Free Market Polices Verizon

See?  If we leave big corporations to themselves, and keep government out of it, the market steps into correct their bad behavior (Slashdot):

Alexander Graham Cracker writes “Starting last spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service. We discussed the issue here a couple of times. In my experience, every time Verizon has installed FiOS at a friend’s house, they have insisted they have to cut off the copper and move the POTS to the fiber. By doing so, they block anyone else such as COVAD or Cavalier from renting the copper for competitive access. Sources report that today, at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Verizon executive VP Thomas Tauke denied ever doing that. (The transcript should be up in a day or so. The AP coverage does not mention this detail.) I wonder if Rep. Markey’s staff is interested in hearing from people who experienced Verizon disabling copper, and without notice?”

Oh shit, I meant, the guvmint stepped in.  But if they hadn’t?  The invisible hand totally would have.  Go Ron Paul!


10 Responses

  1. Government no more prevented this than the free market did (which does not exist in the United States by the way, nor has it ever fully existed here). Nor could it. The free market advocate has never proclaimed that criminal behavior will be eradicated from the world with a free market society.

    Why is it that every transgression against property is viewed as only being able to be resolved or prevented by government? Do you assume that courts and arbitration, or security and protection, are exclusive to government? That ONLY a government can provide those services for when crimes are committed against ones property or liberty?

  2. No what he is proposing is that goverment is one way of dealing with this. Another way could be pressure by consumers, etc.

    Also property rights are rather limited in reality, since the “sovereign” reserves the right to limit those rights (the infamous “bundle of sticks”). As the Constitution says, “without just compensation” it does not say, never….

  3. Rafael:

    Pressure from consumers IS a free market solution.

    Your second statement puzzles me
    Are you saying that property rights are violated by the government in reality, but the constitution protects them?

  4. Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the free market model allow for consumers to voice their disapproval by not purchasing the product? Hence the monopoly being unlawful where as you can purchase from the other guy? Monopolies exist and are not acknowledged or prosecuted by the governing body due to payoffs and kickbacks.
    The difference between unlawful and illegal these days is that illegal is a sick bird… 🙂 …

  5. No it means that property rights are not what you think they are. In fact property rights are not actually attached to “ownership” but can be delineated as factors of control, from who has the most control (or claim) to least. The “sovereign” has the highest form of control (or claim) as they can take your property at any time (and thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, for any reason), the only thing the goverment (the State/sovereign) has to do is give just compensation, which is ultimately determined by said goverment.

    So in a way, you really don’t own anything, except that you can only make a superior claim against other private parties, but if the goverment wants your stuff, consider it theirs by default. I don’t like it, but thats the way it is.

    As for the “free market model” it is restricted by the consumers leverage and buying power. If something becomes an industry standard (such as paying penalty if you choose to break with your cell phone service provider), there is no competition to go to. However a citizen can petition his goverment for redress (through laws or the courts). In other words, the so called “free market” sounds like a dandy idea, but in reality, it is the least likely solution, if its a solution that is available at all.

  6. So you’re saying that if I want to avoid a prepayment penalty that I can’t because the government didn’t restrict it?

  7. Or someone has not sued, either way, if it becomes an industry standard, the so called “market forces” work against the needs of the consumers (who are, after all the supporters of said market). So what other recourses do you have but to summit and obey?

  8. I think Rafael summed up the problem with “The Free Market solves everything” argument perfectly:

    As for the “free market model” it is restricted by the consumers leverage and buying power.

    That’s it clear as day. So yes consumers can not purchase the product in theory. But in practice other factors weigh in that reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of that approach.

    And of course sometime the government itself through bad regulation, creates the environment in which the market cannot correct naturally. But the market itself will also create that same environment. The way to think about it is not market vs government, but concentrated power period. Power is what regulates and moves. Sometimes it is a corporation, sometimes it is a government, sometimes a consumer group. Only very rarely is it the consumer.

    With regards to Darrin’s comment about the government having no role, in the article and summary, it notes that Representatives are investigating this.

  9. Well I can only hope that there must be some law or regulation that is being violated by the cell phone policy of early termination fees. This would be one example of government intervening that I would approve.
    Fine print monopoly???

  10. No regulation that I know of, but many courts have accepted attacks on such fine print (if that is the case) on “consumer protection” theories.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: