9 ms·

> There are four major wireless carriers, none with more than about a third of the market. Can that be said for wired internet carriers? And can that be said a

> There are four major wireless carriers, none with more than about a third of the market. Can that be said for wired internet carriers? And can that be said at the municipal level and not just the national level? My point is that in many areas, people generally don't have a choice in who their internet provider is. So if you look nationally, yes, the coverage is split between several companies, but at the local levels the areas serviced are often carved up such that there are local monopolies.

rayiner 7y ago
Obviously there is more market concentration in telecom than say in frozen yogurt. But telecoms face competition (from DSL, cellular, and satellite) in almost every market. Comcast, for example, has 47% broadband market share even in its own footprint: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/what-to-expect-for-comcast-s-q1-2019-earnings.html https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/wha.... They also face competition across local markets. Verizon followed Google Fiber to the $70-80 for gigabit price point, even though it competed in no markets with Google.
- icebraining 7y ago
  If changing the product is evidence of competition, then Google Search and Android must have some, since they are continuously being worked on and new versions released.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Responding to a specific price point is the sign of competition, not general improvements in the product. AT&T built a gold-plated, state-of-the-art telephone network in the “Ma Bell” days, without facing competition. (And gave us the transistor and C and UNIX while they were at it. Google in many ways fits the same “benevolent monopoly” mold. I think it would be unwise to take antitrust action against Google for that reason.)
    - esoterae 7y ago
      You never used the old long-distance telephone system, did you? The only thing that was gold plated were the executive bathrooms at AT&T.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  This is such a disingenuous argument. DSL, cellular, satellite, cable broadband, and fiber broadband are not equivalent. By your reasoning, as long as POTS exists, dial-up ISPs are a competitive threat.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- esoterae 7y ago
  I have comcast service in one of the most dense urban environments in the US. I have no alternative. I am being bled dry because there is no competition of similar service. Please, if you're going to compare things at least stick to fruit. This is apples and basketballs.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    50% of folks in Comcast’s footprint don’t subscribe. Those folks aren’t going without Internet access. For a significant portion of the market, those other alternatives are viable. That creates competition, though obviously less competition than an equivalent competitor. (I’ve been lucky to mostly live in FiOS territory, and now I’ve got two fiber lines to my house. But back when I lived in Wilmington, I had just Comcast. Instead of subscribing, we used a T-Mobile hotspot the whole time. It was fine. With 5G, that phenomenon is only going to increase.)
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      So you’re saying the upper bound on the number of municipalities where Comcast has no competition is half of them? Not saying much at all there.
    - esoterae 7y ago
      And what % of people that actually have alternatives like FiOS (unlike me) don't subscribe to comcast? Saying 50% of subscribers in Comcast's footprint is prevaricating about the bush AF. Why, you ask? If 50% of potential Comcast subscribers have an alternative to Comcast, that would mean 100% of people with an alternative are taking advantage of the free market. Which would mean that 100% of the people remaining are likely forced to subscribe through a lack of access to alternatives. I don't even have working voice cell coverage at my house, much less data. Again, almost certainly due to a an entrenched monopoly limiting the market outreach of competition, and thereby obviating the requirement that they themselves perform adequately enough to retain customers. Q.E.D.
      - rayiner 7y ago
- silotis 7y ago
  Verizon may have price matched Google, but Verizon fiber service is only available to a small fraction of the country. The cable companies, which have a much larger footprint than Verizon's fiber, have mostly limited price cuts to markets where they face competition from fiber. Comcast for example still charges $150 for gigabit (1000/35 Mbps) in most markets. By contrast markets were a competitor has built out fiber get the price cut in half. If this isn't a tacit admission that they are abusing their lack of competition by price gouging, I don't know what is.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
PaulHoule 7y ago
Big Tech is global, however, so it faces regulatory pressure from Europeans and other people who are more keen to regulate than the U.S. Thus the U.S. feels pressured to keep up.
- khuey 7y ago
  Seems like US regulators could just as easily decide that if the tech companies do anything really egregious the Europeans will smack them down so they don't need to do anything.
  - TehCorwiz 7y ago
    Let's take an example of Google being sanctioned and regulated for anti-competitive monopolistic practices abroad, but not broken up. European or Asian (broad rhetorical buckets) regulations have no direct impact on US domestic regulations. Meaning that even if the EU held Google accountable they could continue to operate at home without changing their practices. While the argument can be made that regulation is likely to follow domestically I don't think that can be held as a truism under current geopolitical landscape. Even if domestic regulations followed there would undoubtedly be a gap, during which companies would leverage that imbalance. Google would be pressured to make the most of its advantage in its shrinking monopolistic market while smaller companies would press their advantage abroad where they have better access to the market, investors, and customers. Domestic inaction would be a net loss in the face of foreign regulation.
