3 ms·

Wait... Aren’t monopolies illegal? I was under the impression they were, but maybe I’m wrong to assume that.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Having a monopoly lands you generally have a lot of funding, with which to hire lawyers to challenge that. And bribe ALEC.
davesque 9y ago
They're only illegal if politicians give a crap.
deathanatos 9y ago
I think we're still (politically) in the phase of convincing people that cable companies are both a monopoly, and an abusive one. E.g., here in the Bay Area, I have a choice in my area to go with AT&T[1] for Internet connectivity, but IIRC, they don't meet the FCC's definition of "broadband", so really, for broadband Internet access, my only choice is Comcast. (Now, the FCC was recently trying to re-write the definition of broadband s.t. mobile connectivity could count, but that's such an absurd stretch of the imagination when discussing the market of high-speed Internet access.) While there is also TWC, I've found that where TWC exists, typically they also enjoy a similar status. Chattanooga, TN, interestingly, offers ~50x the speed for the same price as Comcast here. As for having abused their status, http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2016/10/25/comcast-sues-metro-over-google-fiber-backed-pole-otmr-ordinance/92748490/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2016/10/25/comcas... https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas... [1]: AT&T also has a history of disregarding consumer privacy (e.g., https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/att-selling-data_n_3561263.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/att-selling-data_n...), so I avoid them for that, too.
- innesinnes 9y ago
  https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/ https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
As far as I know, the question typically doesn't turn on whether a company is/has "a monopoly". Rather, what's restricted is the exercise of monopoly power. In a nutshell this means altering market prices or availability in a way that would not be possible if the market were genuinely competitive (because some competitor would come in and close the gap your change created).
OliverJones 9y ago
Generally monopolies are illegal in the US. But public utilities have always been an exception. The theory is that it's so expensive to run residential infrastructure like wires (electricity, tip-ring phone, cable) or pipes (gas, water, sewer) that a single company gets to do it and charge for it. In return they a) must build their facilities to serve the entire community. No cherrypicking dense or wealthy neighborhoods to jack up return on investment. b) must, in the case of cable TV, offer public access. c) must submit to public utilities commission regulation This theory helped push through widespread rural electrification, which was a major progressive victory in the first third of the 20th century. Is internet-over-Cable-TV infrastructure regulated like Cable TV is regulated? After all it is a repurposing of the regulated infrastructure. In many jurisdictions that's a gray area. Lobbyists and change-averse businessmen LOVE gray areas. They can use them to make legislators' heads hurt, and then say, "pass this law and your heads will stop hurting." It's a tried and true lobbying tactic. Making the case that a public-utility monopoly should be abolished means convincing everybody involved that the infrastructure cost isn't a driver any more. For broadband it generally isn't: the electric utilities usually own the poles and are happy to have another tenant utility. The problem is convincing people. You gotta make the case. Good luck Fort Collins.
dredmorbius 9y ago
No, but monopoly abuses are. Wikipedia's description of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act: The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act There's much more to it and the matter is, as you might suppose, complicated.

Having a monopoly lands you generally have a lot of funding, with which to hire lawyers to challenge that. And bribe ALEC.

davesque 9y ago

They're only illegal if politicians give a crap.

deathanatos 9y ago

I think we're still (politically) in the phase of convincing people that cable companies are both a monopoly, and an abusive one. E.g., here in the Bay Area, I have a choice in my area to go with AT&T[1] for Internet connectivity, but IIRC, they don't meet the FCC's definition of "broadband", so really, for broadband Internet access, my only choice is Comcast. (Now, the FCC was recently trying to re-write the definition of broadband s.t. mobile connectivity could count, but that's such an absurd stretch of the imagination when discussing the market of high-speed Internet access.) While there is also TWC, I've found that where TWC exists, typically they also enjoy a similar status. Chattanooga, TN, interestingly, offers ~50x the speed for the same price as Comcast here. As for having abused their status, http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2016/10/25/comcast-sues-metro-over-google-fiber-backed-pole-otmr-ordinance/92748490/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2016/10/25/comcas... https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas... [1]: AT&T also has a history of disregarding consumer privacy (e.g., https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/att-selling-data_n_3561263.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/att-selling-data_n...), so I avoid them for that, too.

innesinnes 9y ago
https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/ https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

As far as I know, the question typically doesn't turn on whether a company is/has "a monopoly". Rather, what's restricted is the exercise of monopoly power. In a nutshell this means altering market prices or availability in a way that would not be possible if the market were genuinely competitive (because some competitor would come in and close the gap your change created).

OliverJones 9y ago

Generally monopolies are illegal in the US. But public utilities have always been an exception. The theory is that it's so expensive to run residential infrastructure like wires (electricity, tip-ring phone, cable) or pipes (gas, water, sewer) that a single company gets to do it and charge for it. In return they a) must build their facilities to serve the entire community. No cherrypicking dense or wealthy neighborhoods to jack up return on investment. b) must, in the case of cable TV, offer public access. c) must submit to public utilities commission regulation This theory helped push through widespread rural electrification, which was a major progressive victory in the first third of the 20th century. Is internet-over-Cable-TV infrastructure regulated like Cable TV is regulated? After all it is a repurposing of the regulated infrastructure. In many jurisdictions that's a gray area. Lobbyists and change-averse businessmen LOVE gray areas. They can use them to make legislators' heads hurt, and then say, "pass this law and your heads will stop hurting." It's a tried and true lobbying tactic. Making the case that a public-utility monopoly should be abolished means convincing everybody involved that the infrastructure cost isn't a driver any more. For broadband it generally isn't: the electric utilities usually own the poles and are happy to have another tenant utility. The problem is convincing people. You gotta make the case. Good luck Fort Collins.

dredmorbius 9y ago

No, but monopoly abuses are. Wikipedia's description of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act: The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act There's much more to it and the matter is, as you might suppose, complicated.