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

251–260 of 354 posts

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

#251

Post by BenjiWiebe »

nostromo wrote: post #241
ceejayoz wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.

Check out the FCC's data. Most people have multiple choices for an ISP, except for gigabit speeds. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...

My phone is about to die, but last time I checked FCC's data on ISPs in my area it was quite inaccurate, showing more and faster options than are actually available. Also it included several geo satellite options, which hardly qualify as options.

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

#252

Post by ceejayoz »

nostromo wrote: post #241
ceejayoz wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.

Check out the FCC's data. Most people have multiple choices for an ISP, except for gigabit speeds. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...

Did you link the wrong article?

Title: "50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all"

Article:

> The household analysis found a slightly better, but still troubling, situation, with nearly half of the 118 million US households lacking any wired Internet choice at the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbps.

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

#253

Post by jen20 »

exabrial wrote: post #189
bosswipe wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> _You_ _cannot_ _legislate_ _good_ _behavior_ _into_ _monopolies_ Why not? Yes, breaking up monopolies is good but that doesn't mean we can't regulate industries before the point where things get so bad that there is enough political will to break them up.

I mean, feel free to provide an example where we successfully regulated a monopoly to encourage competition and consumer choice...

BT Openreach and Local Loop Unbundling comes to mind.

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

#254

Post by omegabravo »

kanox wrote: post #236
exabrial wrote: post #177

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 his…

I don't think this is a monopoly problem as much as a collusion problem: multiple providers exist but many regions each have a single provider. If this is a deliberate agreement then it's extremely illegal. Where I live there are multiple high-quality ISPs at my building, the US should find a way to encourage multiple ISPs to be present in every single neighborhood. People who complain about "too many ugly wires" sho…

Wouldn't it make sense to share the pipes the dumb light pipes and compete on service?

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

#255

Post by zajio1am »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #220
908B64B197 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a perfect situation for coops. As long as they break-even then it's a success.

I’ve heard of communities doing this very thing, or creating city-owned ISPs, and then getting shut down as illegal due to “unfair competition” (the argument being that the government has unfair advantages vs a private company)

City-owned ISPs are unfair competition, but coops or non-gov non-profit organizations are perfectly valid approach.

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

#256

Post by dredmorbius »

exabrial wrote: post #248
dredmorbius wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry :( I come from planet markdown

Oh I ~~kinda~~ _totally_ get that.

But Markdown doesn't work here.

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

#257

Post by treis »

pottertheotter wrote: post #249
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 are a lot of municipalities doing exactly what you say and making the money back fast. But a lot of states have blocked doing this, and the incumbents fight like crazy to turn people against the idea. My favorite way of implementing it is open access. The city installs and owns the infrastructure and anyone can come be an ISP on it. You get great competition. It's basically the same as how it works with the com…

>There are a lot of municipalities doing exactly what you say and making the money back fast

Can you give us an example?

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

#258

Post by somnic »

omegabravo wrote: post #254
kanox wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a monopoly problem as much as a collusion problem: multiple providers exist but many regions each have a single provider. If this is a deliberate agreement then it's extremely illegal. Where I live there are multiple high-quality ISPs at my building, the US should find a way to encourage multiple ISPs to be present in every single neighborhood. People who complain about "too many ugly wires" sho…

Wouldn't it make sense to share the pipes the dumb light pipes and compete on service?

That's more or less how it works here in New Zealand. A private company, Chorus, has a monopoly on the network itself, and can only provide the network to other ISPs and not direct to the consumer. I kind of presume there are other regulations in place, or conditions for the $1B subsidy they got for rolling out the fibre network.

As it is, for a household to get a plan that offers download speeds of 700Mbps-900Mbps and no data caps, we're paying NZ$109, or about US$72/mo.

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

#259

Post by yftsui »

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.

I pay $89 a month for a 600Mbps Comcast. If I am ever able to download at full speed, my data cap hit within 5 hours.

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

#260

Post by yftsui »

gnopgnip wrote: post #80
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+.

Condo Internet and the other two are available in very limited apartment buildings. Century link is the only one that provide real Gigabit service to homes outside those apartment buildings. Comcast? Well you can enjoy the speed for 5 hours before hitting the data cap.
Post reply on HN