paulddraper 7y ago
The FCC tracks this (well, they track availability, not market share). [1] 98% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 10Mbps+ 82% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 25Mbps+ (This doesn't count wireless offerings.) [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355166A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355166A1.pdf
- jedberg 7y ago
  Yeah, but census blocks are too big. Also, if one person in a census block has that level of access, the entire block is counted. The ISPs know this and game it. They will make their service available to one house in all the blocks that neighbor a block they actually serve, so they can get five blocks instead of one.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Exactly. There is legislation pending at the federal level to gain better insights. ‘Measuring the Economic Impact of Broadband Act’ was introduced in the senate recently.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    There are 6 million inhabited census blocks, averaging 52 residents per block. [1] Even the larger ones still only have a few hundred people (and those are dense, apartment-heavy areas where multiple ISPs are common anyway). I don't doubt there is some polishing the numbers, but it's still a very granular measure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block
- liara_k 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the FCC's tracking data for broadband availability is notoriously poor.[1]. Think "regulatory capture" and, if you'e seen The Wire, "juking the stats". [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-report-high-speed-rural-statistics-reactions https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-re...
  - 7y ago
partiallypro 7y ago
Wired internet carriers having monopolies are almost all because of local laws and agreements. The only way to bust it is to say those "rights of way" restrictions are illegal...which isn't going to happen.
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  > the only way to bust it is to say those "rights of way" restrictions are illegal Or to impose compulsory sub-licensing of those wires at fair and reasonable terms defined by a government agency. Like other countries with wire monopolies are doing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  Do you have concrete examples of these “local laws and agreements” that you can cite?
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    Yes, it's called local franchising. It's incredibly common. That is why most/all cities only have one cable provider and one telecom provider over land lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM6309.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM6309.html https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor-to-comcast-is-basically-impossible/ https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor... https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_franchise_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_franchise_authority
    - 7y ago
mjevans 7y ago
Where I live, in a suburb well within the metro area around the city of Seattle (WA), I am LUCKY to have even one provider that offers at least 25Mbit (per second, down). They thankfully offer 1 Gigabit down packages (very recently, YEARS behind when Seattle got this 'city wide'). HOWEVER, there is ZERO competition so: * data-caps * horrendous over-charges * UPLOAD (on a 1000Mbit line) ~= 30 Mbit Yes, that's right, the upload is about ONE THIRTIETH, a very small fraction, of the download. Even the BUSINESS plans don't go much higher (while costing tons more, and really only having a support that will say sorry and give a small credit with no actual rush on support; in past experience). So very much no. The wired-line sector is a natural monopoly that should be like roads to the airport. I should pay a very small bit in taxes for good connections to the global hub, and at said global hub I should have my choice of services from many providers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  wow, I'd think Seattle being a major tech hub would have better internet. I live in a farming community 15 minutes from the nearest small city (Google: Paragonah Utah), and we have few competitors but for $90 I get 1 gig fiber. There's not many places in utah where you can't get at least 100-300mb. The state had the forsight to lay tons of conduit a decade or two ago whenever they do road work so that there's plenty of space for bandwidth upgrades and what not across the entire state.
  - giobox 7y ago
    If you’d expect that of Seattle, try looking at domestic broadband options in Silicon Valley. For huge swathes you can have lovely ancient old ADSL on your copper phone line or Comcast via cable. Oh and all Comcast plans in the Bay Area, regardless of what the marketing says, have a 1 TB bandwidth cap and charge for overages up to 200 dollars on top of your monthly bill, unless you pay them an additional 50 bucks a month to get the _actually_ unlimited option on all of the plans offered. As you can imagine, many of us living here routinely blow through a terabyte of bandwidth - just one cloud connected security camera can eat a third of it easily. That’s literally it for most people.
ashelmire 7y ago
> So if you look nationally, yes, the coverage is split between several companies, but at the local levels the areas serviced are often carved up such that there are local monopolies. It's not just that they are monopolies, but that they are anticompetitive monopolies. In some cases, they are even granted by local governments.
javiramos 7y ago
Yes - in my building I only have one provider option. And I pay $60/month for crappy internet.
- oneplane 7y ago
  You'd think people would be up in arms about that. Restricting a 'building' to 1 provider seems ridiculous to me.

