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

171–180 of 354 posts

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

#171

Post by wrycoder »

jcims wrote: post #165
daniellarusso wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DSL providers have already neglected their maintenance and upgrades. I was the last one in my neighborhood to be allowed 12Mbps download. All new accounts are maximum of 6Mbps. I would like to see reform in the CATV franchise laws.

Yep, got DSL at my current location in 2008 and they haven't upgraded anything since then. Very minor bump in peak bw they would configure, I'm at 15M/768k and that's as high as it goes. Network is garbage though and lots of time it's saturated upstream. $30K to run fiber to the DSLAM...if it was a fiber fed box I could probably get enough neighbors on board to swing it...but no.

I got my DSL in 2010.

1.5Mb/688Kb. No change in ten years. Also, I get dropped and reconnected every couple of days to a DSLAM channel running at 20Kb (!) down and have to reboot the modem to get back to 1.5Mb.

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

#172

Post by nobody9999 »

randyrand wrote: post #63
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…

at the same time I don't want a single government ISP controlling everything controlled by bureaucracy. 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.

>at the same time I don't want a single government ISP controlling everything controlled by bureaucracy.

Firstly, most municipal broadband networks, either built or proposed, absolutely do not include ISP services.

Rather, they provide last-mile/Fiber-to-the-premises infrastructure that comes back to an interconnection point where multiple ISPs can provide Internet access services to customers.

This actually increases competition, because ISPs don't need to pull cable to every single customer in order to provide service. They just need the appropriate back-haul capacity to service those customers who sign on with them.

This allows for more competition on price, features and customer service, not a "single government ISP."

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

#173

Post by mikepurvis »

joshAg wrote: post #130
mikepurvis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what the legal framework is around it, but Canada's monopoly network operators (Rogers for coax, Bell for copper) are I believe required to sell bulk bandwidth to MVNO-style carriers. I've been a long-time TekSavvy customer, and certainly I get way better pricing from them than I would buying equivalent service directly from Rogers. And for what it's worth, when I tracert out of my house, the ver…

There used to be something similar around telephone lines in the US, where bell had to let competitors use the lines at cost or something similar, but that way tends to lie madness because of fights over what the actual cost of maintenance of the infra is and how much of that cost should be borne by the actual owner and how much they can charge middlemen carriers (for lack of better term). It's extra sad because it d…

I don't think it necessarily has to be madness, but you do need a competent and appropriately-separate regulating body overseeing the system and setting prices/rules that are fair to all the participants.

In Canada, that body is the CRTC. I think they largely do a good job, though some of it ends up in the courts, and TekSavvy happily engages customers by bumping monthly rates up or down in response to the rule changes, and encouraging us to write our elected representatives if we like or dislike it. Examples:

https://www.teksavvy.com/in-the-news/2019-press-releases/tek...

https://www.teksavvy.com/in-the-news/2020-press-releases/tek...

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

#174

Post by 908B64B197 »

michael1999 wrote: post #139
MattGaiser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadians are unwilling to price shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlRPLBLkZK0

I used to suggest joining a credit union to people who complained about bank fees, and the first response would be that there were fewer ATMs and the branches were farther away. Canadians want premium service for free, and will do exactly nothing besides complain to get it.

Banking is another sector where they seem to make it hard for no reasons for international players to bring competition in the market place.

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

#175

Post by giobox »

908B64B197 wrote: post #4

I'm always surprised this isn't discussed more. Big tech is accused of being monopolistic, but there is a constant flow of new players in the field, all gaining market shares and building the Next Big Thing, while telecom providers are pretty stagnant. I'm curious why cities don't directly lay down the infrastructure work for broadband access. In some cases that might raise property value enough that the town could m…

There's arguably been a few instances of "no one ever got fired for picking IBM" syndrome in neighborhoods I have lived in that considered it.

When a local authority run by people with little understanding of the technology is presented with a local infrastructure bid from a not so well known group vs a glossy Comcast/AT&T/ bid etc...

I absolutely agree though. It's an antitrust problem that has caused me genuine huge cost increases in reality (Comcast mandatory 1TB data cap in Comcast only neighborhoods. not sure if this nonsense still going on), not just hypothetically.

There are ways to expose the existing networks to competition too. There are examples out there of using careful legislation to force a big monopoly player to share cable space and so on, allowing other vendors to compete on price.

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

#176

Post by neolog »

TuringNYC wrote: post #108
ineedasername wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be a constant flow of new players, but much of the time when they start to show a certain amount of success then one of the big players simply buys them up.

You phrase it as if these are hostile takeovers. Having been a founder, I can state that most of my peers wanted acquisitions. It was a way to finance the vision and growth. Would YouTube, Instagram, or dozens of other companies have been able to get where they are w/o the support of their acquirers? Just think of the burn alone and the required investment is a scary figure.

> my peers wanted acquisitions

Yeah but the users didn't want them to get acquired, end their "incredible journey" and delete the users' data.

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

#177

Post by exabrial »

The problem is the proposed solutions really just entrench existing providers, specifically net neutrality policies: They legalize monopolies as long as they're "following the rules!"

_You_ _cannot_ _legislate_ _good_ _behavior_ _into_ _monopolies_. So while I appreciate the spirit of Net Neutrality rules, the solution is fundamentally flawed.

Let's say you want to open an ISP in your neighborhood. Based on their history (When Google Fiber moved into my area), Comcast will call their existing customer base and offer them services below cost but at the price of a 3year contract. This delays profitability for you as a new player into the space. Comcast can take money from one market (another state) and move the profits into subsidizing a loss to prevent players from entering the space in another market. By breaking this cash flow, you end the stagnation of consumer choice, driving innovation forward.

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

#178

Post by swiley »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #26

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-…

>effectively-unlimited

I mean, that's what everyone in the US has.

I've heard enough stories of people in SE Asia having to pay by the megabyte to know that it's not the same everywhere.

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

#179

Post by ceejayoz »

nostromo wrote: post #149
ceejayoz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for soci…

The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs, so do you think they should be able to block any websites they like - just like Twitter? Hey, it’s their platform... don’t like it, go somewhere else. And every American has a choice in cellphone service providers - so they can block journalist they don’t favor too. What could possibly go wrong?

> The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs...

Not really, no.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates...

> The major takeaway of this report, which provides policymakers in D.C. and the states a wide-ranging view of available data to see trends in the Internet, is that competition for broadband only looks good at slow speeds while a vast majority of Americans (EFF estimates at least 68 million) are facing monopoly or no access to high-speed broadband.

> Instead, in a handful of markets we have reviewed, we find that the average price consumers pay ranges from 200% to 400% above competitive rates and that cable prices are established surgical precision in order to extract monopoly rents. For example, I myself would have to pay $159.95 for a gigabit service whereas my coworkers would pay $40 for a superior product.

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

#180

Post by teorema »

speeder wrote: post #18

Telecom is... too nasty to touch to be honest. Brazil tried it, we had a state company that had a monopoly of telecom, we broke it up intentionally in many tiny parts and sold them. Results were basically this: 1. A bunch ended eventually merging, often with help of blatant corruption (for example one such merger was first denied, then approved again after the son of the president "sold" to a telecom company, his gam…

I posted this essay I wrote in the spring:

https://write.as/ccgaoox9alf3hbv4.md

I think the key is to not necessarily have state-run ISPs completely OR private-run ISPs completely. Something like the courier/delivery market where there's access to multiple providers is key.

Any kind of local monopoly is bad.

The other elephant in the room is the right-of-way that's granted to these telecom companies over private and public land. In exchange for what?

Lots of room here for lots of progress.

Post reply on HN