5 ms·

It's municipal, so the magnitude of threat you're implying (oooh Government) is a misdirection. GP's point is that consistently lobbying to shut down the existe

It's municipal, so the magnitude of threat you're implying (oooh Government) is a misdirection. GP's point is that consistently lobbying to shut down the existence of any competition, public or private, is monopolistic behavior. And it is, pretty much by definition.

rayiner 8y ago
GP used an example of lobbying against the government entering what had heretofore been a private market. Pushing back on that is not "monopolistic" by any sense of the term. If you have examples of Comcast lobbying to prevent private competition, I'd like to hear them. The biggest impediment to private competition actually comes from the public interest sector, which insists on build-out requirements that make it very difficult to start competing ISPs, on the theory that it's better for nobody to have competing choices than to only have wealthier areas have competing choices.
- psadauskas 8y ago
  Comcast lobbied heavily everywhere that Google was looking to build our their fiber. Eg, https://consumerist.com/2016/09/20/comcast-att-try-again-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville-by-writing-law-to-slow-it-down/ https://consumerist.com/2016/09/20/comcast-att-try-again-to-...
- elefanten 8y ago
  Monopoly refers to being a sole provider. It is completely by definition monopolistic to take action to prevent a second provider from emerging. Is it possible for them to have other strategic incentives for their action, such as preventing a type of competitor from emerging? Yes. And if you take the perspective that government is a uniquely troublesome competitor, it's understandable to feel extra strong about it. But it's still monopolistic in context. A counterpoint to "competition from the government is uniquely unfair" is "having only one provider is uniquely unfair". One is from the perspective of a profitable $100B corporation, the other is from the perspective of the consumers.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Exactly what is happening in my town. The city wanted to launch a municipal internet service. Predictably, it failed because the requirements were to provide service everywhere and the bids all came back too high. Meanwhile they continue to resist private ISPs who want to expand into neighborhoods where they think they can do so profitably.

rayiner 8y ago

GP used an example of lobbying against the government entering what had heretofore been a private market. Pushing back on that is not "monopolistic" by any sense of the term. If you have examples of Comcast lobbying to prevent private competition, I'd like to hear them. The biggest impediment to private competition actually comes from the public interest sector, which insists on build-out requirements that make it very difficult to start competing ISPs, on the theory that it's better for nobody to have competing choices than to only have wealthier areas have competing choices.

psadauskas 8y ago
Comcast lobbied heavily everywhere that Google was looking to build our their fiber. Eg, https://consumerist.com/2016/09/20/comcast-att-try-again-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville-by-writing-law-to-slow-it-down/ https://consumerist.com/2016/09/20/comcast-att-try-again-to-...
elefanten 8y ago
Monopoly refers to being a sole provider. It is completely by definition monopolistic to take action to prevent a second provider from emerging. Is it possible for them to have other strategic incentives for their action, such as preventing a type of competitor from emerging? Yes. And if you take the perspective that government is a uniquely troublesome competitor, it's understandable to feel extra strong about it. But it's still monopolistic in context. A counterpoint to "competition from the government is uniquely unfair" is "having only one provider is uniquely unfair". One is from the perspective of a profitable $100B corporation, the other is from the perspective of the consumers.
ams6110 8y ago
Exactly what is happening in my town. The city wanted to launch a municipal internet service. Predictably, it failed because the requirements were to provide service everywhere and the bids all came back too high. Meanwhile they continue to resist private ISPs who want to expand into neighborhoods where they think they can do so profitably.