Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 354 posts

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#51

Post by lotsofpulp »

MivLives wrote: post #45
commandlinefan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for the most part, it doesn't matter how much money you have to spend on it. If I were inclined to offer twice as much for double the bandwidth, that's just not an option. (Not that I feel like I'm getting the bandwidth I pay for in the first place...)

The worst is the highly one directional connections too. Sure I have a gig down. I have 25mbps up though. The upload is the same for every package from 300mbps down and above. I'd happily have less download for more upload.

That's because they don't actually have capacity. The internet coming via coaxial cables is sharing the road with TV service. TV service earns Comcast/Spectrum/Cox/etc more money than internet service, so they don't necessarily want people to consume via internet yet (at least not until they own the media companies like Comcast).

So they probably only have a tiny amount of bandwidth available for an entire neighborhood, and then they sell you 100s of Mb in download, except that if you read the fine print, it's only burst speeds, so it's not like you get 300Mbps sustained download bandwidth. It's just a temporary boost while they take it from others in the neighborhood. And the upload, who knows how little is allocated for that, they don't even bother advertising upload bandwidth.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#52

Post by CyberDildonics »

briandear wrote: post #39
muststopmyths wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only baffling if you didn't bother to read the party platforms. The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly. At least in the current landscape where it's cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region. Also (emphasis mine), > Democrats will restore the Federal Commun…

> removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition Municipal broadband is the only way you’ll get competition? A “public option” seems to invite the very opposite of competition. Less regulation is how you increase competition — by allowing more new entrants into a market, you necessarily increase competition. Municipalities should own the wire, not the servic…

Municipal broadband has been stopped predominantly by long term exclusivity contracts that were locked in by local politicians in the past.

How would another option decrease competition? In what world does that make sense? This isn't without precedent. In markets where there are municipal broadband or increased competition in general, companies like AT&T immediately up their speeds, cut their prices, cut their contract lengths, etc.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#53

Post by milkytron »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #21
burlesona wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good question, but I think one of the issues is that physical networks are a natural monopoly in the same way as most public utilities, so it's not just about enabling more competition but about establishing a regulatory framework around that competition, much like exists with airports and railways. OR, alternatively, changing to a public sector provision model like plumbing or roads. What actually bothers me…

I mean, if it's a natural monopoly, then it should be public. Roads aren't private right ?

Not all roads are public. Many toll roads are actually privately owned by the toll company.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#54

Post by baq »

Robotbeat wrote: post #33
mattferderer wrote: post #20

I am curious how Starlink will change this conversation one way or another. It adds another competitor to the mix. Could it become the monopoly if the tech were to make current ISP tech obsolete or to expensive for most areas? If it became the better method, does that mean our skies will soon be even more polluted with satellites by exponential factors?

It is odd that Starlink isn’t mentioned in the article. Starlink has impressive speed and latency and the potential to compete to some degree in every market in the US. Twitter angst aside (some of which is fair but much seems to be either dishonest or ignorant, even by those who should definitely know better), SpaceX has also done a remarkably good job of addressing the light pollution problem such that the satellit…

starlink cannot compete in densely populated area because the sats have comparatively (to dsl, fiber, etc.) limited total bandwidth to spare, just like any other shared medium. musk himself was very open about this. starlink is a game changer where the last mile is prohibitively expensive i.e. sparse/rural areas a few dozen miles away from population centers.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#55

Post by joshAg »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Seriously, I feel like I say it every time it comes up: WHY aren't people taking action against ISP monopolies? It seems like such a cut-and-dried political issue: they're utilities and they overcharge you whether you're a Republican or Democrat. And taking action doesn't require new antitrust concepts, because it's just your garden-variety utility. It's the same established principles as electric or natural gas. Yet…

Because america is so anti-socialist. No, seriously. And it's the same reason why PG&E does such a shit job of maintaining their infrastructure, too.

Letting anyone tear up the street to run their own wires whenever they want isn't feasible. From a competitor perspective,that's super expensive and a massive capital investment, so any preexisting competitor with a large enough warchest could just lower their competing prices to drive the new competitor out of business. But from a municipal or society perspective, cable right of ways/culverts are already a constrained resource, and installation disrupts traffic and residents. So basically that last mile infrastructure is a great example of a natural monopoly.

