5 ms·

> 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 dir

> 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...
  - inetknght 8y ago
    That map doesn't load. I can tell you that there are plenty of places in which the only option is a false option between the large carriers. In Houston, for example, my choices are: get fucked by AT&T, get ripped a new one by Comcast, or get laughed at by Windstream. All of this from companies that have taken tax money and actively fight against community-operated broadband services.
  - kxrm 8y ago
    The issue is these incumbents use local laws to punish new comers. Just look at the poll access issues throughout this country. The regulatory burden of having to wait for a competitor to move their lines to make room for you is just one of many ways incumbent ISPs slow competitive access.
  - discreditable 8y ago
    That broadband map isn't very good. At my old place it said I could get fiber for several years before I actually could. Checking my current place it looks like it still incorrectly says I can get fiber. I'm in a major urban area.
  - deathanatos 8y ago
    Well, okay. I'm in Silicon Valley. That map lists Comcast, AT&T, and a small local player I've never heard of. Comcast: my current ISP. AT&T: didn't offer broadband service the last time I checked; this has apparently changed since then. (But the map says they offer 75Mbps, but AT&T says only 50Mbps.) They've had accusations of privacy issues (tracking their users via inserting cookies, selling their data for ads unless the user opts-out for a token fee, IIRC) so, not so enthusiastic there, and the last small player offers gigabit (wow!) for $400/mo (dealbreaker). So, maybe it's a duopoly, but the privacy stuff breaks it for me. Though I'm sure someone's going to point out that Comcast likely isn't any better… So, I'm highlighted at "3" but really the answer is charitably 2, maybe 1. Also, you've linked to the map highlighted at 10/1; but my understanding is that the FTC definition of broadband is presently 25/3.
jrockway 8y ago
The government can certainly help here. While they can't force anyone to provide service to a certain location, there are plenty of providers that want to offer service in a building, but don't want to pay the landlord's fee for providing such a service. It's not the ISPs that are driving costs up, it's the lack of transparency around building management companies and their backroom deals with the incumbents. The government can show up, say "you can charge an ISP a maximum of $100 per month for a PoE to your building", and suddenly the Internet is a lot faster and cheaper.

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...
- inetknght 8y ago
  That map doesn't load. I can tell you that there are plenty of places in which the only option is a false option between the large carriers. In Houston, for example, my choices are: get fucked by AT&T, get ripped a new one by Comcast, or get laughed at by Windstream. All of this from companies that have taken tax money and actively fight against community-operated broadband services.
- kxrm 8y ago
  The issue is these incumbents use local laws to punish new comers. Just look at the poll access issues throughout this country. The regulatory burden of having to wait for a competitor to move their lines to make room for you is just one of many ways incumbent ISPs slow competitive access.
- discreditable 8y ago
  That broadband map isn't very good. At my old place it said I could get fiber for several years before I actually could. Checking my current place it looks like it still incorrectly says I can get fiber. I'm in a major urban area.
- deathanatos 8y ago
  Well, okay. I'm in Silicon Valley. That map lists Comcast, AT&T, and a small local player I've never heard of. Comcast: my current ISP. AT&T: didn't offer broadband service the last time I checked; this has apparently changed since then. (But the map says they offer 75Mbps, but AT&T says only 50Mbps.) They've had accusations of privacy issues (tracking their users via inserting cookies, selling their data for ads unless the user opts-out for a token fee, IIRC) so, not so enthusiastic there, and the last small player offers gigabit (wow!) for $400/mo (dealbreaker). So, maybe it's a duopoly, but the privacy stuff breaks it for me. Though I'm sure someone's going to point out that Comcast likely isn't any better… So, I'm highlighted at "3" but really the answer is charitably 2, maybe 1. Also, you've linked to the map highlighted at 10/1; but my understanding is that the FTC definition of broadband is presently 25/3.

jrockway 8y ago

The government can certainly help here. While they can't force anyone to provide service to a certain location, there are plenty of providers that want to offer service in a building, but don't want to pay the landlord's fee for providing such a service. It's not the ISPs that are driving costs up, it's the lack of transparency around building management companies and their backroom deals with the incumbents. The government can show up, say "you can charge an ISP a maximum of $100 per month for a PoE to your building", and suddenly the Internet is a lot faster and cheaper.