5 ms·

"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by si

"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service." Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC? Yet somehow, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have convinced most young people that FCC regulation of ISPs is a good idea. The sad part is, the only thing between a mass of young voters and 1984-style internet is just 3 more years of Trump/Pai, who most of them hate. Hopefully the FTC's renewed authority over "information service" can be demonstrated for the virtue it is before it's too late.

rayiner 9y ago
These are not "monopoly agreements" (which are illegal). If you actually read them, you'll see each one says it's "non-exclusive." E.g. http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franchise-agreement-and-renewal.pdf http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franc.... What not offering telephone or television service gets you is avoiding the need to negotiate with the city for a television franchise. These agreements are usually stuffed with grab-bags for the municipal government (e.g. per-user fee, 5% of revenue off the top, offer XYZ public-access channels, build out to XYZ neighborhoods). All of this is imposed by the local government, not the FCC. If you just want to run an ISP, build out where you think you can make a profit, and don't want the city to skim off the top, you can avoid that by not offering television or phone service. On the other hand, not offering television makes it hard to compete. People really do care about television service. I lived in an apartment building in Baltimore that had both cable and FiOS. FiOS was internet-only, because Verizon couldn't get a television franchise in the city. I found out I was the first one on my floor (of dozens of apartments) that had subscribed to fiber since the building was built 4-5 years before. All because people really love their television bundles. (There is a reason Google Fiber offered television service.)
- equalunique 9y ago
  Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details. Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services? I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Sure. You can have market power in the antitrust sense without being a legal monopoly. I don't know where you work, but I'm personally loving the Annapolis area. (As I like to say, VA won't let you have weed, DC won't let you have guns, but MD will let you have both.) I also have two fiber providers to my house, and the state is building municipal fiber in the more rural counties that don't have FiOS.
    - equalunique 9y ago
      Ahhhh Annapolis... Home to a big naval academy & supporting infrastructure/economy. That sounds great. My hope is to find a sweet/similar deal somewhere between Laurel & Crystal City.
    - madengr 9y ago
      Dude, MD won’t let you have guns. Need to move to flyover country for that.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        If your view of the Second Amendment runs more towards militias than self defense, MD isn't bad. For long guns, there is no permit required, and either concealed or open carry is allowed without a permit. The ban on "assault style" weapons just means the state police runs a website listing all the semi-auto rifles you can legally buy (which is a lot). You can get your 30-round magazines in Virginia and bring them in with no trouble. Fun fact: MD has more NFA registered weapons per capita than most of flyover country: http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons.
- burkemw3 9y ago
  I viewed sports as a major obstacle for people ceasing their cable television subscription. I think YouTube TV offers a viable option for this now. So, work on that referral from your ISP to YouTube TV!
- eck 9y ago
  Could a local government impose net neutrality rules as a condition for a franchise? [edit] Or more practically, what general policy changes could a municipality make to maximize the availability of competitive free internet?
  - notyourday 9y ago
    They could but they won't. VZ/Comcast/ATT/etc of the world throw fantastic fundraisers
    - eck 9y ago
      With respect, you don't know who my local government representative is or how effectively I can persuade him. The question I asked was what policies, not how to persuade politicians to pass them.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        That's why Google Fiber failed.
        rayiner 9y ago
        The opposite is true: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-taxpayers-support-google-fiber https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-.... Google got tons of concessions from Fiber cities that other providers don't get, such as free power and free use of public property. There was nothing special about Kansas City--cities were falling over themselves to offer Google concessions in return for getting Fiber.
        notyourday 9y ago
        Google fiber failed http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/ http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-expansion-of-fiber-optic-network-cutting-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-e...
- HighPlainsDrftr 9y ago
  I wonder how much this has changed recently. We have PS Vue, sling, Youtube XYZ. Could you partner with one them to provide a discount to their services? Do the same with Vonage/etc?
- jeffwilcox 9y ago
  Here in Seattle our condo building is in the middle of something insane - Comcast is actively installing their network in our building; previously we were only served by Wave Broadband. The local government has finally pushed back on what used to be de facto "gentlemen's agreements" to not allow competition in buildings. Excited to see what this brings!
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Municipal Monopoly agreements are not illegal. No monopoly is illegal. _Abuse_ of monopoly power is illegal. Cable TV is a government granted m.onopoly
tbabb 9y ago
Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alanfalcon 9y ago
  The “everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill because I surround myself in an echo chamber and can’t fathom of a legitimately dissenting opinion” mindset on the internet is more toxic and disturbing than actual astroturfing (insofar as it is far more prevalent at this time). It adds nothing to the discussion, stifles the sharing of unpopular opinions, and only reinforces the echo chamber. Please consider the ramifications of such accusations and in cases where you have proof, present it in lieu of the substance-less attack.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.
- equalunique 9y ago
  My identity as real person is somewhat assured via Keybase.IO.... https://keybase.io/equalunique https://keybase.io/equalunique
- dang 9y ago
  This breaks the HN guidelines badly. Please read them and don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
NotSammyHagar 9y ago
What the heck are you getting at? You don't seem to be making a clear point. Federal regulation of most common monopolies is a good idea, and the internet has thrived under the net neutrality regulations.
- dang 9y ago
  > What the heck are you getting at? Please don't do this here, but rather post civil, substantive comments only. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tbabb 9y ago
> Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC? Isn't it telling that the FCC is repealing the consumer-protecting regulations, and not the monopoly-protecting ones?

