4 ms·

> For example, there are no "exclusivity agreements"--those have been illegal under federal law since 1994. I’m not sure we’re talking about the same kinds of

> For example, there are no "exclusivity agreements"--those have been illegal under federal law since 1994. I’m not sure we’re talking about the same kinds of agreements; I’m not referring to agreements between providers and municipalities, but between providers and developers, large residential management companies, and HOA-type entities. I do not know whether those are illegal, but in my experience they are prevalent enough that it doesn’t seem to matter. They still get signed, and presumably at least one party believes such covenants are enforceable (I have no idea whether they are or not). > If "industry lobbying power" was the problem, you'd expect Google would try to deploy fiber somewhere it had the leg-up lobbying-wise, like Seattle or San Francisco. It never did that. Under your theory, you have to assume that Comcast (based in Philadelphia) has more lobbying muscle in Google's own back yard than Google. I would expect cities where incumbent ISPs’ political influence is weakest to already be benefiting from increased competition, and indeed, that seems to be the case. I wouldn’t expect Google to prioritize cities that are already well served by multiple providers.

rayiner 8y ago
Landlord exclusivity agreements are not illegal, but they’re also only really an issue for large multi-dwelling units. Only 17% of housing units nationwide are in a building with more than four units (and 70% of housing units are single family homes or mobile homes). It’s just not a driving force outside a handful of the largest cities. You can also add a layer of conjecture, that there are cities that have more competition because lobbying power is weaker. What makes you think Kansas City or Provo or Austin or Atlanta fit into this category more so than Mountain View? And it’s not like most of Silicon Valley is “already well served by multiple providers”—why not build there? I think it’s obvious that the answer to that is not “lobbying” but “blue state cities make it an expensive pain in the ass to build anything including fiber.”
- mbrameld 8y ago
  > but they’re also only really an issue for large multi-dwelling units Are they? I lived in a large single-family home neighborhood in Florida for several years where the HOA has an exclusivity agreement with one of the big cable companies. Why wouldn't those be an issue as well?
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    My understanding is you can get the HOA to change its rules through assembling a large enough voting block to do so. It's not like the HOA rules are designed to benefit anyone other than the homeowners which comprise the association or anything. My sister used to live in a HOA neighborhood and has some stories to tell about power grabs, corruption and lies almost on a Game of Thrones level involving the neighbors vying for control of their own little fiefdom.
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      >My sister used to live in a HOA neighborhood and has some stories to tell about power grabs, corruption and lies almost on a Game of Thrones level involving the neighbors vying for control of their own little fiefdom. Please share.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "Only 17% of housing units nationwide are in a building with more than four units (and 70% of housing units are single family homes or mobile homes)." Yes. But ultimately isn't it the number of ppl being served, not the building count, that matters more?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mudetroit 8y ago
    It seems like you are misinterpreting the term housing unit. It isn't the number of buildings. A single apartment in a 200 unit building counts as a housing unit. What this number is telling you is just less than 1 in 5 households in the US live in a building with more than 4 units. I would suspect that the distribution of household size if anything is a bit biased towards single family homes having more people per unit in them if anything.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Yes. But if I'm not mistaken the unit of measure was internet access. Yes, 1 in X might not be a single family house, but if there were enough units under a single 1 then in theory that could be more total ppl / accnts than single fam home. Or have I somewhat forgotten what the OP + resulting thread was trying to unpack? Sorry?

rayiner 8y ago

Landlord exclusivity agreements are not illegal, but they’re also only really an issue for large multi-dwelling units. Only 17% of housing units nationwide are in a building with more than four units (and 70% of housing units are single family homes or mobile homes). It’s just not a driving force outside a handful of the largest cities. You can also add a layer of conjecture, that there are cities that have more competition because lobbying power is weaker. What makes you think Kansas City or Provo or Austin or Atlanta fit into this category more so than Mountain View? And it’s not like most of Silicon Valley is “already well served by multiple providers”—why not build there? I think it’s obvious that the answer to that is not “lobbying” but “blue state cities make it an expensive pain in the ass to build anything including fiber.”

mbrameld 8y ago
> but they’re also only really an issue for large multi-dwelling units Are they? I lived in a large single-family home neighborhood in Florida for several years where the HOA has an exclusivity agreement with one of the big cable companies. Why wouldn't those be an issue as well?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  My understanding is you can get the HOA to change its rules through assembling a large enough voting block to do so. It's not like the HOA rules are designed to benefit anyone other than the homeowners which comprise the association or anything. My sister used to live in a HOA neighborhood and has some stories to tell about power grabs, corruption and lies almost on a Game of Thrones level involving the neighbors vying for control of their own little fiefdom.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    >My sister used to live in a HOA neighborhood and has some stories to tell about power grabs, corruption and lies almost on a Game of Thrones level involving the neighbors vying for control of their own little fiefdom. Please share.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "Only 17% of housing units nationwide are in a building with more than four units (and 70% of housing units are single family homes or mobile homes)." Yes. But ultimately isn't it the number of ppl being served, not the building count, that matters more?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mudetroit 8y ago
  It seems like you are misinterpreting the term housing unit. It isn't the number of buildings. A single apartment in a 200 unit building counts as a housing unit. What this number is telling you is just less than 1 in 5 households in the US live in a building with more than 4 units. I would suspect that the distribution of household size if anything is a bit biased towards single family homes having more people per unit in them if anything.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Yes. But if I'm not mistaken the unit of measure was internet access. Yes, 1 in X might not be a single family house, but if there were enough units under a single 1 then in theory that could be more total ppl / accnts than single fam home. Or have I somewhat forgotten what the OP + resulting thread was trying to unpack? Sorry?