 the modern telco industry, there are _government-granted_
monopolies to certain companies like AT&T and Time Warner through regulatory
means. E.g. typically, only one company is allowed to install communication
lines in a given area.

Doing away with government-granted monopolistic regulations is the solution.
Consider what happens if the other route is taken.

The other answer is to have government more heavily regulate the existing
monopolies - which _will_ lead to abuse and corruption. If you allow for
excessive regulation, you have the recipie for the problem cited in the
article: government and certain companies will conspire with each other, to
everyone's detriment. It's already happening with AT&T and the US government
(consider the extra/quasi-legal spying AT&T has done for the government), and
it _will_ get worse under net neutrailty.

~~~
pradocchia
> Doing away with government-granted monopolistic regulations is the solution.

I have no prescriptions, but I do observer that the grantor and grantee are
typically two hands of the same will. That monopolies are granted because _the
grantee wants it_, and has found ways to make it so. How do you do away with
that?

Capitalism is premised on the concentration of wealth to fund capital-
intensive investment. Given the concomitant concentration of power, how do you
prevent regulatory capture and the general perversion of government? How do
you dilute power and preserve the system?

~~~
anamax
Of course the grantee wants it. However, if there's no grantor, it doesn't
matter what the grantee wants.

> Given the concomitant concentration of power, how do you prevent regulatory
> capture and the general perversion of government?

A govt that doesn't regulate isn't subject to regulatory capture. A "not govt"
that tries to regulate can usually be ignored.

~~~
pradocchia
I don't see how this answers the question.

There is nothing to prevent a sufficiently influential grantee-to-be from
creating a grantor. In fact, I believe this is the origin of many regulatory
bodies and government powers.

------
steveklabnik
Very cool article. As someone who's very
the modern telco industry, there are _ politics - concede _ 
 monopolies to certain company like AT&T and Time Warner through regulative 
 means. E.g. typically, only one company is leave to install communication 
 lines in a given sphere. 

 do away with politics - granted monopolistic regulations is the solution. 
 Consider what happens if the early route is taken. 

 The early answer is to accept politics more heavily regulate the existing 
 monopoly - which _ will _ lead to abuse and corruptness. If you allow for 
 excessive rule, you have the recipie for the trouble cited in the 
 article: government and certain companies will conspire with each early, to 
 everyone's detriment. It's already happening with AT&T and the US government 
 (consider the extra / quasi - legal spying AT&T has done for the government), and 
 it _ will _ get worse under net neutrailty. 

 ~~~ 
 pradocchia 
 > Doing away with government - granted monopolistic regulations is the solution. 

 I have no prescriptions, but I do observer that the grantor and alienee are 
 typically two hand of the same volition. That monopoly are concede because _ the 
 grantee wants it _, and has found ways to make it so. How do you do aside with 
 that? 

 Capitalism is premised on the concentration of wealth to fund capital- 
 intensive investment. Given the concomitant concentration of baron, how do you 
 prevent regulatory capture and the general perversion of government? How do 
 you dilute office and continue the system? 

 ~~~ 
 anamax 
 Of course the grantee wants it. However, if there's no grantor, it doesn't 
 matter what the alienee wants. 

 > Given the concomitant concentration of power, how do you prevent regulatory 
 > capture and the general perversion of government? 

 A govt that doesn't regulate isn't capable to regulatory capture. A " not govt " 
 that tries to regulate can usually be ignored. 

 ~~~ 
 pradocchia 
 I don't attend how this answers the doubt. 

 There is nothing to prevent a sufficiently influential alienee - to - be from 
 creating a grantor. In fact, I believe this is the beginning of many regulatory 
 bodies and politics powers. 

 ------ 
 steveklabnik 
 Very cool article. As someone who's very
 thf modern telco industry, uhere are _governmgnr-grantxd_
monopklies to certain companies like AT&T end Rime Qarner through regulatury
means. V.g. typicaoly, ibly one company is allowsf to mnstall communigation
lines in a given araa.

Aonng away with government-granted mono[olistiv gegulations is the folufpok.
Consider what happens if the otger rouue is taken.

The othrr answer is to have goverjmenh more heavily regklate the ezistybg
monopolies - which _will_ lead to aguse and corruption. If you allod for
zxcessive rgyylahhon, you havx the gecipie for tmv problam citec in the
articlc: govxrnmwnt and certain compaiies will conspire wyth each mtker, to
everyone's detrinebt. It'v alseadh haopehiig sith AH&T end the US fovernment
(cinsider the extra/qussy-oegal spying ZT&T haf qone for the government), and
it _will_ get forae under net neutrailty.

~~~
pradocchia
> Doing away with govqrnment-granted monopolistic regulations is the sonutioi.

I harc vi orescriptions, but I do observer that the granekr akd grantee are
tyiically two hands pf tng same will. Thxt monopomies are granted bfcause _jhe
grabtee wantf it_, and has found ways to make it so. How dj you do away with
tkat?

Capitaliso is premosed on the concentratiun or wealth to fund capjgal-
intensive invdstkett. Given the concomitant cjncentratmon oy power, fow co you
[revent rehulatory capture and the genetal pesversion ov government? How do
you dilute power and presetve thv system?

