<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 21/05/12 01:41, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa,
and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the
population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these
companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
[Milton L Mueller] Well, that's a very important distinction. How you define a market very strongly affects what level of competition is found to exist in it. But of course it is true that there are localized monopolies. I am surprised by Guru's conclusion (below, in response) that the answer to local monopolies is global regulation of business. </pre>
</blockquote>
I did not say that. There are local and global monopolies and we
need local and global regulation ... the nature/extent etc of each
is a matter of specifics and requires analyses of the concerned
markets. You also need to read Angela Daly's and Jeremy's mails for
their views on how in the digital space, concentration of power has
several other aspects which traditional competition law is unable to
address. <br>
<br>
I was asking Avri how she would implement her 'all actors are equal'
in policy making, which she is insistent to apply to global policy
making, at her national level... and if it would not work at
national level, how could she expect it to work at a global level. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Let me try to concretize for Guru what this means. Let's say there is a cartel or monopoly of some kind over telecom equipment production for the international market in an Indian state. That monopoly - if indeed it has monopoly power - is likely to be politically popular and politically protected locally. (Need I remind you of the controversy over allowing multinational retailers into India's cartelized local scene?) That is, the monopoly profits that are being made can easily be directed to local politicians, may create higher than market wages for the local workers and higher local tax revenues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Cartelized local scene in India ??? you are moving even further away
from reality than you began <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-)
</span></span><br>
<br>
The India retail sector today is the second biggest employer (after
agriculture) and is overwhelmingly made of small shops. The entry of
Walmart will simply decimate this group, as it has succesfully done
in some countries ... neo-liberal economics is good at manufacturing
poverty.... Faoud made some thought provoking points regarding the
local-global connections and power inequalities wrt Internet as
well...<br>
..<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the consumers of these services, who pay too much, are diffused all over the world, and the suppliers/beneficiaries of market power are concentrated locally, then yes, it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly.
So, we need global institutions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Do you realise that your point that <b> 'it is unlikely that local
political and regulatory institutions will respond properly",
applies <u>first and foremost</u> to US defacto global policy
making, </b>based on its local political and economic priorities,
which are harmful to the interests of developing countries...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We do have institutions for global regulation of business now. One of them is called the World Trade Organization, which tries to prevent national governments from discriminating against foreign entrants. But somehow, I get the feeling that the WTO is not too popular among the economic populists calling for global regulation of Internet businesses. But, maybe I am wrong, perhaps Parminder has discovered (belatedly) the virtues of neoliberal economic policies and is seeking to expand these benefits to the Internet domain.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Again reality is far more nuanced and complex Milton... global
institutions are needed to replace current uni-polar domination...
and then they need to be democratic - two issues which you are
collapsing into one<br>
</body>
</html>