4 ms·

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this. The next thing that will happen is, wh

by judah 9y ago

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this. The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more consumer-friendly.

raverbashing 9y ago
Except due to regulatory capture and lobbying of enough municipalities this has become harder Selling a plain service and doing it well for a fair price should have won most consumers but they will switch companies for minor discounts or the shiniest cellphone then complain they get shafter
- judah 9y ago
  Yes, you're right, regulations make it more difficult. But if startups have taught us anything, it's that businesses find a way to disrupt existing economies even in the face of regulations. Ironically, Net Neutrality (NN) is itself a regulation. One of the reasons we reject NN is because creating regulations often has unintended consequences. We believe it's better to not have the regulation and let the free market and open competition sort out the details.
wvenable 9y ago
> another provider This is laughably naive.
jdhendrickson 9y ago
Hand waving and saying the market will correct itself (somehow? someway? someday?) is unhelpful.
- judah 9y ago
  Not someway, somehow. I gave a concrete example of how it will correct itself. If we wish to talk about hand waving, consider all the "the internet is going to blow up!" hysteria[0] going on right now from the pro-NN side. [0]: https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/940989790677291010 https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/940989790677291010
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  Hand waving and saying the government will correct the market (and not create new problems or itself be a source of problems) is unhelpful.
InitialLastName 9y ago
In the last ten years, I've lived in 6 different localities and have had a total of 4 options for ISP, never more than 2 at any given time. In at least some of those cases, I've watched as potential competition to those options was shut down by ISP-lobbied local regulation. At whatever point there's a possibility of competition in this space, I'll readily buy the free-market argument that they should be de-regulated.
- judah 9y ago
  Are you counting wireless as an option? We're beginning to see some folks use their mobile carrier + tethering as their home internet, often times with better speeds than their cable internet. And what does the future hold? Undoubtedly more competition: the internet already plays a huge role in our lives, and that's likely to only increase. A startup that can disrupt the cable company stranglehold would tap a huge market and force cable companies to be more consumer-friendly.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Wireless is the only plausible competitor. Currently, the costs are still too high and the reliability too low. However, looking 1-2 years forward this will be a very attractive option.
signet 9y ago
How exactly are they going to lose subscribers when a vast majority of them have no alternative?
rybosome 9y ago
Great! So the competitor can rely on leasing municipal broadband networks to avoid expensive, wide-spread fiber buildout? No, because that’s illegal in many cities thanks to lobbying from Comcast and friends. Ok, so the competitor can build their own fiber network. That’s very expensive and time consuming, but it can be done...if local legislators approve it. Sure hope Comcast and friends don’t have any influence there! This is one of the suspected reasons for the failure of Google Fiber, but hey, maybe it’ll work next time. Incidentally my two options for internet service are: 1) Comcast 2) A local competitor offering sub-1MBPS Some choice.
- judah 9y ago
  You're thinking too small. Disruptive technologies are disruptive so often because they bypass the current infrastructure. Ford didn't need horses, Lyft didn't need a fleet of taxis. Maybe the next disruptive broadband company doesn't need to lease existing wire infrastructure. As for internet service options today, yes, it's not great. But it's getting better. We already have several options; here are two examples. Some wireless carriers already allow unlimited tethering; no cables needed. Broadband via satellite is available virtually everywhere in the US; again, no cable infrastructure needed.

by judah 9y ago

raverbashing 9y ago

Except due to regulatory capture and lobbying of enough municipalities this has become harder Selling a plain service and doing it well for a fair price should have won most consumers but they will switch companies for minor discounts or the shiniest cellphone then complain they get shafter

judah 9y ago
Yes, you're right, regulations make it more difficult. But if startups have taught us anything, it's that businesses find a way to disrupt existing economies even in the face of regulations. Ironically, Net Neutrality (NN) is itself a regulation. One of the reasons we reject NN is because creating regulations often has unintended consequences. We believe it's better to not have the regulation and let the free market and open competition sort out the details.

wvenable 9y ago

> another provider This is laughably naive.

jdhendrickson 9y ago

Hand waving and saying the market will correct itself (somehow? someway? someday?) is unhelpful.

judah 9y ago
Not someway, somehow. I gave a concrete example of how it will correct itself. If we wish to talk about hand waving, consider all the "the internet is going to blow up!" hysteria[0] going on right now from the pro-NN side. [0]: https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/940989790677291010 https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/940989790677291010
aeorgnoieang 9y ago
Hand waving and saying the government will correct the market (and not create new problems or itself be a source of problems) is unhelpful.

InitialLastName 9y ago

In the last ten years, I've lived in 6 different localities and have had a total of 4 options for ISP, never more than 2 at any given time. In at least some of those cases, I've watched as potential competition to those options was shut down by ISP-lobbied local regulation. At whatever point there's a possibility of competition in this space, I'll readily buy the free-market argument that they should be de-regulated.

judah 9y ago
Are you counting wireless as an option? We're beginning to see some folks use their mobile carrier + tethering as their home internet, often times with better speeds than their cable internet. And what does the future hold? Undoubtedly more competition: the internet already plays a huge role in our lives, and that's likely to only increase. A startup that can disrupt the cable company stranglehold would tap a huge market and force cable companies to be more consumer-friendly.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Wireless is the only plausible competitor. Currently, the costs are still too high and the reliability too low. However, looking 1-2 years forward this will be a very attractive option.

signet 9y ago

How exactly are they going to lose subscribers when a vast majority of them have no alternative?

rybosome 9y ago

Great! So the competitor can rely on leasing municipal broadband networks to avoid expensive, wide-spread fiber buildout? No, because that’s illegal in many cities thanks to lobbying from Comcast and friends. Ok, so the competitor can build their own fiber network. That’s very expensive and time consuming, but it can be done...if local legislators approve it. Sure hope Comcast and friends don’t have any influence there! This is one of the suspected reasons for the failure of Google Fiber, but hey, maybe it’ll work next time. Incidentally my two options for internet service are: 1) Comcast 2) A local competitor offering sub-1MBPS Some choice.

judah 9y ago
You're thinking too small. Disruptive technologies are disruptive so often because they bypass the current infrastructure. Ford didn't need horses, Lyft didn't need a fleet of taxis. Maybe the next disruptive broadband company doesn't need to lease existing wire infrastructure. As for internet service options today, yes, it's not great. But it's getting better. We already have several options; here are two examples. Some wireless carriers already allow unlimited tethering; no cables needed. Broadband via satellite is available virtually everywhere in the US; again, no cable infrastructure needed.