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

71–80 of 354 posts

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

#71

Post by polynomial »

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 ?

Some are.

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

#72

Post by magicalist »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #44

Actually, everyone is talking about this: Big Tech has been beating this drum for years, and paying everyone else to talk about it. The source of this article, Conde Nast, has an incredibly close partnership with Google, and this whataboutism has no real place here. This entire article is tech companies' public policy teams screaming "please look somewhere else!" Meanwhile, Big Tech is vastly larger, vastly more prof…

Conde Nast's parent company is a part-owner of Charter Communications, which bought Time Warner Cable to become the second biggest US ISP. That fact is listed in a disclaimer on all the articles Ars Technica writes about what a scummy monopolist Charter is[1]

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=charter+communications+site%3Aarst...

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

#74

Post by x87678r »

I'm not convinced Comcast is ripping off everyone as much as everyone says. USA is a big country and its expensive to wire everyone up. Lots of companies around have tried including Google who basically decided its easier to do make money from ads and self driving cars rather than wiring up neighborhoods and dealing with local regulations.

The ISPs and cell networks actually do the hard and expensive work of installing hardware, while FANG companies make most of the profits on the back of it.

Would you rather own shares in Google/FB/Amazon or Comcast/Verizon/ATT?

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

#75

Post by treis »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #48
treis wrote: post #23

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.

Low latency, low packet loss, high upload and download bandwidth, unmetered internet service is certainly a monopoly. None of this is possible with wireless. You're lucky if you live in a place with symmetric gigabit fiber service. There's only one provider. And quite frankly, there's no need to string multiple fibers to every house. Everyone else has a subpar coaxial connection from Comcast/Cox/Spectrum.

If you segment any market enough eventually you end up with a monopoly. And your segment is unreasonable. Very very few people need symmetric gigabit fiber. Using that as the criteria is like saying Lamborghini has a monopoly on cars because they're the only one that makes one that goes 200 mph.

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

#76

Post by thotsBgone »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #27
thotsBgone wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s really down to the simple fact that most people aren’t aware. And those that are feel powerless to do anything about it; “It’s been this way for so long, it’s part of how life is now.” (see also: the NSA spying complex) Not to mention that ISP monopolies aren’t near the top of people’s “policy priority list”(TM) (contrast with, say, abortion), so even if a politician were to campaign to fix the problem, most peo…

Most people aren't aware... why?

I'd guess because the media is controlled by some of the same people who want us to remain unaware. They block information from reaching the media, and flood media with sensationalist stories to prevent attention from settling on issues that matter.

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

#77

Post by marcus_holmes »

dantheman wrote: post #43
marcus_holmes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope Starlink lives up to the hype. But if it does, how do we stop it becoming a monopoly? We don't need and can't have multiple rival fleets of satellites up there. But if it's just Starlink then how do we stop it charging more and more for less and less because no-one else is threatening it? If it works, should the UN step in and take over the network as a service to all of humanity?

I wouldn't want the UN touching anything I ever might want to use/rely on.

Well, who then? IEEE? W3C? someone like that?

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

#78

Post by marcus_holmes »

Robotbeat wrote: post #36
marcus_holmes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope Starlink lives up to the hype. But if it does, how do we stop it becoming a monopoly? We don't need and can't have multiple rival fleets of satellites up there. But if it's just Starlink then how do we stop it charging more and more for less and less because no-one else is threatening it? If it works, should the UN step in and take over the network as a service to all of humanity?

We do need and can have multiple fleets up there. OneWeb has already launched a bunch of satellites, and there is enough room up there for several more, particularly as operators get better at safely operating them.

I would agree, but I've seen the mess that e-scooter organisations have made of this. The city is littered with e-scooters whose name changes every few months. If the business plan doesn't work out, who cleans up the satellites?

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

#79

Post by techsupporter »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #10
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…

Local Loop Unbundling works fine in the UK

And worked pretty well[0] for the seven or so glorious years we had it in the United States before the Bush FCC ended it.

0 - Yes, I know, it wasn't perfect or even "great" most of the time but that was largely because the incumbent carriers dragging their feet on doing literally anything and the FCC not enforcing the competition rules. And when, largely out of spite, the copper-based incumbents simply didn't do anything to upgrade their networks while the not-at-all-regulated cable companies blew past them in speed and reliability, people switched in droves which gave the incumbent phone companies even more reason to throw up their hands and say "not worth it."

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

#80

Post by gnopgnip »

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.

There are at least 5 ISPs that offer gigabit service in Seattle. Wave is as low as $50. Atlas is $59. Century link is $65 as a promotional period. Google Fiber is $70, Comcast is $100+.
Post reply on HN