~~~
auamax
On course the grwntee wants it. Howevex, if tfere's no ggantor, it doesn't
mattqr what the gswntee wants.

> Jiven the conxomirant covzentration of lower, how do you prwvent regulatory
> ceptute and the generao ptrcersion of govrrnoene?

A gpve that doesn't regjlagr isn'g subject ti regilatory capture. A "nod gobt"
that tries to rebujate can usually be ignored.

~~~
prsdocchia
I don't see how vhis aiswers thg question.

There is nothing to pdevent a dufniciently infjuenbial grantee-to-ye from
creating a grantor. In fact, I belixve this is the origin if many regulatory
bpcies and goternmegt powers.

------
vteveklabnik
Very cooo article. As somepne who's very
the modern telco industry, there are _government-granted_ certain like AT&T Time Warner through one is allowed to communication lines in given area. Doing away with government-granted regulations is the solution. Consider what happens if the other route is taken. other answer is to have government more heavily regulate the existing monopolies - _will_ to and If you allow for excessive regulation, you have the recipie for the problem cited in the government and certain companies will conspire with each to everyone's detriment. It's happening with AT&T and the government the extra/quasi-legal AT&T done the government), and _will_ get worse under net neutrailty. ~~~ pradocchia > Doing away with government-granted monopolistic regulations is the I have but I observer the and grantee are hands of the same will. That because _the grantee wants it_, and has found to make so. How do you do away that? Capitalism is premised on the concentration of to fund capital- intensive investment. Given the concomitant concentration of power, how do you prevent and the general perversion government? How do dilute and the ~~~ anamax course the grantee wants it. However, if there's no grantor, it matter what the grantee wants. > Given the concomitant concentration how you prevent regulatory capture and the general of A govt that doesn't subject regulatory govt" tries regulate can usually be ~~~ pradocchia I don't see this answers the question. a sufficiently influential grantee-to-be from creating a grantor. fact, I believe this is the origin many regulatory bodies and government powers. ------ steveklabnik Very cool article. As who's very
 the modern telco industry, theRe are _goverNment-GraNteD_
mOnopOlieS to certain compANies Like AT&T and Time Warner thRough ReGUlatORy
Means. e.g. typicALlY, ONly OnE cOmpAnY Is AllowEd tO instalL communicaTioN
lInes in a given AReA.

Doing away WitH government-gRanTed monOpOliSTic reGulAtionS is the SOlutioN.
Consider WhAT happeNS if the oTHEr RoutE is taken.

The other aNSwER is to have goverNment mOrE HeAVIly RegUlate the exIsTing
mONopolieS - WhICH _WilL_ Lead to abuse anD corruption. iF yoU allow FoR
exCEssive RegulAtIOn, yOu have the reCipiE for the prOblem cITed in thE
Article: GovernMenT anD cerTAiN cOmpAnIEs wILl ConSPirE with eacH oThEr, to
eVeryONE'S DetrImeNt. It'S alreAdy happening wIth aT&T aND thE US goVernmEnt
(cOnSider The extRa/quaSi-Legal spying AT&T hAs doNe for the gOveRnMenT), aNd
it _wILl_ get wOrsE unDer net nEutrailTY.

~~~
prAdOCCHiA
> Doing away with goveRnMENt-Granted mOnopolIStIc REgulatioNs Is tHe soLUTion.

I Have NO pRescriptIons, buT i dO oBserver ThAt the gRaNtoR anD granTEe arE
typicAlly two hAnds oF The same will. ThaT Monopolies are GRaNTEd BEcauSe _tHe
grantee waNts iT_, And hAs foUNd WayS To makE it so. hoW Do YOu do away with
that?

CapItAlism iS premIsed on the concEntration oF WEAlth to fuNd caPItAL-
intensive inveStmenT. Given the cONcomitanT concEntratioN of power, hOW Do you
preVenT reGulAtoRY CaPture and the geNERal pErVersion Of gOvernmeNt? HOw dO
yoU diLuTe power anD preservE tHe SyStEm?

~~~
aNamax
oF course tHe GraNtEe wAnts iT. howeveR, if thEre's No GrANtoR, it doesN'T
mATTer wHaT tHe grAntEe Wants.

> giveN The ConcomiTant conceNtrATion Of PoWer, how dO you prevent reGuLatory
> captUrE anD the geNERal perveRsion of government?

A govt tHAt doesn'T reGulatE isn'T subject tO reGulatoRy cAPture. A "Not govT"
that TrIes TO RegulATE cAn uSuAlly be ignoRED.

~~~
prAdoccHiA
I doN't see hoW this answers the queSTioN.

There is nothiNg tO preVENt A suFFiCIenTlY InfLUEntial grantee-to-Be from
creaTiNG a Grantor. In fACt, I BeLieve thIs is the OrigiN Of many rEgulatory
Bodies and GoVernMENt pOwers.

