61–70 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
This is the result of government corruption. For example: the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars (!) to create a nationwide fiber network, and the ISPs pocketed the money and didn't do it. No investigation into what happened or anything. The money is just gone. Clearly corruption is the only explanation. Politicians have been bought. Why voters don't know/care is another issue, but it might have something to d…
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…
At least today we have hundreds of small ISP companies, and at least a few big ones.
Every time I move I consider who my ISP will be.
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…
> 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. It's only "cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region" because of build-out requirements which are broadly supported by Dem…
Step 1: create conditions that prevent capitalism from solving a problem. Step 2: declare that capitalism has failed and call for government solutions.
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 ?
These are private companies. But since they're considered natural monopolies, they are more highly regulated than a typical company.
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…
>physical networks are a natural monopoly in the same way as most public utilities But ISPs are not, generally speaking, a monopoly. There's usually at least two wired options and they compete with cellular and satellite options. Profit margins generally reflect this. The large ISPs are around the average for the S&P 500.
Per https://www.fcc.gov/internet-access-services-reports approximately only about 25% of census blocks have two or more providers for wired internet. Often within a census block most households will only have one option.
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…
A new set of PG&E leadership settled in -- bean counters and control-focused policy. The old engineers, for good reason, considered their "job well done" and went to play golf or whatever. The new management hid money, played hardball with sub-sub-contractors, and told old people on pensions to pay up, as business people tend to do..
source: attorney from the time of the Enron price crisis in California
This is such a weird thing. After spending time in SE Asia, where bandwidth is cheap and plentiful (in the cities), it's painful coming back to Europe (and Australia). I'm in Berlin atm, and the wifi is shit, bandwidth is expensive and unreliable. And the phone plans suck. I was in Perth (Australia) before that, and access there is terrible. In Cambodia, 120Gb (per week) of download cost me US$1 (per week) over good-…
I think what's happened is in many or some European countries there was a rush to increase Broadband adoption and speeds, where being the first mover left them with now outdated backbone infrastructure. Those who moved later, more gradually, or chose a more future proof backbone network benefited. The sunk cost and possibly inflexibility of the network to upgrades holds back the push for better speeds. If the service is good enough, the push from consumers for more is lessened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if it's a natural monopoly, then it should be public. Roads aren't private right ?
I'd compare it to utilities like PG&E or ConEd. These are private companies. But since they're considered natural monopolies, they are more highly regulated than a typical company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>physical networks are a natural monopoly in the same way as most public utilities But ISPs are not, generally speaking, a monopoly. There's usually at least two wired options and they compete with cellular and satellite options. Profit margins generally reflect this. The large ISPs are around the average for the S&P 500.
>There's usually at least two wired options Per https://www.fcc.gov/internet-access-services-reports approximately only about 25% of census blocks have two or more providers for wired internet. Often within a census block most households will only have one option.