rayiner 7y ago

Obviously there is more market concentration in telecom than say in frozen yogurt. But telecoms face competition (from DSL, cellular, and satellite) in almost every market. Comcast, for example, has 47% broadband market share even in its own footprint: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/what-to-expect-for-comcast-s-q1-2019-earnings.html https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/wha.... They also face competition across local markets. Verizon followed Google Fiber to the $70-80 for gigabit price point, even though it competed in no markets with Google.

icebraining 7y ago
If changing the product is evidence of competition, then Google Search and Android must have some, since they are continuously being worked on and new versions released.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Responding to a specific price point is the sign of competition, not general improvements in the product. AT&T built a gold-plated, state-of-the-art telephone network in the “Ma Bell” days, without facing competition. (And gave us the transistor and C and UNIX while they were at it. Google in many ways fits the same “benevolent monopoly” mold. I think it would be unwise to take antitrust action against Google for that reason.)
  - esoterae 7y ago
    You never used the old long-distance telephone system, did you? The only thing that was gold plated were the executive bathrooms at AT&T.
dillonmckay 7y ago
This is such a disingenuous argument. DSL, cellular, satellite, cable broadband, and fiber broadband are not equivalent. By your reasoning, as long as POTS exists, dial-up ISPs are a competitive threat.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
esoterae 7y ago
I have comcast service in one of the most dense urban environments in the US. I have no alternative. I am being bled dry because there is no competition of similar service. Please, if you're going to compare things at least stick to fruit. This is apples and basketballs.
- rayiner 7y ago
  50% of folks in Comcast’s footprint don’t subscribe. Those folks aren’t going without Internet access. For a significant portion of the market, those other alternatives are viable. That creates competition, though obviously less competition than an equivalent competitor. (I’ve been lucky to mostly live in FiOS territory, and now I’ve got two fiber lines to my house. But back when I lived in Wilmington, I had just Comcast. Instead of subscribing, we used a T-Mobile hotspot the whole time. It was fine. With 5G, that phenomenon is only going to increase.)
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    So you’re saying the upper bound on the number of municipalities where Comcast has no competition is half of them? Not saying much at all there.
  - esoterae 7y ago
    And what % of people that actually have alternatives like FiOS (unlike me) don't subscribe to comcast? Saying 50% of subscribers in Comcast's footprint is prevaricating about the bush AF. Why, you ask? If 50% of potential Comcast subscribers have an alternative to Comcast, that would mean 100% of people with an alternative are taking advantage of the free market. Which would mean that 100% of the people remaining are likely forced to subscribe through a lack of access to alternatives. I don't even have working voice cell coverage at my house, much less data. Again, almost certainly due to a an entrenched monopoly limiting the market outreach of competition, and thereby obviating the requirement that they themselves perform adequately enough to retain customers. Q.E.D.
    - rayiner 7y ago
silotis 7y ago
Verizon may have price matched Google, but Verizon fiber service is only available to a small fraction of the country. The cable companies, which have a much larger footprint than Verizon's fiber, have mostly limited price cuts to markets where they face competition from fiber. Comcast for example still charges $150 for gigabit (1000/35 Mbps) in most markets. By contrast markets were a competitor has built out fiber get the price cut in half. If this isn't a tacit admission that they are abusing their lack of competition by price gouging, I don't know what is.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

PaulHoule 7y ago

Big Tech is global, however, so it faces regulatory pressure from Europeans and other people who are more keen to regulate than the U.S. Thus the U.S. feels pressured to keep up.

khuey 7y ago
Seems like US regulators could just as easily decide that if the tech companies do anything really egregious the Europeans will smack them down so they don't need to do anything.
- TehCorwiz 7y ago
  Let's take an example of Google being sanctioned and regulated for anti-competitive monopolistic practices abroad, but not broken up. European or Asian (broad rhetorical buckets) regulations have no direct impact on US domestic regulations. Meaning that even if the EU held Google accountable they could continue to operate at home without changing their practices. While the argument can be made that regulation is likely to follow domestically I don't think that can be held as a truism under current geopolitical landscape. Even if domestic regulations followed there would undoubtedly be a gap, during which companies would leverage that imbalance. Google would be pressured to make the most of its advantage in its shrinking monopolistic market while smaller companies would press their advantage abroad where they have better access to the market, investors, and customers. Domestic inaction would be a net loss in the face of foreign regulation.

