Chief cable lobbyist: data caps were never about network congestion, always about profit

[bwv812]

@Dave_Baxter

Because you’re the only one who believes your sources make a difference or are in some way definitive, or “better” than no sources because throwing links at other people to comb through is somehow a better argument than combing through it yourself and simply relaying the pertinent information.

OK. I’ll just make allegations without any attempt to support them, because that’s just as persuasive.[quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:43, topic:17112”]
Technically, I don’t think there’s a market failure in Europe with broadband, because I don’t believe the government assistance is driving prices down artificially, this is an assumption on your part (and everyone else who is arguing that this must be the reason prices are lower, because that what our telecos are claiming).
[/quote]
Is the government assistance driving down the price at all? What is your definition of whether the price drops would be artificial? And just because you believe government incentives affect industry and prices doesn’t mean you are in the pockets of a lobbyist or something.

@Dave_Baxter

While economics suggests that subsidies and tax breaks CAN artificially affect price, we haven’t seen any affect at all in over a decade.

In terms of $/bandwidth there most certainly has been a huge decrease in price.

@Dave_Baxter

There’s plenty of data if you look for it, I’m not the linkbait believer that you are. Here’s a few however:State-by-state initiatives on broadband investments and corporate welfare.

Only contains specific dollar figures for a few programs in a few states, and does not say how much is spent by telcos on infrastructure: it’s impossible to tell how much they offset each other.

@Dave_Baxter

Study from the New Jersey state about how they invested to cover the whole state and how Bell Atlantic didn’t spend any of the money on the infrastructure they claimed (this was back in the 90’s).

An adversarial legal brief concerning a 20-year-old dispute about one specific telecom isn’t the most persuasive thing I’ve ever seen.

It’s interesting how most academic publishing, from wikipedia to science journals, strongly believes in supporting their claims. Those damn linkbaiters!

@Dave_Baxter

If government DIDN’T build roads, yes, shipping would likely be more costly. But the price does not become artificially high if government isn’t building the roads, or artificially low if government isn’t. The natural price will properly reflect what the actual costs are.

Government investment is part of the cost. Are roads free because it’s the government that builds them? Is school free because the government provides it?

I still have no idea why you think that gravitation towards natural prices is inevitable under actual market conditions.