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

331–340 of 354 posts

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

#331

Post by dragonwriter »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #211
dragonwriter wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Natural monopolies need counterbalancing regulation. This isn't even remotely a controversial statement in economics. Unless your argument is that the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics doesn't actually exist, this is quite wrong, since the Austrian school denies the existence of natural monopoly and argues that harmful monopoly can only exist as a product of government regulation, and the Chicago school lik…

Yes. I am entirely comfortable in saying that the economic consensus is strongly against the Austrian and Chicago perspectives. Both of these schools value prior ideology over empirical data. It's a "debate" on forums like this, but not even remotely so amongst the economists I talk to.

> Both of these schools value prior ideology over empirical data.

Austrian overtly so, Chicago less so, but, yes, its another issue that "is economics an empirical science" is also a controversial position in economics.

> but not even remotely so amongst the economists I talk to.

That's a very different claim than your original one. That last qualifier does quite a bit of work.

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

#332

Post by kushnick »

tptacek wrote: post #322
arminiusreturns wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Bruce Kushnick, himself: "I've been tracking the telco deployments of fiber optics since 1991 when they were announced as something called the Information Superhighway. The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace…

Since Bruce Kushnick is one of the originators of this "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" claim, I'm not sure what simply quoting him does for this discussion. We all agree that there are people making this claim; what seems dubious is that the claim is valid.

You might want to read one of the trilogy of books we wrote on the subject, the first published in 1998, the latest published in 2015, or the collection of research reports we published as New Networks and now the IRREGULATORS, our consortium of lawyers, forensic auditors and other analysts, the last book, http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BookofBro... and our library of research http://irregulators.org/our-work-reports-filings/

Moreover, the books and research not only use the expertise of our gang (or which some of us have been working together for a few decades) but, we quote primary research, such as annual reports, state and federal filings by AT&T et al, etc, much of which are hidden in plain sight, such as the Verizon NY 2019 Annual Report, which is the financial report of the primary telecommunications state-based public utility-- and ironically most reading this don't even know that there are still state public utilities left. http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Verizonny...

The $200 billion broadband scandal was published in 2005 and that was based on examining the state-based commitments for fiber upgrades and the changes in state laws that gave the companies billions per state to do the upgraded-- i.e., rate increases and tax breaks.

The most recent work uncovered that the accounting has been manipulated in the utilities and caused the networks to appear unprofitable --- and we're preparing to take legal actions in multiple states-- it's about $20 billion annually in the US. https://bit.ly/3mQUWgf

As a former senior telecom analyst to the telcos 1982-1994--we knew were the skeletons were buried...so, we didn't just 'wing it', and the books detail our claims. So while others may follow in our footsteps... we've been at this for decades with actual documentation to substantiate our work. to see the latest, I post at medium.

https://kushnickbruce.medium.com/

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

#333

Post by mamon »

maest wrote: post #187
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European cafes won't even give you tap water (even if you have bought other stuff) for free, let alone free wifi.

I'm not sure what you're basing this off of, but it's largely not true.

My limited experience of European cafes is:

1. No place would dare to serve you tap water - it is basically considered a health hazard, and many guests would be offended by being offered it.

2. Bottled water is an item on the menu and will cost you money.

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

#334

Post by rayhendricks »

xnyan wrote: post #266
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…

ISPs give the US government absolutely anything they want. You have no real protection from the government because of private ownership, the only difference is now both private organizations AND the government make decisions about your internet access. You also pay more for less vs most countries with more regulated infrastructure or state owned infrastructure. I'm happy to look at any evidence you have, but everythi…

Municipal broadband where the county PUD owns the fiber and multiple private companies provide service over them works great. Which is why you can get gigabit internet for like $50 some places and struggle to get decent internet in the suburbs.

Also Comcast is not going to tell the federal government "no" to a data request if it doesn't benifit them.

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

#335

Post by FireBeyond »

tptacek wrote: post #321
FireBeyond wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't you an attorney for a telco lobbying organization? Seems like that's a relevant disclosure, no?

Comments like this aren't allowed on HN; see the Guidelines below.

Is it an insinuation when the user themselves has stated, on multiple occasions, that this exactly the case?

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

#336

Post by deadlyllama »

somnic wrote: post #258
omegabravo wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And there's good competition, I'm paying NZ$90 for the same speed (900/400) with no data cap. Static IP. And all the NZ prices quoted include sales tax (NZ law requires this) so the equivalent US price without sales tax would be about US$52/mo.

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

#337

Post by marcus_holmes »

Robotbeat wrote: post #124
marcus_holmes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree, but I've seen the mess that e-scooter organisations have made of this. The city is littered with e-scooters whose name changes every few months. If the business plan doesn't work out, who cleans up the satellites?

The satellites have to have ability to do a commanded deorbit. Additionally, at the altitudes Starlink operates at, if there’s a problem with the commanded deorbit, the satellites will naturally deorbit in a reasonable time. EDIT:OneWeb operates at higher altitudes where if there's a failure, the satellite will stay there for hundreds of years, but to try to mitigate that a bit, they added a grappling fixture/fiducia…

I didn't know that about Starlink. That's cool :)

The Oneweb stuff not so much, but at least they're thinking about it.

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

#338

Post by marcus_holmes »

kanox wrote: post #234
marcus_holmes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree, but I've seen the mess that e-scooter organisations have made of this. The city is littered with e-scooters whose name changes every few months. If the business plan doesn't work out, who cleans up the satellites?

> The city is littered with e-scooters whose name changes every few months. You claim to be against monopolies but are unwilling to tolerate even the slight inconvenience of seeing scooters parked around? I personally love them for their amazing convenience and they're also incredibly compact relative to cars or even bikes. > If the business plan doesn't work out, who cleans up the satellites? Cleaning up is essentia…

I'm not against the scooters being parked around. I'm against the flood of them, and them being abandoned in the middle of footpaths, cyclepaths, etc.

They were a great novelty for a while. But I got over them.

So if a satellite stops responding to commands, they're going to go get it? To make sure it doesn't hit anything else and cause more problems?

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

#339

Post by marcus_holmes »

amaccuish wrote: post #330
amaccuish wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Berlin, it's 40 euros a month for 5Gb, What network? I pay 12 euros for 5gb (aldi talk, running off o2, so i can still use my phone in the u-bahn) There's also lidl connect runnning off telekom if you like that network

In fact, I think your comment is actually disingenuous and you've not researched the market properly if you're paying that much and not receiving a phone included.

you're right, it's nearer 20 euros. I can't edit any more or I'd correct it.
Post reply on HN