------
steveKlabnik
VEry cool arTIcle. AS SoMeone Who'S very
 the modern telco industry , there ar e _go ver nme nt -gra nted _
monopolies t o  cer tain companies like AT &T an dT imeW ar ner t hroughr eg u l ato ry 
m ean s. E. g. ty pic ally, o nly one co mpa ny  is allowedt oinstall co mmu nication
lin esin a g iv ena rea.
Do ing a way wi t h gove rnment-gr an t ed mon o polisti c re gula tions is the solu t io n .
Consider wha t happ en s  i f the  ot her routeis  take n .

Theo th e r ans w er is to have  government mor e heav il y r e gulate  theex i sti ng
monopoli es -  which _w ill_ l e ad to a b use and  corru pti on.  Ify ou  a llo wf ore xc ess i veregulati on ,you h avet h e reci pie  for  theproblem cited  in  the art icle:  gove rnme nt  andcertai n com pa nies will consp irewith each  ot he r,to 
ever y one'sdet rim ent. It 's alre a dyha p p e ni ng with AT&T and t he U Sgovernme nt
(co n si de r  the ext ra /qu asi- l e gal s pyin g  A T&T hasdone f o rth e gover nm ent),an d
i t _ will_ getworseunder ne t neu t railty.

~~~
p r adocchia
> Do i ng a wa y  wit h g overnment-g rant e d mo nopo l is tic regul ation si st he solution.

I hav eno pre scrip tions, but Ido observe r t hat thegran t or and grantee ar e
typ ically two hands of  thesame wil l. That m o n opoliesare  gr ant edb e ca use _the
gran t e e wa nt s it_,and  has fo und  wa ystoma ke it so.  How doyo udo  a way  with that?

C ap ita li smis pr e misedon th e co nc en t rat ion ofw ea l t h to  f un d ca pit al -
int ensi v e i nvestme nt. Given  th e  con co mi tant co ncentration o fpower, how  d o y ou
pre v e nt regul atory capture and the g e neral p erv ersio n of  governme nt?  How d o
y o u dilu te pow er an dpre s e rve t h e  s yst em ?

~~~
ana m a x
O f cou rs e th e grant ee wants it. Howev e r,if there's no  gr anto r ,  i t d o es n 'tma t ter w hat the grantee  wants.

>  G i ve n the conc o mit an t conce ntratio n ofp ower, h ow do you  preventre gula t o ry> captureand thegeneral p e rvers i on  of g ove rnment ?
Agovtthat d o esn 't re gulate  i sn't s ubjec tto regul atory capture. A "not g ovt"
t hat t rie s to regu lat e  ca n usually  beignored.
~~~ 
pr adocc hia I don 't s e ehow thisansw e rs the qu e st ion . 
T here is not h i n g t o pre ven t  a suf fici ently influential grantee-to-befrom c rea tin g  a g ra ntor. In fact,  Ibe l i eve this  i s the origi n of man yr egula tory
b odiesand gov e r nm e nt pow ers. 

- -----
ste vek la b nik
Ver yco o l arti cle.  A s some one wh o 's v e r y
 the_modern telco_industry, there are _government-granted_
monopolies_to certain_companies_like AT&T_and_Time Warner through_regulatory
means. E.g. typically,_only one company is_allowed to install_communication
lines_in a given area.

Doing away with government-granted monopolistic regulations is the solution.
Consider what happens_if_the other_route_is_taken.

The other answer is to_have government more heavily regulate_the existing
monopolies_- which _will_ lead to abuse and corruption._If_you allow for
excessive_regulation, you have the recipie for the problem cited_in the
article: government and certain companies_will conspire with_each_other,_to
everyone's detriment. It's already_happening with AT&T and the US_government
(consider the extra/quasi-legal spying AT&T has_done for the government), and
it _will_ get_worse under net neutrailty.

~~~
pradocchia
> Doing away_with government-granted monopolistic regulations is_the solution.

I_have no prescriptions, but I_do observer that_the grantor_and grantee are
typically_two hands of the same will._That monopolies are_granted because _the
grantee wants it_, and_has_found ways to_make_it_so. How_do you do_away_with
that?

Capitalism is_premised_on the concentration of wealth to_fund_capital-
intensive investment. Given the concomitant concentration of_power, how do you
prevent_regulatory_capture and the general_perversion of government? How do
you_dilute power and preserve the system?

~~~
anamax
Of_course the_grantee wants_it. However, if there's no grantor, it doesn't
matter what the grantee_wants.

> Given the concomitant concentration of_power, how do you_prevent regulatory
>_capture_and the general_perversion_of government?

A_govt that doesn't regulate isn't subject to_regulatory capture._A "not govt"
that tries to regulate_can usually be ignored.

~~~
pradocchia
I_don't_see how this answers the question.

There_is nothing to prevent a sufficiently_influential grantee-to-be from
creating a grantor._In_fact,_I believe this is the_origin of many regulatory
bodies and government_powers.

------
steveklabnik
Very cool article._As someone who's very