First problem, you're broad brushing limited monopolies and everything else covered under the legal definition of monopoly.  A monopoly is absolute control, not control on street a but not b, and only for speeds above 2megs with double digit latency.

Second problem, natural monopolies are not monopolies.  You do not have absolute control over a good or service simply because there are no competitors.  To be a monopoly, you have to prevent competition.  Control is active, not passive.  Wishful thinking that an entry bar and no takers makes a monopoly of the only competitor does not make it so.  This is why there are separate definitions for monopoly and natural monopoly.  The list of natural monopolies in this country is too long to imagine, they don't even have to monopolize the market before they are considered a natural monopoly.  Sears was a natural monopoly, Ford was a natural monopoly, Wal-mart was a natural monopoly, IBM was a natural monopoly, I could type for hours and not even have to look them up just for national scale or larger.  If you get down to individual towns, there are millions of natural monopolies that exist right now.  None of them are monopolies in function, and only some of them are monopolies in form.  The act of outcompeting the competition itself classifies them as a natural monopoly before they become the only competitor left, if they even get that far.

At which point they become a technical monopoly.  They fit the definition as the only competitor, but don't actually control the good or service because they are still beating all potential competitors that wont enter the market as a result of the superior good or service they can't match.  Natural monopolies still have to compete.

Also, note that you said regulations and barriers to entry in the same sentence.  Time-Warner can't even be a natural monopoly in any case as the government regulations created it.  Without just the federal regs, you'd have had competiting grids chewing them a new asshole over the last decade, instead of just the last few years.  With the federal regs, it was cheaper to compete with them on their own grid.

As in, Microsoft Windows?

Does it offer the highest quality with the lowest cost possible? I don't think so, but it is a virtual monopoly in any case.

With the user base of MSW, it could be a LOT cheaper while still being very profitable.

How about your local cable/internet provider? In each area it is a virtual monopoly, because there are no other choices available (or so few as to be meaningless).

Or the local power company?

But then, you said 'in a truly free market', didn't you? I guess that makes all the difference.

But, you contradict yourself. You first say "in a truly free market" it would not be a problem; then you go on to say that "If that is not the case and the market is truely free..." (but didn't you just say that 'in a free market? - indicating that the market was truly free?) ..."then competition will appear." But, in a truly free market, there will always be competition.

But there is no real competition to Windows, or the local power company, or the localized cable/internet provider, or the local garbage company, or the local water company, or the snail-mail company. They are monopolies, pure and simple.

Face it. The 'free market' is only as free as the government wishes it to be. And these days, our government is not given to 'freedom'.

At no point did we ever agree as to what a defintion of a monopoly is. Natural monopolies are monopolies, they are a different kind of monopoly. You want to just exclude natural monopolies because it's the only way your point makes any sense at all. I am including them. Natural monopolies are defined for a reason. They exist and they are in the "monopoly" family. And a natural monopoly might start off as good for society but that doesn't mean that will always be the case. You also didn't answer my question about you flip-flopping over what you are calling a monopoly, although according to your earlier arguments, they don't even exist without government regulation, and since you seem to dislike government regulation, i don't see how you consider them for the "good of soceity".

Although I thought it was obvious, I will point out that the game Monopoly was used as an example. I really don't care whether someone likes the game or not. Most people are familiar with it. If your defintition of a monopoly is as simplistic as the game Monopoly, then you are leaving out the complex definitions and examples. If you do that, then your point makes sense... but you excluding more complex economic concepts to make your point stick just proves that thet point was weak to begin with.

Lastly, in order for a monopoly to exist, there doesn't have to be the only one in business, the only one offering a product or service. Again, monopolies are more complex than the game, than the way you are using the term. Pure monopolies, natural monopolies, etc. It's not just one flavor. You are using the very basic definition for monopoly and then trying to tell me why the more complex economic defitions don't exist. Well, they do, and the cable companies fall into them.

Very interesting viewpoint on this by Bill Harris of Dubious Quality. Worth a read:

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2009/04/clash-of-titans.html

This conversation makes me yearn for the days when people had better things to do than hang out in forums.......owait <sheepish grin>

Microsoft's Windows OS is a good example, no matter how much they try and push their OS on people, they can't stamp out the competition (Linux, MacOS, etc.). Because MS has not created the perfect product for the perfect price those competators will stick around.  As soon as MS figures out how to make the perfect product and they sell it at the perfect price then MacOS and Linus will fade away (unlikely to occur).

