5 ms·

> The first choice is not currently workable, since competition between ISPs is impractical. Could you explain why that is?

thomasfortes 9y ago
Would you like to have 30 different companies digging your street to lay cables? Or 10 energy cables over your street because energy competition would be great? Even in a perfect world, infrastructure is a natural monopoly. The government could handle all the big scale infrastructure and let small players handle the last mile, but that's not the case and even if it was, people would still complain.
- waterhouse 9y ago
  If people accept 1 company doing it, would 2, or even 3 or 4, be so bad? Whatever rules limit it currently could be relaxed instead of eliminated completely; competition-wise, going from 1 to 2 is a much larger step than going from 5 to 10. Regarding power—as a matter of fact, I've had some power outages recently. I think 2 would provide some nice redundancy.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  New businesses do not necessarily need to own the infrastructure. They just need bandwidth. Competing businesses could even work together to improve existing infrastructure. The problem is that existing monopolies do not dissipate without external pressure, because it is not to their benefit. We have 6 monopolies now, and we need to actively break them up. Short of that, we need to regulate them.
  - jlillyreed 9y ago
    Existing businesses have many incentives to not give bandwidth on their infrastructure to their competition - especially at competitive prices
    - betterunix2 9y ago
      In some countries, and in the USA until 2005, the regulations require incumbent service providers to lease their infrastructure to competitors. France has such requirements, and unsurprisingly they pay less for their fiber optic service than Americans.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      That is the heart of the problem.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  How did you in the US ever manage to get cable TV everywhere?
thomastjeffery 9y ago
There are 6 ISPs that control the majority of the market for the entire US. Most Americans have only one ISP to choose from. When a company like Comcast or Verizon owns, or owns the rights to the existing infrastructure, they can refuse to sell or lease that infrastructure to other businesses, thereby stifling competition. That is the current state of affairs. For a competing business to be successful, it needs infrastructure, most of which is currently controlled by 6 large companies who do not want competition, so competing businesses fail.
- waterhouse 9y ago
  I guess there would be a couple of approaches. (1) would be for some companies (possibly a consortium thereof) to build new infrastructure. (2) would be to force companies to lease out their existing infrastructure indefinitely. (Er, "rights to"—does that describe cases where the local government owns the infrastructure, but one company has an exclusive contract to use it for N years? It seems that case could be addressed by letting the contract expire and then only agreeing to nonexclusive contracts thereafter.) The first option seems to require less extreme intervention, so let's consider that. What are the obstacles to (1)? There's the complaint in a sibling thread about "digging up the street to put in more cables". I suspect that if homeowners were given the choice of putting up with that in exchange for substantially reduced costs and/or higher bandwidth, many would take it, possibly enough for majority votes if it's the city government that makes that choice. The other question would be, is it economically feasible? There are high fixed costs, and some maintenance, and in exchange I guess whoever owns the new infrastructure can charge the use of it to new, competing ISPs. It'd probably pay for itself over some time horizon, but is the return better than investing the money in something else? I don't know the numbers on that.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    The problem with building new infrastructure is that the first company to do so will always benefit the most. It costs the same amount to lay fiber regardless of whether or not another company has laid the fiber. If you are the first to reach the town, you pick up all the customers. If you are second, you pick up only a fraction, despite spending the same amount to get there; in other words you will see a lower return on your investment. Basically, what you have with ISPs is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

thomasfortes 9y ago

Would you like to have 30 different companies digging your street to lay cables? Or 10 energy cables over your street because energy competition would be great? Even in a perfect world, infrastructure is a natural monopoly. The government could handle all the big scale infrastructure and let small players handle the last mile, but that's not the case and even if it was, people would still complain.

waterhouse 9y ago
If people accept 1 company doing it, would 2, or even 3 or 4, be so bad? Whatever rules limit it currently could be relaxed instead of eliminated completely; competition-wise, going from 1 to 2 is a much larger step than going from 5 to 10. Regarding power—as a matter of fact, I've had some power outages recently. I think 2 would provide some nice redundancy.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
New businesses do not necessarily need to own the infrastructure. They just need bandwidth. Competing businesses could even work together to improve existing infrastructure. The problem is that existing monopolies do not dissipate without external pressure, because it is not to their benefit. We have 6 monopolies now, and we need to actively break them up. Short of that, we need to regulate them.
- jlillyreed 9y ago
  Existing businesses have many incentives to not give bandwidth on their infrastructure to their competition - especially at competitive prices
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    In some countries, and in the USA until 2005, the regulations require incumbent service providers to lease their infrastructure to competitors. France has such requirements, and unsurprisingly they pay less for their fiber optic service than Americans.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    That is the heart of the problem.
tripzilch 9y ago
How did you in the US ever manage to get cable TV everywhere?

thomastjeffery 9y ago

There are 6 ISPs that control the majority of the market for the entire US. Most Americans have only one ISP to choose from. When a company like Comcast or Verizon owns, or owns the rights to the existing infrastructure, they can refuse to sell or lease that infrastructure to other businesses, thereby stifling competition. That is the current state of affairs. For a competing business to be successful, it needs infrastructure, most of which is currently controlled by 6 large companies who do not want competition, so competing businesses fail.

waterhouse 9y ago
I guess there would be a couple of approaches. (1) would be for some companies (possibly a consortium thereof) to build new infrastructure. (2) would be to force companies to lease out their existing infrastructure indefinitely. (Er, "rights to"—does that describe cases where the local government owns the infrastructure, but one company has an exclusive contract to use it for N years? It seems that case could be addressed by letting the contract expire and then only agreeing to nonexclusive contracts thereafter.) The first option seems to require less extreme intervention, so let's consider that. What are the obstacles to (1)? There's the complaint in a sibling thread about "digging up the street to put in more cables". I suspect that if homeowners were given the choice of putting up with that in exchange for substantially reduced costs and/or higher bandwidth, many would take it, possibly enough for majority votes if it's the city government that makes that choice. The other question would be, is it economically feasible? There are high fixed costs, and some maintenance, and in exchange I guess whoever owns the new infrastructure can charge the use of it to new, competing ISPs. It'd probably pay for itself over some time horizon, but is the return better than investing the money in something else? I don't know the numbers on that.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  The problem with building new infrastructure is that the first company to do so will always benefit the most. It costs the same amount to lay fiber regardless of whether or not another company has laid the fiber. If you are the first to reach the town, you pick up all the customers. If you are second, you pick up only a fraction, despite spending the same amount to get there; in other words you will see a lower return on your investment. Basically, what you have with ISPs is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly