5 ms·

Comcast has a virtual monopoly in most areas which leaves most people with zero choice. There needs to be a way that physical infrastructure is owned by public

Comcast has a virtual monopoly in most areas which leaves most people with zero choice. There needs to be a way that physical infrastructure is owned by public utilities and the ISP's only sell network connectivity and other services.

bernierocks 7y ago
I have 4 ISPS in my area, including Comcast. It's been the same for the last couple of years and I've moved around to different areas. How much of the infrastructure did companies like Comcast fund? They should get a check from the government, if they become public utilities and they funded it.
- deogeo 7y ago
  They already got several checks from the government, and failed to provide anything in return (except for lobbying money to stifle municipal broadband): https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/eli5_how_were_isps_able_to_pocket_the_200_billion/ https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/e...
  - bernierocks 7y ago
    This article is referencing fiber. It's also disingenuous (and just factually incorrect) to say there is 'nothing' in return. https://www.highspeedinternet.com/providers/fiber https://www.highspeedinternet.com/providers/fiber Multiple companies offering Fiber in many parts of the US. There are also multiple options (Comcast, Wow, AT&T, Time Warner, bell atlantic, satellite, and many wireless options) in most areas of the US, which by definition means there isn't a monopoly. Many people throw out the 'monopoly' label and really have no idea what the word means.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > It's also disingenuous (and just factually incorrect) to say there is 'nothing' in return. They literally did not fulfill their contractual obligations, but thanks to lobbying, were forgiven.
      - bernierocks 7y ago
        Do you have proof that no fiber cable was laid down in any part of the US?
        deogeo 7y ago
        I have proof that much less fiber than was paid for was laid down. I've linked it before, here's a few different links if you can't be bothered to click on the previous one: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5... https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FC...
dudul 7y ago
Alternatively, private entities may still own the infrastructure, but be forced by law to rent them at reasonable price to whoever wants to start an ISP. I think this model exists in a few european countries at least.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  While this model definitely exists, I doubt it’s helping much. At least in the UK, it’s still more expensive for my business to rent DSL lines and offer broadband on them than the retail price of what the incumbent offers (who so happens to own the physical phone lines, albeit through a weird arrangement of multiple companies). It’s definitely a step in the right direction but I’m still not convinced it helps much.
m463 7y ago
They should just expand the definition of monopoly a bit and then regulate the monopoly.

bernierocks 7y ago

I have 4 ISPS in my area, including Comcast. It's been the same for the last couple of years and I've moved around to different areas. How much of the infrastructure did companies like Comcast fund? They should get a check from the government, if they become public utilities and they funded it.

deogeo 7y ago
They already got several checks from the government, and failed to provide anything in return (except for lobbying money to stifle municipal broadband): https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/eli5_how_were_isps_able_to_pocket_the_200_billion/ https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/e...
- bernierocks 7y ago
  This article is referencing fiber. It's also disingenuous (and just factually incorrect) to say there is 'nothing' in return. https://www.highspeedinternet.com/providers/fiber https://www.highspeedinternet.com/providers/fiber Multiple companies offering Fiber in many parts of the US. There are also multiple options (Comcast, Wow, AT&T, Time Warner, bell atlantic, satellite, and many wireless options) in most areas of the US, which by definition means there isn't a monopoly. Many people throw out the 'monopoly' label and really have no idea what the word means.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > It's also disingenuous (and just factually incorrect) to say there is 'nothing' in return. They literally did not fulfill their contractual obligations, but thanks to lobbying, were forgiven.
    - bernierocks 7y ago
      Do you have proof that no fiber cable was laid down in any part of the US?
      - deogeo 7y ago
        I have proof that much less fiber than was paid for was laid down. I've linked it before, here's a few different links if you can't be bothered to click on the previous one: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5... https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FC...

dudul 7y ago

Alternatively, private entities may still own the infrastructure, but be forced by law to rent them at reasonable price to whoever wants to start an ISP. I think this model exists in a few european countries at least.

Nextgrid 7y ago
While this model definitely exists, I doubt it’s helping much. At least in the UK, it’s still more expensive for my business to rent DSL lines and offer broadband on them than the retail price of what the incumbent offers (who so happens to own the physical phone lines, albeit through a weird arrangement of multiple companies). It’s definitely a step in the right direction but I’m still not convinced it helps much.

m463 7y ago

They should just expand the definition of monopoly a bit and then regulate the monopoly.