Re: Monopolies

[aaa@netcom.com]

The monopolies that have been around throughlut history have only existed
because the government helped them to do so.  Microsoft and de beers are
exceptions.  andy

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Keith Rowley wrote:

> That presumes that the monopoly is "franchised" and not "natural." 
> While, admittedly, most monopolies -- at least the ones we're familiar
> with (e.g., public utilities, the maker of Prilosec) -- hold their
> monopoloy power, at least in part, due to a governmental grant (e.g.,
> exclusive franchise, patent), many monopolies historically arose due to
> superior technology or other efficiencies combined with the nature of
> the market for their goods or services.
> 
> Keith A. Rowley
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
> Mississippi College School of Law
> 151 E. Griffith St.
> Jackson, MS 39201
> Tel: (601) 925-7157
> Fax: (601) 925-7113
> E-mail: rowley@mc.edu
> 
> >>> Joe Shea <joeshea@cal.net> 08/02 4:31 PM >>>
> 
> 	Charles, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that monopoly is
> by
> grant, i.e., of the government?  A monopoly created by a municipality
> is
> a 100 percent market share.  In Los Angeles, by the way, there are
> four
> cable companies in addition to the three now owned by AT&T, but to
> your
> point, AT&T's market share for high speed cable access could reach 80
> percent under the Information Technology Agency's proposal.  That is
> because there are some 14 cable service areas and each has a monopoly
> provider, making market share a suspect measurement of monopoly.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Joe Shea
> 
> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, charles carbone wrote:
> 
> > Audrie -
> > 
> > Monopoly is not by the number of competitors, it is by market
> share!!!!
> > 
> > Charles C.
> > 
> > Audrie Krause wrote:
> > 
> > > Lewis,
> > >
> > > According to the SF Chronicle, AT&T has two competitors laying
> fiber in SF
> > > in order to offer cable Internet access.  Since I'm neither a
> lawyer nor an
> > > economist, I'm not an expert in monopolies.  But it seems to me
> that if
> > > there are three companies providing the same service, one of them
> can't be
> > > a monopoly.  And, as Joe Shea points out, there is also DSL and
> wireless.
> > > In SF, SBC/PacBell has at least two competitors already selling DSL
> to
> > > consumers.  So there, too, consumers have choices.
> > >
> > > Oh, and it is *not* my position that broadband access should be
> sold only
> > > by local monopolies.  Those are  your words, not mine.
> > >
> > > Audrie Krause
> > >
> > > >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:31:45 -0700
> > > >From: "Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>
> > > >To: antitrust@essential.org 
> > > >Subject: Re: M$ Monitor: Why You Haven't Heard From Us
> > > >Message-ID: <37A065D1.4E3FF3B9@lamlaw.com>
> > > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > >
> > > >Audrie,
> > > >
> > > >Your stand on suggesting that broadband access should be sold only
> by
> > > >local monopolies is short sighted.
> > > >
> > > >Consumers simply do not want to be limited to only two choices for
> high
> > > >speed internet access (i.e. the local cable monopoly and DSL). 
> That is
> > > >a ridiculous suggestion.
> > > >
> > > >Right now consumers have a choice of 3 or 4 or more ISPs who can
> provide
> > > >comparable service.
> > > >
> > > >Your stand would cut that down to perhaps one or two based upon
> who owns
> > > >the wires.
> > > >
> > > >That solution will never serve consumers.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Audrie Krause  <<NetAction>>  E-MAIL: audrie@netaction.org 
> > > 601 Van Ness Ave., No. 631    San Francisco, CA 94102
> > > TELEPHONE: (415) 775-8674     FAX: (415) 673-3813
> > > * * *       WEB: http://www.netaction.org      * * *
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>