From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Message Hash: 884bfb339dd316f32e09407e7d382c05f1cd509b4e4313f2a6f647b069488771
Message ID: <9311101712.AA21990@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199311101705.AA18927@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-10 17:14:18 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:14:18 PST
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:14:18 PST
To: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
In-Reply-To: <199311101705.AA18927@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9311101712.AA21990@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Mike Godwin says:
> I agree about the potential for it to be free, but, I gotta tell you, the
> monopolists running the cable systems in this country have no inclination
> to share that nearly free bandwidth with you, even if you're willing to
> pay for access to it.
Wouldn't the solution then be to eliminate the capacity of local
municipalities to grant cable monopolies? Fiber is compact -- five or
even twenty cable companies could coexist happily in New York (where I
live) if the city didn't grant "franchises", which it charges
exhorbitantly for. With large scale competition between cable
companies, monopolies would no longer be a problem.
> In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for
> high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the
> market-failure position we're in now.
Isn't the problem in question the result of government granted,
rather than natural, monopolies? Isn't it thus wrong to call it a
"market failure"? Seems more like yet another government failure.
Perry
Return to November 1993
Return to “Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>”