15 ms·

It’s good to check on this of course but...as far as ISPs go, this is actually about #3 on the list of problems I want the FTC or someone to fix. How about the

It’s good to check on this of course but...as far as ISPs go, this is actually about #3 on the list of problems I want the FTC or someone to fix. How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice. Or that Internet that everyone wants can be force-bundled with ridiculous things no one wants (like a home phone line and minimum TV bundle), that we tolerate because there is no option. Or prices that go up forever with no improvements, except when they all magically found a way the day after Google Fiber was announced. These companies abuse their positions and need to be checked for that in addition to privacy.

j4kp07 8y ago
"Or that Internet that everyone wants can be force-bundled with ridiculous things no one wants (like a home phone line and minimum TV bundle), that we tolerate because there is no option." Kindly name one ISP that "forces" other services on top of their Internet service. "How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice." Sure. If you travel 100+ miles outside of a metro city; where the ROI for an ISP is lowered to near zero.
microcolonel 8y ago
> How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice. If you think it's so very important that there be more than one already-installed terrestrial or directional radio broadband provider in the middle of nowhere; you are perfectly welcome to find out what that will tend to cost, and start a charity to subsidize it. The government can not force private individuals or businesses to provide new services to any random location in the United States that anyone could technically choose to live. That's a good thing, in my view. As somebody who intends to live further away from urban centers, and knows what distance does to the cost of providing telecommunications services, it is my responsibility to entice others to do business with me, not anyone else's. If somebody is actively conspiring to prevent new business in this sector, that's one thing; but if the local government, geographic, and economic situation of some place is just such that it's not worth extending ISP services there, that's not in the FTCs purview.
- diminoten 8y ago
  They can absolutely fine and jail those businesses for colluding to only operate in specific markets where other businesses agree not to operate.
  - aarongray 8y ago
    The ISP's didn't collude with other businesses, they colluded with governments and got monopoly protections.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      Also, notably, the governments colluded with them.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        The government didn't collude, the government was taken for a ride, and doesn't have the balls to now go after their $400mil.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      The ISPs colluded with one another so that they don't overlap territories and keep their exclusivity in given areas.
- tdeck 8y ago
  Who said we were talking about the middle of nowhere? There are plenty of urban and suburban areas where there are only one or two choices (typically the one cable company and DSL).
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Which urban area are you referring to? (I do recognize the problem at the local level, where in some part of a city or suburb ISPs seem to agree probably-unlawfully not to compete, but really how often is this the case?) https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=jun2017&tech=acfow&speed=10_1&vlat=39.21246159924402&vlon=-97.87544053018064&vzoom=4.479271665194176 https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=jun2...
aarongray 8y ago
The issue is local monopoly laws granted to ISP's by city governments. In order to encourage ISP's to invest the necessary money to build infrastructure in their jurisdictions, many of these places granted them monopolies. It's an issue of crony capitalism at the hyperlocal level.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  can't wait for satellite to some day be robust and cheap enough to utterly destroy the notion of municipal internet. probably not in my lifetime, but hey, my 4g is cheap enough for my current uses :)
  - aarongray 8y ago
    haha yeah me too. It might actually happen while we are still around. https://www.fastcompany.com/90268592/elon-musks-spacex-just-got-fcc-approval-to-launch-7518-satellites https://www.fastcompany.com/90268592/elon-musks-spacex-just-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4
  - massivecali 8y ago
    Until satellites solve the weather transmission interference problems, that's a long way off.
    - Retric 8y ago
      GPS for example works just fine in the rain. Geostationary orbits have much larger issues with weather than the closer orbits of next gen satilite Internet.
      - massivecali 8y ago
        You wouldn't notice when your GPS goes out off and on while in inclement weather. It's a service that can degrade gracefully. Some systems revert to other sensors when you lose GPS signal (tunnels, underground, etc). However, you would certainly notice when your packets drop and your video/audio streaming cuts out.
exelius 8y ago
There are a number of factors that basically require a local monopoly for terrestrial telecom. This is a feature of the market — not anything the government has done. #1 is the universal coverage requirement — anyone receiving a local monopoly from a municipality has to agree to make service available in the entire city. Many poor or low-density neighborhoods are not profitable for even a single company to serve, much less multiple companies. Overbuilders have no such requirement to even provide the potential of service in low-income areas, so none do. A side effect of this is that overbuilders can’t approach the level of efficiency that the monopolists can (see #4) and none can be much more than a nuisance to the incumbents as long as they remain overbuilders. #2 is that in the wealthier / denser areas of a city that can support more than one provider, there are typically 2-5 providers offering speeds of 100+ mbit. The local monopolists therefore rely on the profits from the wealthy areas to cover the losses from the poor areas. #3 is that it’s really hard to get investment to overbuild unless it’s a wealthy area. Telecom rollouts are expensive and require taking on significant debt. For every additional overbuilder serving an area, your ratio of [households served] / [households subscribed] and the amount of overhead you have to recoup for each customer goes up. Investors will not loan you money if they think you won’t make it back. #4 is that telecom services are a scale business where you need vertical integration to be viable. TimeWarner Cable had their backbone network with TimeWarner Telecom. That was fine until both companies split and the infrastructure was owned by two different companies. TimeWarner Cable then had to build their own backbone — which lowered their credit rating, which made every subsequent debt offering more expensive. They were trapped in a cycle where they needed to invest badly, their network was slow so they couldn’t raise prices much, but borrowing was so expensive for them it turned into a death spiral. And that’s how the #4 cable provider in the country was able to buy the #2 provider — Charter was simply more vertically integrated through Liberty Media and had a better balance sheet. The “take rate” (how many households of the total subscribe to broadband internet — directly correlated with household income) of a neighborhood largely determines how many companies serve the area. The overall take rate of the wealthiest cities is sufficient to support at most 3 broadband providers serving a given household; in the poorest cities the government has to subsidize access for even a single company to serve the area. Capitalism and abuse of position go hand-in-hand. I would argue that abuse of position is the fundamental driving force behind capitalism. (These rules largely do not apply to wireless.)
williesleg 8y ago
There are very few barriers to opening an ISP now. Not like when the FCC was in charge. Anyone can do it now.
paul7986 8y ago
Google should never be considered a savior just look at what they did in Louisville KY with Google Fiber. They are no different then Comcast, ATT or other biggies who abuse their power.