I think you underestimate the cost of running a company like Microsoft.  While I'm not a fan of the price of their OS, I am free to switch to another OS at any time if the price bothers me enough.

These companies control their markets because of government regulations causing high barrier to entry into the market.  I'm not allowed to just setup a tower and start transmitting wireless access to my neighbors.  I'm not allowed to build a small nuclear power plant in my back yard (hell, this will likely land me in prison for trying to create a nuclear device).  I'm not allowed to run power lines over the streets without permits and paying fees.  I'm not allowed to dig a ditch to provide power/water to my neighbors from my well.  All of this is because the government owns the roads, the airwaves, etc. meaning I am not allowed to actually bootstrap a competing power/water/network to my neighbors.

Yes, it does.  There hasn't been anything close to a free market since before the great depression.  The US is far from a free market today, and in fact there are more free places in the world (though still not entirely free).

It appears you misunderstood my statement here, perhaps I could have worded it more clearly.  In "If that is not the case..." 'that' referrs to a company offering a perfect product for a perfect price.  When I said, "...and the market is truely free." I was clarifying that was still an assertion, I probably could have left it out as it was redundant, since I already stated at the begining that I was talking about a free market.  There will not necessarily be competition in a truely free market.  If one company can provide a perfect good at a perfect price then there is no reason for competition to appear.  In most cases, people get greedy which causes competition to appear but it's not necessarily the case.

And this is exactly the problem.  The US (and the rest of the world) hasn't been even close to a free market for a long time.  And governments, by nature, are not free.

I don't understand the purpose of arguing about what defines a monopoly and when and how they are created. As far as a regular user is concerned, if s/he has no alternative means to get high speed internet access in their area, the effect on them is that of a "monopoly".

Whether it's legal, illegal, virtual, real, or whatever classification of "monopoly" becomes irrelevant to the user of the service. Their only choice is to swallow whatever pricing changes their provider throws at them, or to go back to dial-up.

And even dial-up can be a monopoly in some areas. When my parents first got a computer, there was exactly ONE company offering dial-up with a local number. Sure, they *could* have gotten AOL, but the cost of continuous long distance charges made that as impractical as satellite.

Nesrie, you flat don't know what you're talking about.  The board game better describes a monopoly than your misguided views do.

I'll switch gears to something more simple, big business is apparently beyond you.  Monopolize, to assume complete control or possession of, a monopoly.  Assume your family has an apple tree.  If only one member of the family likes apples, does that person monopolize the tree by being the only one that bothers to eat the apples?  That would be considered a technical monopoly because technically, only one person is eating the apples.  It is a natural monopoly because no one else gives a shit about apples, thus the natural result is only the one person eating the apples.  It is not a monopoly because there is no control or possession taken.  The rest of the family is simply ignoring the apples that are available to them.

Time-Warner does not have a monopoly because Time-Warner does not possess or control the market.  Your limited imagination has simply failed to avail you of your options.  You could even band together with your neighbors and do it the old fashioned way, build your own damned cable network.  Your town/city already owns all the right of ways where you'd need to place the cables, the cost would be negligible considering what you're paying for crap service now.  You could float a bond to set it up, pay the bond off with the proceeds from subcriptions, and put Time-Warner out of business with your faster, cheaper service.  Although once your local politicians get their grubby hands on it, they'll inevitably fuck the hell out of it in the long run...

Moosetek, Microsoft can't even stick to just competing with their competitors.  I'm still using XP, I'll still be using XP when Windows7 comes out, at which point I'll consider the point of upgrading and perhaps reach a different conclusion than I did with Vista.  Are you using Vista?

Most of your other examples are either wrong or government sanctioned.  Even the water company wouldn't be a monopoly.  When my grandparents built their house in Anchorage, they dug a well.  When the city annexed the surrounding neighborhoods and extended the central water and power grid, they required that all the wells be filled and capped.  Without city ordinances banning them, they'd have been on well water.  A lot of people would be on well water, city water generally sucks.  Not that we could do anything about it since federal regs mandate that city water tastes like shit, but if you had two competing water companies and two sets of mains, service would be better and cheaper, and things like a line break wouldn't stop you from getting water.  You could have a simple crank that controlled which valve opened into your residential pipes and use a standard meter system to rent the other service while yours was down without even having to make a phone call.  Reality is the result of a misguided view that natural monopolies exist in perpetuity, thus should be created and regulated for the good of the people, not the only possible outcome.

