4 ms·

I much prefer the UK model. BT Openreach wire up the infrastructure and take care of the telephone exchanges, and then ISPs compete to provide their services on

by bb101 10y ago

I much prefer the UK model. BT Openreach wire up the infrastructure and take care of the telephone exchanges, and then ISPs compete to provide their services on the lines. To be fair, they have been slow rolling out fibre into rural areas, but most exchanges now have a choice of 10+ ISPs for prices equivalent to $25 a month. Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? America is supposed to be about free markets and open choice.

cmurf 10y ago
Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility. But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage. If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.
paulddraper 10y ago
> Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly. Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them. As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US. So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly - it makes very little sense for thirty different companies to run wires to your house, on the off chance that you'll choose them over a competitor. The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly from the stuff that naturally supports competition. Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly Agreed, but suggesting "America is supposed to be about free markets" therefore it should have a monopoly isn't a compelling argument. It should be a monopoly despite the normal free market model, not because of it.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  UPS and FedEx drive on the same roads, too.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Including private toll roads
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Unfortunately, getting anything done about the oligopolies - or monopolies - doesn't seem to do anything. It seems what is basically needed is some investment in infrastructure and some legislation to help remove the barriers to entry. But the US moves slowly to do such things unless there is money to be had. I remember some folks in the late 90's or early 2000's that were just getting home phone service, after all - out west in the mountains. Additionally, the lobbyist for these companies have more money than God. (debatable, but you get the picture). Normal folks making 25,000 a year can't compete with that - their yearly salaries are a drop in the Lobby's bucket. "America is supopsed to be about free markets and open choice" And technically, it still is, they say, so long as you can afford to do provide all of the infrastructure and get through all the red tape.
cswilly 10y ago
It is the same model in all of the EU. Some countries do it very well such as France. Other, such as Germany, not great, but better that the USA "open markets" solution. For proof, compare the price of Internet access in Paris and New York.

by bb101 10y ago

cmurf 10y ago

Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility. But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage. If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.

paulddraper 10y ago

> Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly. Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them. As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US. So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.

jdietrich 10y ago
Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly - it makes very little sense for thirty different companies to run wires to your house, on the off chance that you'll choose them over a competitor. The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly from the stuff that naturally supports competition. Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly Agreed, but suggesting "America is supposed to be about free markets" therefore it should have a monopoly isn't a compelling argument. It should be a monopoly despite the normal free market model, not because of it.
nitrogen 10y ago
UPS and FedEx drive on the same roads, too.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Including private toll roads

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Unfortunately, getting anything done about the oligopolies - or monopolies - doesn't seem to do anything. It seems what is basically needed is some investment in infrastructure and some legislation to help remove the barriers to entry. But the US moves slowly to do such things unless there is money to be had. I remember some folks in the late 90's or early 2000's that were just getting home phone service, after all - out west in the mountains. Additionally, the lobbyist for these companies have more money than God. (debatable, but you get the picture). Normal folks making 25,000 a year can't compete with that - their yearly salaries are a drop in the Lobby's bucket. "America is supopsed to be about free markets and open choice" And technically, it still is, they say, so long as you can afford to do provide all of the infrastructure and get through all the red tape.

cswilly 10y ago

It is the same model in all of the EU. Some countries do it very well such as France. Other, such as Germany, not great, but better that the USA "open markets" solution. For proof, compare the price of Internet access in Paris and New York.