j4kp07 8y ago

"Or that Internet that everyone wants can be force-bundled with ridiculous things no one wants (like a home phone line and minimum TV bundle), that we tolerate because there is no option." Kindly name one ISP that "forces" other services on top of their Internet service. "How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice." Sure. If you travel 100+ miles outside of a metro city; where the ROI for an ISP is lowered to near zero.

microcolonel 8y ago

> How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice. If you think it's so very important that there be more than one already-installed terrestrial or directional radio broadband provider in the middle of nowhere; you are perfectly welcome to find out what that will tend to cost, and start a charity to subsidize it. The government can not force private individuals or businesses to provide new services to any random location in the United States that anyone could technically choose to live. That's a good thing, in my view. As somebody who intends to live further away from urban centers, and knows what distance does to the cost of providing telecommunications services, it is my responsibility to entice others to do business with me, not anyone else's. If somebody is actively conspiring to prevent new business in this sector, that's one thing; but if the local government, geographic, and economic situation of some place is just such that it's not worth extending ISP services there, that's not in the FTCs purview.

diminoten 8y ago
They can absolutely fine and jail those businesses for colluding to only operate in specific markets where other businesses agree not to operate.
- aarongray 8y ago
  The ISP's didn't collude with other businesses, they colluded with governments and got monopoly protections.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Also, notably, the governments colluded with them.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      The government didn't collude, the government was taken for a ride, and doesn't have the balls to now go after their $400mil.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    The ISPs colluded with one another so that they don't overlap territories and keep their exclusivity in given areas.
tdeck 8y ago
Who said we were talking about the middle of nowhere? There are plenty of urban and suburban areas where there are only one or two choices (typically the one cable company and DSL).
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Which urban area are you referring to? (I do recognize the problem at the local level, where in some part of a city or suburb ISPs seem to agree probably-unlawfully not to compete, but really how often is this the case?) https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=jun2017&tech=acfow&speed=10_1&vlat=39.21246159924402&vlon=-97.87544053018064&vzoom=4.479271665194176 https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=jun2...

