roundtable: Common carriage

roundtable: Common carriage

Common carriage

Matt York (myork@videomaker.com)
Mon, 3 Apr 1995 08:42:54 -0700 

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 08:42:54 -0700
Message-Id: <199504031542.IAA01310@video.hidden.videomaker.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
From: myork@videomaker.com (Matt York)
Subject: Common carriage


>Matt York wrote:
>> Common carriage began in Europe
>> surrounding the control of canals. A few wealthy businessmen built
>> canals between cities that made it very easy for a horse to pull
>> several tons of cargo loaded on a barge. This concept greatly reduced
>> the horse power requirements of moving goods around Europe and the
>> businessmen who built them became very powerful. They essentially were
>> in a position to "control and restrain" trade. The government stepped
>> in and created common carriage.

>Anthony Garcia wrote:
>Given this scenario, one must point out:
>These "wealthy businessmen" (a pejorative phrasing, BTW) *built*
>canals.  Said canals did not previously exist; therefore, no trade was
>being carried out via these canals; therefore, the construction of
>these canals gave the "wealthy businessmen" no means to "control and
>restrain" trade which had not previously been carried out via canal.
>
>Given that these "wealthy businessmen" were responsible for the
>creation of these canals, it stands to reason that they should charge
>as much as the market will bear for use of these canals.  Anyone who
>did not wish to pay to use a canal was (unless governments forbade it)
>quite free to continue to not use canals.


Matt replies:

I didn't intend the phrase "wealthy businessmen" to be pejorative, since 
I am one. You position is valid in most instances. The market is the best 
dictator of price which bring innovation and efficiency, most of the time. 
But you must agree, that in some instances, the market gets skewed. If I 
myself invented and patented the famous "Star Trek transporter" (with 
operating costs of a penny a mega-ton) , I would be able to transport 
goods so efficiently that I'd be in a position to control many markets. 
The long distance shipping business would be all mine. No more cargo 
ships, trains or trucks. If I went into those business sectors that 
generate the most profit(paper milling for example), I could dominate 
that sector. I could move my pulp trees from the forest for pennies and 
then I could move my paper from the plant to the customer for pennies. 
Soon the option of "not using the transporter" (canal) would become 
ludicrous, like the pony expresses is today. I'd make the railroad 
baron Frick look like a good fairy. The government would have to step 
in (and I'd resent it) and confine my business to transport only.

     This is exactly what has happened with the delivery of video. 
Cable operators have a regulated monopoly a local franchise). Soon 
mailing VHS tapes will be a non-option.


>Matt goes on to say:
>> It seems we'd have allot to gain by reflecting on similar
>> infrastructure changes that have taken place in our past and
>> applying the lessons learned.

>Anthony Garcia replys:
>Given Matt's canal scenario, I draw quite a different conclusion (new
>transport developments do not enable "coercion" of potential transport
>service customers) than he apparently does (new transport developments
>enable "coercion" of transport service customers, and must therefore
>be regulated.)

Matt replies.

Your conclusion depends largely upon how many companies will offer the
delivery of information to customers. In cable TV, currently it is one. 
In switched voice and data traffic (POTS), it is also one, so both need 
regulation. If things go well and these companies can enter both 
categories, it may work. If both industries decide that it is more 
lucrative to restrain the information trade and therefore they'll 
transport only THEIR information, then we are in trouble.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Matt York, Videomaker Inc           | internet: myork@videomaker.com
920 Main Street                     | v 916-891-8410 fax 916-891-8443 
Chico, CA 95926                     | http://www.videomaker.com

[CNI Home Page]