2 ms·

Not convinced monopolies are the problem. Broadband infrastructure strikes me as a natural monopoly[1], and I think this is the point the BT guy is making in th

by gmac 11y ago

Not convinced monopolies are the problem. Broadband infrastructure strikes me as a natural monopoly[1], and I think this is the point the BT guy is making in the article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

xlm1717 11y ago
At least in the US, I think monopolies are part of the problem. Every once in a while, you see a story about how a big telecom lobbied to prevent a small local broadband ISP promising gigabit internet from taking off.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Source? In most places, the opposite problem exists. Cities can't get private companies to build gigabit even after actively trying. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-fiber-internet-campaign-20141013-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-fiber-internet-ca.... That's why municipal fiber is the current battleground--private companies don't want to build those networks.
ghaff 11y ago
As I like to bring up in these discussions, the old Ma Bell wasn't so wonderful. Until the government forced them to do otherwise, you couldn't even own any of the equipment within your own house. Yes, they provided very reliable and high quality telephone service--we've generally gone backwards in that regard--but at high cost, with few options, and at a slow rate of change. There are (probably) natural monopolies. But the term can also just be used to limit competition.
willyt 11y ago
Exactly, and to expand on this: Apart from major backhaul routes and a little bit of privately owner fiber in a few cities, the main telecoms infrastructure provider in the UK is BT openreach a subsidiary of BT which is a privately owned but heavily state regulated monopoly. Every penny of revenue and every decision they take is audited by the government at great expense. Strategic decisions with regards to infrastructure provision are laboriously negotiated with packages of funding supplied by national and regional government. It is a ridiculously bureaucratic and inefficient way of organising things. It's setup like this for ideological reasons because the Conservative party are heavily against any form of state ownership, even when it would be the simplest and most cost effective way of organising something which market forces naturally push strongly towards monopoly ownership. Also, in relation to another comment below, we are purely talking about ownership and maintenance of the wires under the streets, no one wants to go back to forcing everyone to have the same colour Soviet style state issued phones of the early 80's. I'm also not saying that the cables are installed by government, you still let the contracts for this to the private sector. Just don't let the private sector drive strategic decisions about infrastructure investments which pay off indirectly by increasing the competitiveness of the economy overall.

by gmac 11y ago

xlm1717 11y ago

At least in the US, I think monopolies are part of the problem. Every once in a while, you see a story about how a big telecom lobbied to prevent a small local broadband ISP promising gigabit internet from taking off.

rayiner 11y ago
Source? In most places, the opposite problem exists. Cities can't get private companies to build gigabit even after actively trying. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-fiber-internet-campaign-20141013-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-fiber-internet-ca.... That's why municipal fiber is the current battleground--private companies don't want to build those networks.

ghaff 11y ago

As I like to bring up in these discussions, the old Ma Bell wasn't so wonderful. Until the government forced them to do otherwise, you couldn't even own any of the equipment within your own house. Yes, they provided very reliable and high quality telephone service--we've generally gone backwards in that regard--but at high cost, with few options, and at a slow rate of change. There are (probably) natural monopolies. But the term can also just be used to limit competition.

willyt 11y ago

Exactly, and to expand on this: Apart from major backhaul routes and a little bit of privately owner fiber in a few cities, the main telecoms infrastructure provider in the UK is BT openreach a subsidiary of BT which is a privately owned but heavily state regulated monopoly. Every penny of revenue and every decision they take is audited by the government at great expense. Strategic decisions with regards to infrastructure provision are laboriously negotiated with packages of funding supplied by national and regional government. It is a ridiculously bureaucratic and inefficient way of organising things. It's setup like this for ideological reasons because the Conservative party are heavily against any form of state ownership, even when it would be the simplest and most cost effective way of organising something which market forces naturally push strongly towards monopoly ownership. Also, in relation to another comment below, we are purely talking about ownership and maintenance of the wires under the streets, no one wants to go back to forcing everyone to have the same colour Soviet style state issued phones of the early 80's. I'm also not saying that the cables are installed by government, you still let the contracts for this to the private sector. Just don't let the private sector drive strategic decisions about infrastructure investments which pay off indirectly by increasing the competitiveness of the economy overall.