While it is a clear "win for property rights", when their property is delivering you, the subscriber, to a "free market", they should only be able to charge you for delivery, not say "I'll let you in the free market, but you can only browse certain stores or for certain periods of time, etc."
That is ludicrous.
Could you imagine flying USAIR to a city and when getting to the airport you were under USAIR's restrictions in that city?
Sounds like a crazy analogy until you really think about it.
Wouldn't then there be a market created where you weren't locked into these restrictions?
In addition, how long will these cable monopolies last when we'll be able to erect wireless towers and get internet that way, completely superseding cable carriers?
Comments
While it is a clear "win for property rights", when their property is delivering you, the subscriber, to a "free market", they should only be able to charge you for delivery, not say "I'll let you in the free market, but you can only browse certain stores or for certain periods of time, etc."
That is ludicrous.
Could you imagine flying USAIR to a city and when getting to the airport you were under USAIR's restrictions in that city?
Sounds like a crazy analogy until you really think about it.
Wouldn't then there be a market created where you weren't locked into these restrictions?
In addition, how long will these cable monopolies last when we'll be able to erect wireless towers and get internet that way, completely superseding cable carriers?
Towers are also a limited resource. Not every spot is suitable, and there's a lot of "not in my backyard" bargaining.