paulddraper 7y ago

The FCC tracks this (well, they track availability, not market share). [1] 98% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 10Mbps+ 82% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 25Mbps+ (This doesn't count wireless offerings.) [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355166A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355166A1.pdf

jedberg 7y ago
Yeah, but census blocks are too big. Also, if one person in a census block has that level of access, the entire block is counted. The ISPs know this and game it. They will make their service available to one house in all the blocks that neighbor a block they actually serve, so they can get five blocks instead of one.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Exactly. There is legislation pending at the federal level to gain better insights. ‘Measuring the Economic Impact of Broadband Act’ was introduced in the senate recently.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  There are 6 million inhabited census blocks, averaging 52 residents per block. [1] Even the larger ones still only have a few hundred people (and those are dense, apartment-heavy areas where multiple ISPs are common anyway). I don't doubt there is some polishing the numbers, but it's still a very granular measure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block
liara_k 7y ago
Unfortunately, the FCC's tracking data for broadband availability is notoriously poor.[1]. Think "regulatory capture" and, if you'e seen The Wire, "juking the stats". [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-report-high-speed-rural-statistics-reactions https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-re...
- 7y ago

partiallypro 7y ago

Wired internet carriers having monopolies are almost all because of local laws and agreements. The only way to bust it is to say those "rights of way" restrictions are illegal...which isn't going to happen.

MagnumOpus 7y ago
> the only way to bust it is to say those "rights of way" restrictions are illegal Or to impose compulsory sub-licensing of those wires at fair and reasonable terms defined by a government agency. Like other countries with wire monopolies are doing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
Do you have concrete examples of these “local laws and agreements” that you can cite?
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Yes, it's called local franchising. It's incredibly common. That is why most/all cities only have one cable provider and one telecom provider over land lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM6309.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM6309.html https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor-to-comcast-is-basically-impossible/ https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor... https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_franchise_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_franchise_authority
  - 7y ago

mjevans 7y ago

Where I live, in a suburb well within the metro area around the city of Seattle (WA), I am LUCKY to have even one provider that offers at least 25Mbit (per second, down). They thankfully offer 1 Gigabit down packages (very recently, YEARS behind when Seattle got this 'city wide'). HOWEVER, there is ZERO competition so: * data-caps * horrendous over-charges * UPLOAD (on a 1000Mbit line) ~= 30 Mbit Yes, that's right, the upload is about ONE THIRTIETH, a very small fraction, of the download. Even the BUSINESS plans don't go much higher (while costing tons more, and really only having a support that will say sorry and give a small credit with no actual rush on support; in past experience). So very much no. The wired-line sector is a natural monopoly that should be like roads to the airport. I should pay a very small bit in taxes for good connections to the global hub, and at said global hub I should have my choice of services from many providers.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 7y ago
wow, I'd think Seattle being a major tech hub would have better internet. I live in a farming community 15 minutes from the nearest small city (Google: Paragonah Utah), and we have few competitors but for $90 I get 1 gig fiber. There's not many places in utah where you can't get at least 100-300mb. The state had the forsight to lay tons of conduit a decade or two ago whenever they do road work so that there's plenty of space for bandwidth upgrades and what not across the entire state.
- giobox 7y ago
  If you’d expect that of Seattle, try looking at domestic broadband options in Silicon Valley. For huge swathes you can have lovely ancient old ADSL on your copper phone line or Comcast via cable. Oh and all Comcast plans in the Bay Area, regardless of what the marketing says, have a 1 TB bandwidth cap and charge for overages up to 200 dollars on top of your monthly bill, unless you pay them an additional 50 bucks a month to get the _actually_ unlimited option on all of the plans offered. As you can imagine, many of us living here routinely blow through a terabyte of bandwidth - just one cloud connected security camera can eat a third of it easily. That’s literally it for most people.

ashelmire 7y ago

> So if you look nationally, yes, the coverage is split between several companies, but at the local levels the areas serviced are often carved up such that there are local monopolies. It's not just that they are monopolies, but that they are anticompetitive monopolies. In some cases, they are even granted by local governments.

javiramos 7y ago

Yes - in my building I only have one provider option. And I pay $60/month for crappy internet.

oneplane 7y ago
You'd think people would be up in arms about that. Restricting a 'building' to 1 provider seems ridiculous to me.