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

311–320 of 354 posts

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

#311

Post by biggermike »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #181
biggermike wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big tech has big profit margins. Big telecom services doesn't. Competitors don't enter the industry because there's little money to be made. The only way you make money by starting an independent ISP right now is by serving some niche clientele e.g. serving wireless internet to events at locations without enough broadband access.

I don't think competitors are avoiding telecom due to low margins. I guess you could say the high amount of start-up capital AND high regulatory hurdles AND the low margins (meaning your payback takes longer) cause it to be undesirable...then... yeah margins are (part of) the issue

> high amount of start-up capital AND high regulatory hurdles AND the low margins

Not independent variables. The large wired broadband ISPs already enjoy economies of scale (access to capital, army of lawyers, etc.) and operate at slim margins. An independent ISP would need to reach the same size just to get the same near-zero margins.

That being said, there is a market for independent ISPs, but they tend to serve specialty customers where margins are much higher.

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

#312

Post by mox1 »

zdragnar wrote: post #201
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 have had horrendous experienced with Waste Management on three occasions. Moving out of the neighborhood they had a city-enforced monopoly on was the only solution (granted, i moved for other reasons, but getting someone else was a delight all its own).

But in this case the remedy is head to your local town hall and start complaining. The "monopoly" is usually a 5ish year contract that the city sends out for bids.

I'd love the ability to head to city hall and convince local leaders to switch from Comcast to X.

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

#313

Post by sneak »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #300
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…

*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.…

There was a period of years between when the no-fly list was instituted and when there was a system of relief for people who were placed on it erroneously.

This is really just supporting my point that you do NOT want the government involved in the system at all.

You still can’t get off of the no-fly list (even if you haven’t been convicted of a crime!) if the government wants you on it and you weren’t listed by accident, “redress number” program or no.

Let’s not fuck up ISPs this badly.

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

#314

Post by usefulcat »

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…

Are you sure that having privately owned and operated communications infrastructure will actually prevent any of the things you're concerned about?

For example, AT&T rolled right over when the government wanted more access to their infrastructure after 9/11, even though it was pretty clearly illegal.

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

#315

Post by sjm-lbm »

toast0 wrote: post #264
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.

Water, sewer, trash pickup, and power have very easy to understand quality metrics, and can be easily regulated. An internet connection is not so easy to measure. You could have a very well provisioned and maintained local loop, and poor connectivity from there. I strongly support local loop unbundling --- you can regulate the local loop in simple terms, and let competition manage the messy network interconnection bi…

For what it's worth, your suggestion is very similar to the way that electricity is sold where I live - I pay separate prices for electricity generation (where I can choose) and electricity delivery (where I cannot choose).

I'm not going to pretend to know all the pros/cons, but it is reliable and cheaper than average.

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

#316

Post by cashsterling »

I pay 50 USD a month for 1 Gb/s symmetric internet service run by the city of Longmont, CO. It is great... by far the best internet service I have had. I had comcast in many different cities, Cablevision, AT&T, etc.

Hopefully more cities will consider municipal broadband.

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

#317

Post by heavyset_go »

andromeduck wrote: post #199
heavyset_go wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I made my comment with those in mind.

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

#318

Post by sudosysgen »

himinlomax wrote: post #298
sudosysgen wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's exactly the point. Non-euclidien geometry is still geometry, and axiomatic systems without the Axiom of Choice is still math.

The Austrians start with their axioms and do not accept anyone with other axioms. And unlike mathematical axioms, their axioms are actually empirically testable.

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

#319

Post by sudosysgen »

beaunative wrote: post #284
sudosysgen wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 maybe right, but not the way you interpret math. Mathematical axioms are not empirical, and contradictions do arose from those axioms. Non-Euclidean geometry[0] would be a good starting point, Russell's paradox[1] is also worth entertaining. Mathematical axioms are assumptions made that works treated as truth, not the truth taken for granted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry [1]: https://…

That's exactly my point. Mathematical axioms aren't empirically testable, and mathematics accepts many different axioms.

Praxeology doesn't accept other axioms, and the axioms it accepts are empirically testable. Which is the why math is fine but Austrian economics isn't.

Also, mathematics doesn't make claims on the real world.

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

#320

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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…

Yeah, the US had a similar concept that was changed about 15 years ago for phone circuits. Owner of the "dry pair" had to lease it out at a regulated rate, around $10 a month. At the time that was still law/policy, I had great DSL service through an independent ISP. It was far more reliable than the other options available at the time. The legal change destroyed that entire company, and left me with the typical duopoly choice for broadband since.
Post reply on HN