3 ms·

How is comcast not a monopoly? That was my only choice when I lived chicago.

dmoy 9y ago
Yea actually I am curious here, I don't know the difference. Not sure why you are downvoted, I for one would appreciate someone who knows more to explain.
leereeves 9y ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment, or did parent remove a reference to Comcast?
- dominotw 9y ago
  My comment was me wondering if there is more to monopoly than this > 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. Since that clearly applied to comcast and nothing has been done about it.
brixon 9y ago
That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area. What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evaluated from time to time.
- nickik 9y ago
  > providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area That is a argument often made by those ISPs but I don't believe it for a second. In Sweden remote rual villages get together, fund a fiber connection to their village (and quite often actually help dig) where some companies is allowed to lay fiber but is required to allow any ISP to compete. The market (and admittedly good general regulation in Sweden) leads to an effect where free people in voluntary association get together with private business). As long as you have single monopoly access these ISP will never update their infrastructure and voluntary offer higher speed and better service.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    Exactly. These franchise agreements are the real culprit behind the issues consumers have with ISPs. I'd much rather have a federal can on franchise agreements than Title II.
nickik 9y ago
They are a local monopoly (and in case of comcast more then just local). But you see this is very different. This is essentially a state created monopoly, so the left does never really seem to care about them. They were pretty much born as monopolies. The left is only interested in the 'free market great monopolies and we need to protect the people with regulation narrative'. The right on the other hand does not really care about things that are nominally private, even if it is a 100% imperfect form of a market. They care about symbolic reduction in the state and the state budget itself, plus why go after somebody that has huge interest that the left not be back in power as that could mean absorption in the state.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  This is a categorically false assertion. Almost everyone hates comcast. And left, right, and center numerous municipalities are trying to break Comcast's local monopolies, but are being stopped by state legislatures. Regulatory capture is a big problem, and the buying of politicians is a problem on both sides politically in the US. *Edit: I'd be curious to know why people disagree with my statement.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Maybe I was not clear. With state I'm 'the government' not 'state government' in case this was not clear. I was just trying to say why on federal level does not try to fix these issues on a higher level. My point was that neither sees it as a important enough issue, not to mention complicated because of all the different levels.
    - ch4s3 9y ago
      I'm not sure there's a lot of fixing anything at the federal level lately.

dmoy 9y ago

Yea actually I am curious here, I don't know the difference. Not sure why you are downvoted, I for one would appreciate someone who knows more to explain.

leereeves 9y ago

Did you reply to the wrong comment, or did parent remove a reference to Comcast?

dominotw 9y ago
My comment was me wondering if there is more to monopoly than this > 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. Since that clearly applied to comcast and nothing has been done about it.

brixon 9y ago

That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area. What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evaluated from time to time.

nickik 9y ago
> providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area That is a argument often made by those ISPs but I don't believe it for a second. In Sweden remote rual villages get together, fund a fiber connection to their village (and quite often actually help dig) where some companies is allowed to lay fiber but is required to allow any ISP to compete. The market (and admittedly good general regulation in Sweden) leads to an effect where free people in voluntary association get together with private business). As long as you have single monopoly access these ISP will never update their infrastructure and voluntary offer higher speed and better service.
- pitaj 9y ago
  Exactly. These franchise agreements are the real culprit behind the issues consumers have with ISPs. I'd much rather have a federal can on franchise agreements than Title II.

nickik 9y ago

They are a local monopoly (and in case of comcast more then just local). But you see this is very different. This is essentially a state created monopoly, so the left does never really seem to care about them. They were pretty much born as monopolies. The left is only interested in the 'free market great monopolies and we need to protect the people with regulation narrative'. The right on the other hand does not really care about things that are nominally private, even if it is a 100% imperfect form of a market. They care about symbolic reduction in the state and the state budget itself, plus why go after somebody that has huge interest that the left not be back in power as that could mean absorption in the state.

ch4s3 9y ago
This is a categorically false assertion. Almost everyone hates comcast. And left, right, and center numerous municipalities are trying to break Comcast's local monopolies, but are being stopped by state legislatures. Regulatory capture is a big problem, and the buying of politicians is a problem on both sides politically in the US. *Edit: I'd be curious to know why people disagree with my statement.
- nickik 9y ago
  Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Maybe I was not clear. With state I'm 'the government' not 'state government' in case this was not clear. I was just trying to say why on federal level does not try to fix these issues on a higher level. My point was that neither sees it as a important enough issue, not to mention complicated because of all the different levels.
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    I'm not sure there's a lot of fixing anything at the federal level lately.