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

301–310 of 354 posts

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

#301

Post by cyberdrunk »

michaelt wrote: post #297
cyberdrunk wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

When was it done?

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

#302

Post by gumby »

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.

This is why in most countries, phone systems were developed and run by the post office. I don’t think it worked out well.

I am supportive of municipal telecom infrastructure but this example always gives me pause.

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

#303

Post by TuringNYC »

neolog wrote: post #176
TuringNYC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand your pain on this because i've been there. At the same time, deep down, I think many of us have also learned the truth:

If there is some startup providing some ridiculously awesome service and strangly isnt charging:

1. It will charge in the future, and even that charge may not be sufficient to cover costs (see: Quantopian recently, apparently could not find a price point which kept users and also kept the service)

2. It may get acquired, to finance long-term profitability (see: YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram)

3. You may be giving up more than you thought you were (e.g., privacy) (see: like half the social media startups)

4. It may get acquihired, and often the product is sunset (see: Slide, Parse)

5. It may shut down (see: like 95% of your friends startups)

As a former founder, I can say most startups are just one funding round away from case 5 (bankruptcy) -- see MapR. In which case, sometimes you accept case 4 (acquihire) as a consolation prize. Many of us want to be the next FAANG, but reality strikes that obviously not all 100,000 startups out there will become a fang. Often, you teeter in case 1 (barely making it), and if that happens too long, you might go with option 2 (strategic acquisition.)

There are a lot of problems as a founder. Not all of them are actually about tech. I'll list some problems:

1. You are constantly questioning yourself -- is life just about eating ramen noodles and working? Did I really study and get top grades for 20yrs only to barely life? Mabye I can sell out. This should not be a problem post Series A, but is def an early stage issue.

2. You have liabilities - student loans, healthcare, rent, etc. Sure, you can couch surf, but should that be expected of people?

3. After marketing and ads especially, you often dont make as much as you think.

Sometimes you make a limited time bet, and if things dont catch, you move on.

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

#304

Post by michael1999 »

908B64B197 wrote: post #174
michael1999 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Banking, insurance, and telecom are all protected from foreign competition. It makes them fat and often lazy, but I’d hardly say there is no reason. Universal service mandates, tax administration, prudence regulation, and criminal justice are all compelling interests in those businesses. The government meddles because the people complain when they don’t.

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

#305

Post by spacemanmatt »

My ISP is literally not allowed to do business in some parts of my town. This is because a cable monopoly bought local laws that prevent other companies from deploying new service (specifically, prevents pole/underground conduit access) and it's absolutely abusive.

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

#306

Post by cabalamat »

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…

Banning states from banning municipal broadband would help (by making broadband providers less monopolisitic).

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

#307

Post by marcus_holmes »

Aunche wrote: post #235
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-…

In Cambodia, your 4G is subsidized by the low cost of living. The household income per capita in Cambodia is ~$1,400. Also infrastructure in SE Asia doesn't seem to regulated, seeing as there are cables everywhere, which also cuts costs.

You're absolutely right, not sure why you're being downvoted. As I said, I get that the cost is a function of GDP, so the cheapness is kinda expected. Though I'm doubtful that the driving force behind broadband costs is labour, so I'm not sure why the costs are a function of GDP. Even with the ability to string cable everywhere at will.

But I still expect that the tech would work better in a developed country.

Maybe all those NIMBYs objecting to mobile towers near schools are the problem.

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

#309

Post by s_dev »

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…

All incumbents have some advantage over a new player -- that doesn't mean monopoly.

A good example of how Comcast will be disrupted is Starlink. Though I'll concede that US Internet infrastructure seems outdated compared to the EU. So perhaps this aging infrastructure suggest monopolistic practices as does any phenomena characterized by stagnation.

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

#310

Post by jeroenhd »

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-…

Don't confuse the internet situation in Germany for the internet situation in the whole of Europe. Some countries have cheap data, others are unreasonably expensive. European internet infrastructure isn't as homogeneous as people seem to think.

Here in the Netherlands, you've got national coverage with unlimited data for €25 per month (practically unlimited, not theoretically unlimited, of couse, because fair use policies exist everywhere).

One country to the south is Belgium, where even the landlines have data caps, something that would be unthinkable here.

There's some connection between GDP/purchasing power and the price of data, but there's much more going on. Things like nationalised internet connections, government investment in public internet infrastructure and geography are more important than how much money someone in a certain country makes on average.

Post reply on HN