That's not how natural monopolies work. It's naturally a monopoly, not because of any outside forces. It would not be efficient or likely profitable to have a bunch of competitors laying their own infrastructure for last mile internet service. The infrastructure is not going to be a competitive market. It should be closely regulated, if not publicly owned, with competition at the service level.
Maybe a start up could partner with an electrical company to refine a some sort of ethernet over power wan
Never say never, but more than one have already tried and it didn't get anywhere.
Also a truly free market abhors monopolies and they are not sustainable and tend to break apart without regulations creating barriers of entry.
If you're saying that a market free of regulation tends to break up monopolies and result in vigorous competition, you have it exactly backwards. Over time, markets tend toward consolidation and oligopoly if not regulated.
It doesn't really matter unless Lorillard's trademark applies for the business of bars, nightclubs, etc. I'm not certain this is the right one but all the ones I could find that look even close are just for cigarettes.
For 1 and 3, probably because it was operated by people who don't know a great deal about computers. It wouldn't occur to most people to turn off wifi or automatic updates. Many wouldn't even know how.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that blu might branch into lounge/nightclub/alehouse/etc. sphere.
Trademarks are granted for a specific set of industries or business types. If Lorillard didn't get a Blu trademark for lounges/nightclubs/bars, they should not be able to complain to the judge that they might want to do so in the future.
File sharers often cue up multiple simultaneous downloads concurrently.
But they don't need 5Mbps for each one (I think HD video is something around there). I don't know that much about P2P programs, and maybe they generally make a best effort to saturate the connection if that makes the download faster, but that could be throttled anywhere along the route without major degradation of the usefulness of the application:
- downloading peer software/computer/router - home ISP - any ISP/interconnect peer in the middle - seeding user's ISP/router/computer/P2P software
That's all theoretical, but for whatever reason bittorrent is way behind Netflix in aggregate (up and down) traffic, and accounts for less than 3% of downstream. I don't know how much of that is because of the way the technologies work and how much is due to the number of people using them, but either way bittorrent (which I assume is the bulk of p2p traffic) is not a particularly large part of downstream traffic. It is, however, at the top of upstream usage, which is not surprising.
People get the games patched for modern systems, Night Dive gets to keep 100% of the profits from selling the patch and there's not a damn thing that any of the companies can do about it, since selling a patch/installer for a copyrighted piece of software isn't illegal.
That would not prevent one of these companies from suing them and costing them more money than they made from the patch, even if Night Dive eventually won the suit. It's just not worth the risk unless you can get some kind of agreement ahead of time. This is one way the intersection of the US civil court and copyright systems leads to messed up results.
Any time you apply any regulation to a market, it's going to distort the market.
In a tautological sense, yes. But good regulation improves competition, information balance, etc. Leaving markets entirely to themselves doesn't turn out well - and it often doesn't turn out to be a free market.
Making a bunch of rules about what ISPs can and can't do is one way to work towards that goal, but I'm really not convinced it's the best way.
No, it isn't the best way, but the best way isn't available right now, so we need to do other things. This is one of the things that is necessary IMO in lieu of the ideal solution.