What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])

Wed Nov 16 17:07:52 UTC 2005

Hello;

On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
>
> --On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz  
> <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> --On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
>>> <thegameiam at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
>>> that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
>>> market, including the creation of new providers to seize
>>> opportunities being ignored by the existing ones.
>>
>> 	The worse the existing provider it is, the more practical it is to
>> compete with them. If they are providing what people want at a  
>> reasonable
>> price, there is no need for competition. If they are not, then the it
>> becomes practical for multiple providers to enter the market. If you
>> assume that the cost to develop existing infrastructure is not  
>> insanely
>> less than the cost to develop new infrastructure, the isolation from
>> competition comes directly from the investment.
>>
> 1.	The existing infrastructure is usually all that is needed for
> 	many of the services in question.  Laying parallel copper
> 	as a CLEC is not only prohibitively expensive, in most
> 	areas, it's actually illegal.  Usually, municipalities
> 	have granted franchise rights of access to right of
> 	way to particular companies on an exclusive basis.  That
> 	makes it pretty hard for a competitor to enter the market
> 	if they can't get wholesale access to the existing copper.
>
> 2.	The existing copper was actually deployed (at least in most
> 	of the united States) using public subsidies.  The taxpayers
> 	actually paid for the network.  The physical infrastructure
> 	should be the property of the people.  The ownership claim
> 	of the telephone companies is almost as baseless as the
> 	Verisign clame that they own the data in whois.
>
>> 	For example, if Bill Gates took a few billion dollars out of his  
>> pocket
>> and launched 80 satellites to provide wireless Internet access, it  
>> would
>> be damn hard to compete with him if he wasn't trying to recover  
>> those few
>> billion dollars. But if you spend a few billion, you get a few  
>> billion
>> worth. Anyone else can spend the same amount and get the same  
>> advantage.
>>
> 3.	Except when you consider that there are only so many orbital
> 	slots that can be maintained.  (see 1 above as well).  If Bill
> 	manages to launch N satellites and N leaves N/2 orbital slots
> 	available for other uses, then, it's pretty hard to launch
> 	another N satellites at any cost.
>

I do not think that the ITU  allocates  orbital slots except for  
geostationary satellites (not even
24 hour inclined orbits, such as are so useful for satellite   
transmissions  to cars). So, if you
want  to launch a Teledesic or Iridium  clone, you can, assuming your  
credit cards are good for a few billion $.

Frequency assignment is, of course, another matter.

>> 	If he already has the satellites and is providing the service other
>> people want at a low price, then other competitors will lose. But  
>> so what?
>> Consumers win. And competition doesn't exist to benefit the  
>> competitors.
>

<snip>

> Owen
>

Marshall

> -- 
> If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
> a forgery.