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

291–300 of 354 posts

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

#291

Post by aidenn0 »

mastazi wrote: post #239

As a non-American, the first time I heard about the situation with broadband monopolies in the US, it was hard for me to believe! Apparently in huge parts of the country you can only choose one single provider? Is that true just in "regional areas" or in suburbs and urban areas too? Are there stats about how much of the population has no choice? Edit: the article gives numbers in terms of how many people have access…

If DSL counts as broadband, then it's about 1/4 the population, if DSL does not count as broadband then it's about 80% of the population.

Note that the FCC numbers linked elsewhere are optimistic because of their coarse granularity; if there is a single household with two options in a census region, then all of the population is counted as having it.

There's obviously the issues with suburban and rural housing, where density is insufficient for two last-mile solutions (and all local-loop unbundling regulations were so successful in the late 90s that the telecom companies lobbied them out of existence).

Something less talked about are the urban apartments where you can only get broadband from the company that contracts with your landlord. If someone that doesn't use the broadband can pick which broadband you use from several options, does that count as competition?

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

#292

Post by aidenn0 »

mastazi wrote: post #280
pkaye wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This the FCC statistics on broadband availability. https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-comparison?version=jun20...

Thank you! this is what I was looking for!

Don't forget to click the little "gear" icon and uncheck "Satelite" from the options; you see 90%+ with two or more 25/3 options because there are two satelite providers that meet this bar.

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

#294

Post by cyberdrunk »

sneak wrote: post #226
jandrese wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My water company is pretty well behaved. Sewer too. Trash pickup is without headaches although I don't know the cost. Even my power company is ok now. They had a bad part in the early 2000s when they were trying to semi-privatize and Enron was trying to horn in on the management, but once they went back to being an ordinary utility the bad behavior stopped.

I extremely do not want the situation where the state owns and operates the communications infrastructure of the general population. That's turnkey tyranny, censorship both ways (what you can send, what you can read). Right now it's just expensive, but you can still use a few different (overpriced and anti-competitive) providers. If the state decides you're a threat and unplugs you, it could be months or years before…

The State owns USPS and it's not so bad. Before phones were introduced, it was the main channel of communication.

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

#295

Post by q3k »

zaarn wrote: post #289
wtallis wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple sets of wires going to every building is feasible and perhaps even reasonable when we're talking about an apartment building. But digging multiple trenches along suburban and rural roads and driveways leading to single-family homes is very wasteful. It's usually prohibitively expensive for the second company that wants to come into town, and is basically guaranteed to be a negative ROI for the third company…

Also in Europe the owner of a cable to a build is required to rent it out to other providers at cost. So if DTAG builds a cable to my apartment complex, then I can later go an buy a DSL from Vodafone, despite the line begin DTAG. Since it's at cost, Vodafone has no further costs than what they would pay if they put down the line themselves, they even save some since they typically delegate support to DTAG technicians…

(FWIW this is called Local Loop Unbundling [1])

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

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

#296

Post by ksec »

5G could change that equation. We are actually not far off from having a totally Wireless Broadband Network. At least in 2010 using something like 3G /4G for broadband was nearly unthinkable. Now it is only a matter of time in terms of technical feasibility. And in lower population density area like in Europe. This has already happened. It forces ISP to provide faster Wired Connection at a much lower price in other to compete.

The problem in the US is that Broadband and Mobile Companies are one and the same.

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

#297

Post by michaelt »

cyberdrunk wrote: post #294
sneak wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I extremely do not want the situation where the state owns and operates the communications infrastructure of the general population. That's turnkey tyranny, censorship both ways (what you can send, what you can read). Right now it's just expensive, but you can still use a few different (overpriced and anti-competitive) providers. If the state decides you're a threat and unplugs you, it could be months or years before…

The State owns USPS and it's not so bad. Before phones were introduced, it was the main channel of communication.

Some would take USPS as a demonstration of the state delivering a communication service with fair performance and competitive prices.

Others would take the USPS as proof that a strongman president can switch such services on and off at a whim, for political reasons.

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

#298

Post by himinlomax »

sudosysgen wrote: post #278
beaunative wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that's treating econmics as pure math rather than science.

No, no it's not. It's treating economics as some bastardized version of philosophy, not math. Mathematical axioms are based on the principle that you cannot imagine an alternative axiomatic system, I can easily imagine a different axiomatic system for economics, and that the axioms cannot be empirically contradicted. And I can actually justify it empirically.

You may want to brush up on what's happened in mathematics over the past 150 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

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

#299

Post by Ekaros »

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.

In Finland I think I rent in some grandfathered building. 9,95€ a month for 100Mbs VDSL... And this same price has probably being here for much longer than 3 years I have lived... And these prices have been around for long long time.

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

#300

Post by Broken_Hippo »

sneak wrote: post #226
jandrese wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My water company is pretty well behaved. Sewer too. Trash pickup is without headaches although I don't know the cost. Even my power company is ok now. They had a bad part in the early 2000s when they were trying to semi-privatize and Enron was trying to horn in on the management, but once they went back to being an ordinary utility the bad behavior stopped.

I extremely do not want the situation where the state owns and operates the communications infrastructure of the general population. That's turnkey tyranny, censorship both ways (what you can send, what you can read). Right now it's just expensive, but you can still use a few different (overpriced and anti-competitive) providers. If the state decides you're a threat and unplugs you, it could be months or years before…

*If the state decides you're a threat and unplugs you, it could be months or years before you can invoke your legal rights to get reinstated."

You've heard of no-fly lists, right? At least there are some protections with governments, in general. With private companies, not only do you get the risk from the government, but whatever censorship the ISP decides to subject you to as well, and you might not have a choice.

Luckily, there are some ways around some of the controls - in no small part, by doing regulation or allowing a hybrid system (government owns/maintains infrastructure, leases it to companies, for example)

Post reply on HN