3 ms·
It is not explicit granted monopolies, but more so de facto monopolies arising because the costs for a competitor to enter the ISP business are prohibitively ex
by tomkinstinch 16y ago
It is not explicit granted monopolies, but more so de facto monopolies arising because the costs for a competitor to enter the ISP business are prohibitively expensive. With material costs, labor costs, and easement costs, it takes a major investment to run a mile of cable.
My question is this: Why are fiber lines not administered by public utilities? It works for power and roads.
- dantheman 16y agoHere's a slightly older article (1998) about localities granting cable companies monopolies: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp As for the public utilities I completely or agree, or perhaps do it one better. Set up a not for profit that's independent from the government that sole purpose is to provide bandwidth with no restrictions.
- nitrogen 16y agoSeveral locations have tried this (including my home state of Utah), and the cable/telco duopoly lobbyists got new laws passed that prohibited or severely restricted municipal broadband projects.
- dantheman 16y agoSo once again, it's a problem with local government - a government that is a lot more responsive than the FCC or any federal solution. If the teclos can manipulate your local gov, imagine how effective they'll be at the national level.
- nitrogen 16y agoI agree that local and state governments are a problem, but only because these national corporations have so much power over them. I don't agree (or at least I'm not yet convinced) that the FCC or Congress adding some "light touch" neutrality regulation would be a terrible problem, or that it's an either/or situation. In other words, these national ISPs need to be fixed at a national level, while broken local regulations need to be handled at a local level. Fixing one may help fix the other.