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

191–200 of 354 posts

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

#191

Post by jmm5 »

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...

Obviously you can't have a competition with a monopoly in place. Regulation could help to keep prices down and to expand access in areas covered by only a single broadband provider.

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

#192

Post by disown »

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.

> Would YouTube, Instagram, or dozens of other companies have been able to get where they are w/o the support of their acquirers?

Yes if they got access to capital, which they could have gotten easily. You forget that Google bought Youtube because google video wasn't gaining traction and youtube had the "network effect". The same goes for instagram and facebook. It's all "whatif" but youtube and instagram most definitely would have been major independent players by themselves.

Facebook, Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc were able to grow without being acquired. Remember that page/brin even tried to sell Google to Yahoo. Google did alright even though they weren't bought out.

Youtube and Instagram had no real peers like google did ( altavista, excite, etc ) and they both were able to create the network effect before they got bought out. I think google and facebook really got lucky snapping up these companies. Not just in financial benefits but look at the cultural impact these companies have on the world.

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

#193

Post by dekhn »

sib wrote: post #190
dekhn wrote: post #141

I'm a bit of a weirdo but at the current time, my gigabit is provided by a company whose name histortically was associated with a monopolistic company (AT&T) but really was cobbled out of the bones of several large dead telecom companies and is now a monopoly again. It costs $100/month, is delivered by fiber straight to my house from a pole, works as described (in terms of latency and speed tests), and I don't want i…

That's great for you (no sarcasm!) Where I live - in the city of Los Angeles, hardly distant, rural America - AT&T is happy to provide me "broadband" internet at speeds of up to 10mbps for the low, low price of $45 / month (with a 12-month contract!) Ironically, I get faster speeds on my AT&T-powered iPhone.

Are you sure? It looks like many cities in LA have AT&T Gigabit fiber. My guess is they deployed in San Mateo pretty early, and are filling out the major cities now. It's also possible that they don't put the service in cities where the expected subscription rate is too low.

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

#194

Post by mortehu »

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...

Cellular carriers and electric power providers, and the success has been repeated in many countries.

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

#195

Post by mooman219 »

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.

A large number of buildings in Seattle still have Comcast contracts such that Comcast is the only provider allowed. I find it strange that my hometown of Rochester has better better Fiber options than the tech hub that is Seattle.

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

#196

Post by xxpor »

pb77 wrote: post #168

In some of the newer neighborhood around my place, the telecom providers pay a fee to the neighborhood developer to make them the only sole provider. So in these new neighborhoods there is only one option. I don't know if DOJ can do anything about it or how they can fix it.

The FCC declared those unenforcable in 2007.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/exclusive-service-contracts-pro...

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

#197

Post by arminiusreturns »

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…

K-Street runs congress, despite whatever their party platform talking points are. Non-representation in a captured legislative entrenched by things like gerrymandering maintain the status quo.

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

#198

Post by jandrese »

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…

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.

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

#199

Post by andromeduck »

heavyset_go wrote: post #142
quibbler wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you create such conditions if you are not the government? Who does the creating?

Imagine a company whose elected board members believed that the company should abandon its current market, should be scaled back or shouldn't even exist, and they enacted policies and made hires in accordance to those beliefs. That's what's happening in the US government.

Private equity is a thing and spin offs are not uncommon.

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

#200

Post by yaacov »

daniellarusso wrote: post #156
yaacov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently urban broadband costs are high in part because they’re subsidizing rural areas, right? So if starlink can cover the rurals for less costs can hopefully come down for everyone

Urban broadband does not subsidize rural broadband. Are you talking about the Universal Service Fund?

No, I just don’t know what I’m talking about. Looked into it a bit more and I was completely wrong. Thanks
Post reply on HN