5 ms·

Just as long as they don't bust them up like they did AT&T. Following the same model used overseas might make more sense. Semi-natural[1] monopolies tend to for

by erentz 9y ago

Just as long as they don't bust them up like they did AT&T. Following the same model used overseas might make more sense. Semi-natural[1] monopolies tend to form for providing access networks. We see this with power, water, gas distribution too. Over building multiple networks costs a lot more than having one good network. The correct response IMO is: 1. Don't block municipal broadband or new commercial providers, there should be no _forced_ monopoly. 2. Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network and the services on top. The wholesale access networks offer the same regulated (cost+) terms to any ISP/service provider who wants to reach customers on that network. Now the ISP/TV component of Comcast has to compete on the same terms as any other ISP/TV provider using that access network. [1] I say semi-natural because in the US they're not natural but regulated and there has been a fair amount of overbuilding in cherry-picked areas.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerable to voters rather than taxpayers (the exception being when the privatization playbook is being followed: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-privatization-playbook-make-an-agency-perform-badly-by-underfunding-it.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... ).
- erentz 9y ago
  I would prefer the wholesale network to be owned by the communities or states but I don’t see it being a completely necessary starting point. For example it would be relatively simple to craft a law that requires this split for all such telecommunications access networks regardless of existing or new builds or cable vs copper vs fiber. Immediately that would level the playing field because Comcast has to sell access on its network to itself at the same price it sells it to another ISP.
  - techsupporter 9y ago
    We did craft a law: Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The implementation of the unbundling rules was "disastrous" (according to the center-left Brookings Institute: www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt, see slide 3). Unbundling can work, but requires a steady hand in setting rates. The FCC said "screw telcos" and set rates very low, which made telecos basically give up on improving their DSL infrastructure. In contrast, unbundling has worked well in the U.K. There, the government put in place a rate structure that allowed BT OpenReach (the entity that owns all the phone lines) to actually be comparable in profitability to Comcast or TWC.
phil21 9y ago
I argue going one step further, even at the loss of some theoretical efficiency. Split layer 1 from layer 3. I want a fiber pair from my house to the central office, where I can then patch to any provider who decided to pay the cost-recovery based co-location connection fee. Basically I should be able to tell this wireline provider to plug my patch cord into service provider X and they do it within a reasonable timeframe. I pay this provider for the wire itself. I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further. Yes, this does create a middle man agency and relatively inefficient physical infrastructure (e.g. I'd be pretty anti-GPON or similar tech for this use for a variety of reasons) so in theory prices would be more. However I think if you could get back to an environment where ISPs can compete on a wide variety of merits like in the late 90's dialup ISP days you would see overall price decreases. It would also allow for the creation of "boutique" local ISPs that can cater to certain crowds. The highly technical crowd who is happy to pay more for a clear channel ping and pipe and no other BS will be able to find a home, just like grandma who needs a cheap nicely filtered/secured internet to check her e-mail and use facetime. Basically allow for a bunch of sonic.net style ISPs to compete in most markets. Anything short of this I think just devolves into both stagnation and rent-seeking. Even municipal provided broadband would be subject to this - many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Having helped shepherd municipal broadband initiatives along, I'm sorry to say that your requirements are a hill too far for almost all consumers. They don't care about the level of provider selection you want, they simply want The Internet (Netflix, Youtube, Google Gmail, et al) at the lowest possible cost (and reliable to boot). > many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure. Municipal broadband is accountable to its local citizens or stakeholders, depending on the model used to develop it (government owned or non-profit owned). If it languishes, it will only do so because its citizens or users allow it to. EDIT: If you're in an area where there are only large corporate internet providers, please take up the cause for municipal or co-op broadband! https://muninetworks.org/ https://muninetworks.org/
metalliqaz 9y ago
Comcast should have been allowed to vertically integrate the way they have.

by erentz 9y ago

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerable to voters rather than taxpayers (the exception being when the privatization playbook is being followed: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-privatization-playbook-make-an-agency-perform-badly-by-underfunding-it.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... ).

erentz 9y ago
I would prefer the wholesale network to be owned by the communities or states but I don’t see it being a completely necessary starting point. For example it would be relatively simple to craft a law that requires this split for all such telecommunications access networks regardless of existing or new builds or cable vs copper vs fiber. Immediately that would level the playing field because Comcast has to sell access on its network to itself at the same price it sells it to another ISP.
- techsupporter 9y ago
  We did craft a law: Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The implementation of the unbundling rules was "disastrous" (according to the center-left Brookings Institute: www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt, see slide 3). Unbundling can work, but requires a steady hand in setting rates. The FCC said "screw telcos" and set rates very low, which made telecos basically give up on improving their DSL infrastructure. In contrast, unbundling has worked well in the U.K. There, the government put in place a rate structure that allowed BT OpenReach (the entity that owns all the phone lines) to actually be comparable in profitability to Comcast or TWC.

phil21 9y ago

I argue going one step further, even at the loss of some theoretical efficiency. Split layer 1 from layer 3. I want a fiber pair from my house to the central office, where I can then patch to any provider who decided to pay the cost-recovery based co-location connection fee. Basically I should be able to tell this wireline provider to plug my patch cord into service provider X and they do it within a reasonable timeframe. I pay this provider for the wire itself. I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further. Yes, this does create a middle man agency and relatively inefficient physical infrastructure (e.g. I'd be pretty anti-GPON or similar tech for this use for a variety of reasons) so in theory prices would be more. However I think if you could get back to an environment where ISPs can compete on a wide variety of merits like in the late 90's dialup ISP days you would see overall price decreases. It would also allow for the creation of "boutique" local ISPs that can cater to certain crowds. The highly technical crowd who is happy to pay more for a clear channel ping and pipe and no other BS will be able to find a home, just like grandma who needs a cheap nicely filtered/secured internet to check her e-mail and use facetime. Basically allow for a bunch of sonic.net style ISPs to compete in most markets. Anything short of this I think just devolves into both stagnation and rent-seeking. Even municipal provided broadband would be subject to this - many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Having helped shepherd municipal broadband initiatives along, I'm sorry to say that your requirements are a hill too far for almost all consumers. They don't care about the level of provider selection you want, they simply want The Internet (Netflix, Youtube, Google Gmail, et al) at the lowest possible cost (and reliable to boot). > many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure. Municipal broadband is accountable to its local citizens or stakeholders, depending on the model used to develop it (government owned or non-profit owned). If it languishes, it will only do so because its citizens or users allow it to. EDIT: If you're in an area where there are only large corporate internet providers, please take up the cause for municipal or co-op broadband! https://muninetworks.org/ https://muninetworks.org/

metalliqaz 9y ago

Comcast should have been allowed to vertically integrate the way they have.