
2. Government interference creates monopolies
3. That these 'regulated' monopolies are still monopolies and still government interference. These still cause problems like higher prices (FDA), low supply (Enron), and stifled innovation (FDA)
4. Greenlight is more government interference, another monopoly

its ok you drank the koolaid, but we haven't yet.

You know all that does is make me take you less seriously. There's no need for attacks, my friend.

Nice straw man though, the issue is that TW has a monopoly, which is related to its success, and there is there are bars to entrance into the business which make it a monopoly.

I'm glad we agree. I'm not certain what straw man you're referring to.

Just because at the moment its government sponsored doesn't mean its ok.

Still agreeing, my issue is with replacing a monopoly with another monopoly. Wouldn't another monopoly inevitably cause similar, if not the same problems, as with Time Warner's supply?

I've conceded that last sentence in my first post, that probably confused people and is inconsistent. I probably need to work on focusing my posts, making them less jumpy.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Cry Havok

1. Natural monopolies can't occur
2. Government interference creates monopolies
3. That these 'regulated' monopolies are still monopolies and still government interference. These still cause problems like higher prices (FDA), low supply (Enron), and stifled innovation (FDA)
4. Greenlight is more government interference, another monopoly

So says the "Classical Economist."

Yet I find, to my perturbation, that many adherents of these theories have little clue of the premises behind them. Econ 101 (or far beyond, actually) does not really explain the hidden kinks that laid the groundwork for such particular worldviews to work. A lot of things make a lot of sense in their internal logic, in their specific circumstances, within the a priori assumptions that they take for granted, and then you step out where one breathes air and sharp things kill...

So indulge me: demonstrate why you think natural monopolies can't occur. Debunk Time Warner's local monopoly. Explain -- in your own words, by your understanding, and not through name-droppings of disputed theoretical concepts that you assert as fact -- why you think so. Then we will see your point.

[Vexx]

I'm also curious about the "natural monopolies can't occur" assertion. It just doesn't seem to have any traction when I review history. They may not *last* but they certainly occur.

Now in Time-Warner's "local monopoly" case, they've manipulated government to exploit local monopoly control. If government were stronger and regulated more thoroughly for the benefit of the *people*, it wouldn't be an issue. If a government is going to permit a corporation to be a local monopoly - it MUST exert control over it and constantly remind the corporation that it is a privilege to be given that slot. Most monopolies I can think of in American history arose from the government wanting to streamline the development of public infrastructure (railroads, communications). And there was often corruption. Just glad they didn't think of that with the interstate highway system.

But over the last few thousand years, I can point out any number of "natural monopolies" -- though often they occur when government is not present (or has failed) and involve the "business" becoming the defacto government in an area. Some of the "oil towns" in the 20th C. come to mind.

[chikorita157]

Cablevision announced their 100 mbps tier for $99 bucks, which makes TWC $99 unlimited a complete ripoff.

Cablevision: 101Mbps For $99.95
15Mbps upstream, no usage caps...
Confirming our earlier reports that Cablevision was cooking up a speedier new DOCSIS 3.0 offering, Cablevision tells us this morning that the company will be launching a new "Ultra" tier on May 11. The new tier features speeds of 101Mbps downstream and 15Mbps upstream for $99.95 a month. That's an unprecedented amount of speed at an unprecedented price, suggesting that Cablevision just took the gloves off in their fight against Verizon FiOS.

While we know that Verizon is testing 100Mbps FiOS connectivity in employee homes, no U.S. incumbent is currently offering 100Mbps, whether FTTH or cable. Several cable operators have started offering 50Mbps or 60Mbps connectivity, but pricing for these services usually start around $140 -- after bundled discount. Cablevision's pricing and the lack of a cap highlights how seriously they have to take the FiOS competitive threat. Did we mention we love competition?

Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella confirmed for me that the $99.95 price is unbundled, and the new tier does not come with any kind of a usage cap or overage fees. Cablevision recently came out against metered billing, arguing that the practice would only serve to confuse customers. According to Cablevision, broadband is "a pretty powerful drug" that they'd like users to consume more of. This new 101Mbps/15Mbps tier would appear to be the broadband equivalent of a morphine drip.

Cablevision says they're spending $300 million, at least $70 per user, to deliver both DOCSIS 3.0 connectivity and free Wi-Fi to the company's more than three million customers. In addition to the new DOCSIS 3.0 tier, the company tells us they're also boosting the downstream speed of their Wi-Fi service to 3Mbps from 1.5Mbps.

Source

If TWC weren't a monopoly, they would have a incentive to provide better service than just taking advantage of their customers. Monopolies are bad most of the time because the abuse of power which is proven by past monopolies in history.

Also, there have been for a long time a problem with lobbyists... which they usually give senators a sum of money to make a bill or vote for it. I hope the current administration put the clamp on lobbyists since the government is getting transparent (hopefully).