rayiner 9y ago

These are not "monopoly agreements" (which are illegal). If you actually read them, you'll see each one says it's "non-exclusive." E.g. http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franchise-agreement-and-renewal.pdf http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franc.... What not offering telephone or television service gets you is avoiding the need to negotiate with the city for a television franchise. These agreements are usually stuffed with grab-bags for the municipal government (e.g. per-user fee, 5% of revenue off the top, offer XYZ public-access channels, build out to XYZ neighborhoods). All of this is imposed by the local government, not the FCC. If you just want to run an ISP, build out where you think you can make a profit, and don't want the city to skim off the top, you can avoid that by not offering television or phone service. On the other hand, not offering television makes it hard to compete. People really do care about television service. I lived in an apartment building in Baltimore that had both cable and FiOS. FiOS was internet-only, because Verizon couldn't get a television franchise in the city. I found out I was the first one on my floor (of dozens of apartments) that had subscribed to fiber since the building was built 4-5 years before. All because people really love their television bundles. (There is a reason Google Fiber offered television service.)

equalunique 9y ago
Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details. Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services? I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Sure. You can have market power in the antitrust sense without being a legal monopoly. I don't know where you work, but I'm personally loving the Annapolis area. (As I like to say, VA won't let you have weed, DC won't let you have guns, but MD will let you have both.) I also have two fiber providers to my house, and the state is building municipal fiber in the more rural counties that don't have FiOS.
  - equalunique 9y ago
    Ahhhh Annapolis... Home to a big naval academy & supporting infrastructure/economy. That sounds great. My hope is to find a sweet/similar deal somewhere between Laurel & Crystal City.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Dude, MD won’t let you have guns. Need to move to flyover country for that.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      If your view of the Second Amendment runs more towards militias than self defense, MD isn't bad. For long guns, there is no permit required, and either concealed or open carry is allowed without a permit. The ban on "assault style" weapons just means the state police runs a website listing all the semi-auto rifles you can legally buy (which is a lot). You can get your 30-round magazines in Virginia and bring them in with no trouble. Fun fact: MD has more NFA registered weapons per capita than most of flyover country: http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons.
burkemw3 9y ago
I viewed sports as a major obstacle for people ceasing their cable television subscription. I think YouTube TV offers a viable option for this now. So, work on that referral from your ISP to YouTube TV!
eck 9y ago
Could a local government impose net neutrality rules as a condition for a franchise? [edit] Or more practically, what general policy changes could a municipality make to maximize the availability of competitive free internet?
- notyourday 9y ago
  They could but they won't. VZ/Comcast/ATT/etc of the world throw fantastic fundraisers
  - eck 9y ago
    With respect, you don't know who my local government representative is or how effectively I can persuade him. The question I asked was what policies, not how to persuade politicians to pass them.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      That's why Google Fiber failed.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        The opposite is true: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-taxpayers-support-google-fiber https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-.... Google got tons of concessions from Fiber cities that other providers don't get, such as free power and free use of public property. There was nothing special about Kansas City--cities were falling over themselves to offer Google concessions in return for getting Fiber.
        notyourday 9y ago
        Google fiber failed http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/ http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-expansion-of-fiber-optic-network-cutting-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-e...
HighPlainsDrftr 9y ago
I wonder how much this has changed recently. We have PS Vue, sling, Youtube XYZ. Could you partner with one them to provide a discount to their services? Do the same with Vonage/etc?
jeffwilcox 9y ago
Here in Seattle our condo building is in the middle of something insane - Comcast is actively installing their network in our building; previously we were only served by Wave Broadband. The local government has finally pushed back on what used to be de facto "gentlemen's agreements" to not allow competition in buildings. Excited to see what this brings!
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Municipal Monopoly agreements are not illegal. No monopoly is illegal. _Abuse_ of monopoly power is illegal. Cable TV is a government granted m.onopoly

tbabb 9y ago

Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alanfalcon 9y ago
The “everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill because I surround myself in an echo chamber and can’t fathom of a legitimately dissenting opinion” mindset on the internet is more toxic and disturbing than actual astroturfing (insofar as it is far more prevalent at this time). It adds nothing to the discussion, stifles the sharing of unpopular opinions, and only reinforces the echo chamber. Please consider the ramifications of such accusations and in cases where you have proof, present it in lieu of the substance-less attack.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JSONwebtoken 9y ago
Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.
equalunique 9y ago
My identity as real person is somewhat assured via Keybase.IO.... https://keybase.io/equalunique https://keybase.io/equalunique
dang 9y ago
This breaks the HN guidelines badly. Please read them and don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

NotSammyHagar 9y ago

What the heck are you getting at? You don't seem to be making a clear point. Federal regulation of most common monopolies is a good idea, and the internet has thrived under the net neutrality regulations.

dang 9y ago
> What the heck are you getting at? Please don't do this here, but rather post civil, substantive comments only. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tbabb 9y ago

> Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC? Isn't it telling that the FCC is repealing the consumer-protecting regulations, and not the monopoly-protecting ones?