aarongray 8y ago

The issue is local monopoly laws granted to ISP's by city governments. In order to encourage ISP's to invest the necessary money to build infrastructure in their jurisdictions, many of these places granted them monopolies. It's an issue of crony capitalism at the hyperlocal level.

anoncoward111 8y ago
can't wait for satellite to some day be robust and cheap enough to utterly destroy the notion of municipal internet. probably not in my lifetime, but hey, my 4g is cheap enough for my current uses :)
- aarongray 8y ago
  haha yeah me too. It might actually happen while we are still around. https://www.fastcompany.com/90268592/elon-musks-spacex-just-got-fcc-approval-to-launch-7518-satellites https://www.fastcompany.com/90268592/elon-musks-spacex-just-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4
- massivecali 8y ago
  Until satellites solve the weather transmission interference problems, that's a long way off.
  - Retric 8y ago
    GPS for example works just fine in the rain. Geostationary orbits have much larger issues with weather than the closer orbits of next gen satilite Internet.
    - massivecali 8y ago
      You wouldn't notice when your GPS goes out off and on while in inclement weather. It's a service that can degrade gracefully. Some systems revert to other sensors when you lose GPS signal (tunnels, underground, etc). However, you would certainly notice when your packets drop and your video/audio streaming cuts out.

exelius 8y ago

There are a number of factors that basically require a local monopoly for terrestrial telecom. This is a feature of the market — not anything the government has done. #1 is the universal coverage requirement — anyone receiving a local monopoly from a municipality has to agree to make service available in the entire city. Many poor or low-density neighborhoods are not profitable for even a single company to serve, much less multiple companies. Overbuilders have no such requirement to even provide the potential of service in low-income areas, so none do. A side effect of this is that overbuilders can’t approach the level of efficiency that the monopolists can (see #4) and none can be much more than a nuisance to the incumbents as long as they remain overbuilders. #2 is that in the wealthier / denser areas of a city that can support more than one provider, there are typically 2-5 providers offering speeds of 100+ mbit. The local monopolists therefore rely on the profits from the wealthy areas to cover the losses from the poor areas. #3 is that it’s really hard to get investment to overbuild unless it’s a wealthy area. Telecom rollouts are expensive and require taking on significant debt. For every additional overbuilder serving an area, your ratio of [households served] / [households subscribed] and the amount of overhead you have to recoup for each customer goes up. Investors will not loan you money if they think you won’t make it back. #4 is that telecom services are a scale business where you need vertical integration to be viable. TimeWarner Cable had their backbone network with TimeWarner Telecom. That was fine until both companies split and the infrastructure was owned by two different companies. TimeWarner Cable then had to build their own backbone — which lowered their credit rating, which made every subsequent debt offering more expensive. They were trapped in a cycle where they needed to invest badly, their network was slow so they couldn’t raise prices much, but borrowing was so expensive for them it turned into a death spiral. And that’s how the #4 cable provider in the country was able to buy the #2 provider — Charter was simply more vertically integrated through Liberty Media and had a better balance sheet. The “take rate” (how many households of the total subscribe to broadband internet — directly correlated with household income) of a neighborhood largely determines how many companies serve the area. The overall take rate of the wealthiest cities is sufficient to support at most 3 broadband providers serving a given household; in the poorest cities the government has to subsidize access for even a single company to serve the area. Capitalism and abuse of position go hand-in-hand. I would argue that abuse of position is the fundamental driving force behind capitalism. (These rules largely do not apply to wireless.)

williesleg 8y ago

There are very few barriers to opening an ISP now. Not like when the FCC was in charge. Anyone can do it now.

paul7986 8y ago

Google should never be considered a savior just look at what they did in Louisville KY with Google Fiber. They are no different then Comcast, ATT or other biggies who abuse their power.