Annatar, there is no place in the United States of America where there is only one option.  Satellite internet is available everywhere at this point, even Alaska, which was too far north for the first birds they put up.  A monopoly exploits, you can't exploit willing customers of a replaceable luxury service they don't have to get.  Exploitation is impossible for Time-Warner to accomplish even if you ignore the more creative methods of escaping their grasp.  Being in the position of having to actually choose an alternative to regular broadband, I have no delusions on the subject.

It would be a pointless argument if it weren't for the fact that the government may take my tax dollars and decide to spend them on either driving Time Warner bankrupt (followed by bailing them out) or subsidizing someone else downloading porn 24/7.

Oh yes. Insults. That will get your point across. Bravo. I bet you feel big now.

Just because I won't agree to your narrow definition of monopolies you think you know anything about me? Good luck with that.

Getting back on topic for just a second, check out this site for all the info on TW in Rochester and the other cities:

STOPTHECAP

Unlike most people, where political correctness has a semblance of force in their daily activities, I lack any such brainwashing.  A statement of fact is not an insult, people are free to disagree with my findings both on your posts and my view on insults.  If I find you ignorant, I state it.  You're simple minded in your view of commerce and lack the depth of knowledge even to grasp the situation.  You're slinging the term monopoly at the only competitor bothering with a specific, localized, non exclusive market on a substitute luxury good.  You're wrong.

You're also normal, the educational system in this country hasn't been worth shitting on for decades, and most of the world is a lot worse when it comes to economics.  Politics have replaced economics.  People say yay when the government goes after a natural monopoly that's not even a technical monopoly with claims that it's a coercive monopoly on the grounds that packaging software together breaks anti-trust laws when they aren't even marginally related.

If I want to insult you, I'll call you a pinko commie shit for brains idiot, since communism is what you'll end up with in the end.

I'll agree that the notion of a 'natural monopoly' is a bit of a red herring, but then so is a 'true free market.' Both concepts are completely dependent on a larger social context, usually including at least one government, and both are essentially Platonic ideals and not real-world things.

I also think that psychoak is right to do some scoffing about anyone who whines too much about pricing if their only use for broadband is entertainment or personal communication. I very much enjoy my luxuries, but I try never to let them come to feel like necessities.

Those of us who depend on broadband to get our work done, though, might have a bit of room for reasonable complaint against 'excessive' bandwidth fees, especially if we are on a tight budget and don't have the 'luxury' of being able to experiment with questionable alternatives to our local cable modem service. If my ISP started charging $1 per gig for large single file transfers, my cost of doing business would rise significantly and it would 'cost' me time and possible lost business to experiment with the satellite service, which is my only alternative due to the details of my local telephony grid (I'm in an older but non-fancy neighborhood, so no DSL for me so far).

Nope. Stupid science-worshippers trying to pretend that their work is anywhere close to being based on testable, empirical hypotheses killed the lovely old discipline of political economy by halving it into political science and economics. The stories are just nowhere near that clean, not least because they are at heart *stories* and not formulae or construction plans. So we have an Origin of Love soap opera where economics and politics try to pretend they are both The One when in fact they're sadly separated Halves.

I think what Psychoak and I are arguing is that regardless of whether or not you think the new pricing scheme is good or bad, what is wrong is expecting the government to step in and price fix or mandate how Time Warner should run it's business.  I have absolutely no problem with boycots, propaganda, slander, etc.  What I do have a problem with is my tax dollars going to ruining or running a company, as is so common these days in the US.

Let companies run themselves. If you don't like the way they are doing business then don't do business with them.  If you want more options, move to a city with more options.  No one is forcing you to live in Podunk, Kentuky where you have no options.  You should be happy someone came in to give you internet access at all.  If you *really* want to do something about it find some startup broadband provider in your area and support them, even if their prices are higher (due to economies of scale).