26 ms·

In a natural monopoly regulation /increases/ competition and freedom for the consumer. The BBC had an article about this a few years ago [0]. Basically the hig

by Chriky 9y ago

In a natural monopoly regulation /increases/ competition and freedom for the consumer. The BBC had an article about this a few years ago [0]. Basically the highly regulated countries had cheaper and faster internet. > Rick Karr, who made a PBS documentary in which he travelled to the UK to find out why prices were lower, says that the critical moment came when the British regulator Ofcom forced British Telecom to allow other companies to use its copper telephone wires going to and from homes. > But US regulators took a different approach. Rather than encouraging competition between operators using the same network, the US encouraged competition between different infrastructure owners - big companies that could afford to build their own networks. > Some believe that UK-style regulation is bad for competition and innovation, however, and suggest that the US is already one of the world leaders in broadband. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24528383 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24528383

tankenmate 9y ago
This UK model is closely related to how roads are funded, as mostly govt funded monopoly on infrastructure (with occasional public private financing, which comes with its own issues, toll roads etc) and common access paid for by users (fuel tax, road tax, etc). The US model is closer to US railroads model, although not entirely accurate, analogy; largely privately owned with some govt owned, funded by large infrastructure companies that charge customers for usage and also due to infrastructure costs are rarely duplicated in close proximity. It's had issues with off and on regulation, profitability, localised monopolies that have a tendency to over charge when they can get away with it.
trappist 9y ago
It might be easier to convince me ISPs were a natural monopoly if they weren't also a legally protected monopoly where they are, and generally have plenty of competition where they aren't.
- brians 9y ago
  I’m not sure that’s evidence against their natural monopoly position. It might be that we’re in a world where in some places, it’s plausible to have two ISPs, and in many it’s not—but if two try, they’ll both fail to get enough people to be profitable. Then any sane provider wants to demand exclusivity as the cost of pulling fiber through a community, and unhappily acknowledges that they’ll have to cover all of their exclusive territory. If we’re in that world, and the service is nearly essential, we’ll see legal monopolies in lots of places, and some places with no legal monopoly and no service—they can’t agree on a price. I’m prone to suspicion of their business practices too, but every one of the Comcast technical staff I’ve met, from Jason down, has been an excellent person deeply committed to the best mission of a telecoms company, enabling human communication. Is that a marketing campaign? Yes, but as far as I can tell it’s an honest campaign of showing the world who they are and what they care about.
  - Bud 9y ago
    This is laughable in light of Comcast warring against net neutrality and lying about it to customers and everyone else. Laughable.
- sethrin 9y ago
  Do you personally have the ability to create large-scale broadband networks, using only the financial means available to the average citizen? An estimate by Goldman Sachs put the cost of nationwide Google Fiber at $140 billion. Personally, I'm not sure if I could come up with that kind of money, in a pinch.

by Chriky 9y ago

tankenmate 9y ago

This UK model is closely related to how roads are funded, as mostly govt funded monopoly on infrastructure (with occasional public private financing, which comes with its own issues, toll roads etc) and common access paid for by users (fuel tax, road tax, etc). The US model is closer to US railroads model, although not entirely accurate, analogy; largely privately owned with some govt owned, funded by large infrastructure companies that charge customers for usage and also due to infrastructure costs are rarely duplicated in close proximity. It's had issues with off and on regulation, profitability, localised monopolies that have a tendency to over charge when they can get away with it.

trappist 9y ago

It might be easier to convince me ISPs were a natural monopoly if they weren't also a legally protected monopoly where they are, and generally have plenty of competition where they aren't.

brians 9y ago
I’m not sure that’s evidence against their natural monopoly position. It might be that we’re in a world where in some places, it’s plausible to have two ISPs, and in many it’s not—but if two try, they’ll both fail to get enough people to be profitable. Then any sane provider wants to demand exclusivity as the cost of pulling fiber through a community, and unhappily acknowledges that they’ll have to cover all of their exclusive territory. If we’re in that world, and the service is nearly essential, we’ll see legal monopolies in lots of places, and some places with no legal monopoly and no service—they can’t agree on a price. I’m prone to suspicion of their business practices too, but every one of the Comcast technical staff I’ve met, from Jason down, has been an excellent person deeply committed to the best mission of a telecoms company, enabling human communication. Is that a marketing campaign? Yes, but as far as I can tell it’s an honest campaign of showing the world who they are and what they care about.
- Bud 9y ago
  This is laughable in light of Comcast warring against net neutrality and lying about it to customers and everyone else. Laughable.
sethrin 9y ago
Do you personally have the ability to create large-scale broadband networks, using only the financial means available to the average citizen? An estimate by Goldman Sachs put the cost of nationwide Google Fiber at $140 billion. Personally, I'm not sure if I could come up with that kind of money, in a pinch.