4 ms·

Sure, and you don't have the choice to get another ISP, because of, as the author notes in his article, the problem of regional monopoly created by local gov't

Sure, and you don't have the choice to get another ISP, because of, as the author notes in his article, the problem of regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation.

sagichmal 9y ago
> regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation. Lol.
- coliveira 9y ago
  This is a common tactic of so-called libertarians: claim that competition is good so that the best is able to win against everybody else. Then, claim that monopolies/oligopolies are the sole responsibility of bad government.
  - soberhoff 9y ago
    > tactic of so-called libertarians You make it sound as if nobody could ever support libertarianism honestly.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  FWIW I downvoted you because I don't think that your comment is productive. I agree with your sentiment though, I have no idea what local regulations supposedly have caused there to be little or not competition in internet providers. My understanding is that it is incredibly expensive to build and maintain an internet infrastructure. Coupling that with the recent rules that do not require ISPs to sell bandwidth and basically it becomes economically infeasible to build a new ISP from the ground up (if google can't afford to do it, who can?)
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  This is exactly the correct reply.
mtgx 9y ago
The two are not connected other than by the word "regulation". You can still have local governments not give ISPs local monopoly over laid cables, but you can also have net neutrality, which says that companies shouldn't be messing with the traffic that passes through their pipes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, some have mentioned in other similar threads that sometimes the monopoly is (sort of) natural because no other ISP even wants to lay the cables in a certain area. I do believe that to be true, but I don't think it's "case closed," either. Many other countries have solved this issue by either mandating that whoever is laying the cables would then have to license them to competitors (which could also bring them their return on investment faster), or they could have a public-private partnership, where the government invests alongside the initial company that is laying the cables, to reduce its costs, and then similarly they license them to new competitors later on.
RandomInteger4 9y ago
You can either have regional monopolies or the ground constantly being torn up by companies wanting to lay their own cables, resulting in a clusterfuck for any other construction effort, and there's only so much space in the ground for cables anyways, not to mention that it's not practical for new players to enter the market given the costs of laying cables, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Sure, only 21 states codify telecom monopolies into law, but in the rest without those laws, how much more choice is there? Let's not count the states where the government paid for dark fiber which is leased to the corporations to provide service for customers, because that seems to be taking the correct route. If that were to happen in other states, it would necessarily require either (1) taking over the telecom infrastructure and leasing it back to them, or (2) expensive buyouts of the telecom's infrastructure. It seems simpler and cheaper to regulate a monopoly in this case. EDIT: Correction: the laws in these 21 states don't codify monopolies per se, but they make it impossible for cities to build their own infrastructure on some absurd basis that the cities are anti-competitive with respect to corporations: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law... EDIT2: Ignore any argument I was trying to make, as I may or may not have contradicted myself based on my mental shortcomings with regard to concentration and lack of medication.

Sure, and you don't have the choice to get another ISP, because of, as the author notes in his article, the problem of regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation.

sagichmal 9y ago

> regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation. Lol.

coliveira 9y ago
This is a common tactic of so-called libertarians: claim that competition is good so that the best is able to win against everybody else. Then, claim that monopolies/oligopolies are the sole responsibility of bad government.
- soberhoff 9y ago
  > tactic of so-called libertarians You make it sound as if nobody could ever support libertarianism honestly.
okreallywtf 9y ago
FWIW I downvoted you because I don't think that your comment is productive. I agree with your sentiment though, I have no idea what local regulations supposedly have caused there to be little or not competition in internet providers. My understanding is that it is incredibly expensive to build and maintain an internet infrastructure. Coupling that with the recent rules that do not require ISPs to sell bandwidth and basically it becomes economically infeasible to build a new ISP from the ground up (if google can't afford to do it, who can?)
1_2__4 9y ago
This is exactly the correct reply.

mtgx 9y ago

The two are not connected other than by the word "regulation". You can still have local governments not give ISPs local monopoly over laid cables, but you can also have net neutrality, which says that companies shouldn't be messing with the traffic that passes through their pipes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, some have mentioned in other similar threads that sometimes the monopoly is (sort of) natural because no other ISP even wants to lay the cables in a certain area. I do believe that to be true, but I don't think it's "case closed," either. Many other countries have solved this issue by either mandating that whoever is laying the cables would then have to license them to competitors (which could also bring them their return on investment faster), or they could have a public-private partnership, where the government invests alongside the initial company that is laying the cables, to reduce its costs, and then similarly they license them to new competitors later on.

RandomInteger4 9y ago

You can either have regional monopolies or the ground constantly being torn up by companies wanting to lay their own cables, resulting in a clusterfuck for any other construction effort, and there's only so much space in the ground for cables anyways, not to mention that it's not practical for new players to enter the market given the costs of laying cables, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Sure, only 21 states codify telecom monopolies into law, but in the rest without those laws, how much more choice is there? Let's not count the states where the government paid for dark fiber which is leased to the corporations to provide service for customers, because that seems to be taking the correct route. If that were to happen in other states, it would necessarily require either (1) taking over the telecom infrastructure and leasing it back to them, or (2) expensive buyouts of the telecom's infrastructure. It seems simpler and cheaper to regulate a monopoly in this case. EDIT: Correction: the laws in these 21 states don't codify monopolies per se, but they make it impossible for cities to build their own infrastructure on some absurd basis that the cities are anti-competitive with respect to corporations: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law... EDIT2: Ignore any argument I was trying to make, as I may or may not have contradicted myself based on my mental shortcomings with regard to concentration and lack of medication.