5 ms·

Capitalism is wildly inefficient for infrastructure, and it’s really frustrating how often we have to relearn this as a society. There’s a damn good reason why

Capitalism is wildly inefficient for infrastructure, and it’s really frustrating how often we have to relearn this as a society. There’s a damn good reason why the city owns the pipes that bring water to and sewage from your house, and why the power lines are owned by a heavily regulated monopoly. The physical infrastructure to run internet to everyone’s homes should be owned by the state and responsive to the citizens it serves and not the shareholders who profit.

amelius 6y ago
What makes cable companies different from, say, a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Land usage, mostly. Cell companies need space for towers and fiber to those antennas. It turns out that these don’t take up all that much space, so it’s trivially possible for multiple cell phone companies to setup towers covering the same customers. Cable companies however have to deal with the “last mile” problem, which is both massively more expensive than installing more centralized infrastructure, but also involves installing infrastructure on much more restricted areas.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    @amelius asked about phone operating systems. But your comment is a very good point about mobile phones vs home internet.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Isn’t there a spectrum license/conflict issue for mobile network operators?
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Absolutely, that’s part of why T-Mobile and Sprint joined together. But there’s enough spectrum available to run a few different cell phone companies, while last mile issues are pretty much permanent for cable companies.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  There may be a duopoly, but I can still get what I want with jailbreaking or rooting (although that is getting harder over time). With ISPs, if they both suck, I’m SOL.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    This is like saying that you can get away from your ISP monopoly by using your neighbors' WiFi.
- goodpoint 6y ago
  The whole concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market requires being able to purchase interchangeable goods on the global market. Yet, you cannot buy a service like broadband or sewage, put it in a box and sell it to someone living in another continent. Location-bound services usually become quasi-monopolies, where free market does not apply. The quasi-monopolist is able (and happy) to charge the maximum price that people can pay.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  The general response would be that, because of barriers to entry and economies of scale, the optimal number of firms in some industries is 1, and thus that firm should be regulated or run by the government in order to prevent it from exploiting its immense market power.
user3939382 6y ago
Even famous libertarians like Hayek agree that infrastructure is a necessary duty of the government. To me, it's the plate on which the free market rests and operates. It is the wiring of the market itself.
JohnWhigham 6y ago
Capitalism isn't at fault here; spineless municipal governments are. Since the federal government is also spineless, it's refreshing to see some starting to wake up to the hellscape that is our Internet infrastructure.
- martin8412 6y ago
  It's not even capitalism to begin with. It's corporate socialism. Where you have companies actively using the government to secure their own payday. If a company has millions and utter millions to throw at not having to compete.. That being said, I agree that natural monopolies should be considered an issue for the state.
missedthecue 6y ago
This is just competition. Nothing anti-market about that
m463 6y ago
I think regulatory capture is one of the most profitable loopholes in capitalism and I don't think there are adequate checks and balances. I wish there was a better way to regulate internet service that wasn't subject to these kinds of shenanigans. I suspect long-term it is competition that ends up fixing this, but think of the drag on the economy when good communication is fouled up like this.

amelius 6y ago

What makes cable companies different from, say, a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems?

ashtonkem 6y ago
Land usage, mostly. Cell companies need space for towers and fiber to those antennas. It turns out that these don’t take up all that much space, so it’s trivially possible for multiple cell phone companies to setup towers covering the same customers. Cable companies however have to deal with the “last mile” problem, which is both massively more expensive than installing more centralized infrastructure, but also involves installing infrastructure on much more restricted areas.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  @amelius asked about phone operating systems. But your comment is a very good point about mobile phones vs home internet.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Isn’t there a spectrum license/conflict issue for mobile network operators?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Absolutely, that’s part of why T-Mobile and Sprint joined together. But there’s enough spectrum available to run a few different cell phone companies, while last mile issues are pretty much permanent for cable companies.
colejohnson66 6y ago
There may be a duopoly, but I can still get what I want with jailbreaking or rooting (although that is getting harder over time). With ISPs, if they both suck, I’m SOL.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  This is like saying that you can get away from your ISP monopoly by using your neighbors' WiFi.
goodpoint 6y ago
The whole concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market requires being able to purchase interchangeable goods on the global market. Yet, you cannot buy a service like broadband or sewage, put it in a box and sell it to someone living in another continent. Location-bound services usually become quasi-monopolies, where free market does not apply. The quasi-monopolist is able (and happy) to charge the maximum price that people can pay.
tshaddox 6y ago
The general response would be that, because of barriers to entry and economies of scale, the optimal number of firms in some industries is 1, and thus that firm should be regulated or run by the government in order to prevent it from exploiting its immense market power.

user3939382 6y ago

Even famous libertarians like Hayek agree that infrastructure is a necessary duty of the government. To me, it's the plate on which the free market rests and operates. It is the wiring of the market itself.

JohnWhigham 6y ago

Capitalism isn't at fault here; spineless municipal governments are. Since the federal government is also spineless, it's refreshing to see some starting to wake up to the hellscape that is our Internet infrastructure.

martin8412 6y ago
It's not even capitalism to begin with. It's corporate socialism. Where you have companies actively using the government to secure their own payday. If a company has millions and utter millions to throw at not having to compete.. That being said, I agree that natural monopolies should be considered an issue for the state.

missedthecue 6y ago

This is just competition. Nothing anti-market about that

m463 6y ago

I think regulatory capture is one of the most profitable loopholes in capitalism and I don't think there are adequate checks and balances. I wish there was a better way to regulate internet service that wasn't subject to these kinds of shenanigans. I suspect long-term it is competition that ends up fixing this, but think of the drag on the economy when good communication is fouled up like this.