If it wasn't such a natural monopoly, a market could be a great solution for increasing ISP quality, but since it is a natural monopoly, market based solutions fall flat due to lack of competition.

This is where the socialism bit comes in. If america were less anti-socialist, it would treat the last mile of wires like it treats public roads. It doesn't solve the natural monopoly issue, but it does solve the issue that ISP users have no means by which to get the ISP to improve service. Unlike, a private ISP whose only constituents are the shareholders, a governments constituents are the people being governed, so if they want a better ISP, they can vote for improving it through bonds or taxes or however they want to finance it. But that's socialist and america hates socialism, so instead state governments pass anti-municipal-ISP laws and/or municipal governments grant multi-decade-exclusive service contracts in exchange for the ISP deigning to maintain the infrastructure or promising to marginally improve it (but of course at a rate that never threatens their quarterly numbers).

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#56

Post by pydry »

avmich wrote: post #14
rapsey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only baffling if you believe the system works. It is entirely unsurprising if you believe that those monopolies are too rich and powerful to be attacked by politicians.

So the question becomes then why people believe so much this - "that those monopolies are too rich and powerful to be attacked by politicians" - to not act, while they, the same people, don't seem to have similar beliefs in other issues.

Usually because it's also in the interests of a powerful group who piggybacks off popular support for an issue for their own purposes.

Net neutrality was a good example of this - still good despite not being the most important issue du jour. Received attention because it's coincidentally in the interests of Google et al.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#57

Post by lotsofpulp »

redisman wrote: post #5

It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection for $59/mo. I won't even get to mobile plans since at least there it's somewhat plausible that I must subside the rural cellphone towers since it's a huge (in area) network.

>It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection for $59/mo.

There isn't sufficient voter interest to force politicians to go after the existing cable company monopolies and overturn laws preventing government owned fiber networks. And there isn't sufficient voter interest in spending taxpayer funds to build out government owned fiber networks.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#58

Post by jrochkind1 »

I live in a medium-large city, and have only ONE choice for broadband.

Comcast.

They don't make their pricing super public, but you can enter a zipcode and say you're a new customer to see it. Their prices are significantly higher here than they are in regions with competition from FiOS etc.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#59

Post by sumtechguy »

furyofantares wrote: post #19
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Seriously, I feel like I say it every time it comes up: WHY aren't people taking action against ISP monopolies? It seems like such a cut-and-dried political issue: they're utilities and they overcharge you whether you're a Republican or Democrat. And taking action doesn't require new antitrust concepts, because it's just your garden-variety utility. It's the same established principles as electric or natural gas. Yet…

> Yet bizarrely this doesn't show up as an issue on Republican or Democrat platforms. The cynic in me says that it's because it helps neither win against the other.

watching them flip positions in realtime was quite interesting too. neither group cares because of what you say, and money, but mostly money. i became 100% convinced neither side really cared other than how much ended up as campaign contributions. all of the large cities at this point should have amazing internet. instead many dont or only small pockets of it. one side tells me how too many of them would make our roads a potmarked hellscape. the other tells me how they are being downtroden upon and throttled yet find new and inventive ways to spy on me. I am beginning to think it is time to declare shenanigans.

Re: A tech antitrust problem no one is talking about: US broadband providers

#60

Post by srtjstjsj »

briandear wrote: post #32
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Seriously, I feel like I say it every time it comes up: WHY aren't people taking action against ISP monopolies? It seems like such a cut-and-dried political issue: they're utilities and they overcharge you whether you're a Republican or Democrat. And taking action doesn't require new antitrust concepts, because it's just your garden-variety utility. It's the same established principles as electric or natural gas. Yet…

Are we overpaying? I pay less in the US for fiber Internet than I paid in France for DSL. Can “overpaying” be quantified?

Wikipedia says "Bouygues Telecom lowered the first price of standard triple-play offers to €20 in February 2015."

Which is half the basic US DSL price

Post reply on HN