3 ms·

Most economists? BS. Most economists understand that ISPs in the US are a natural monopoly, you simply can not have more than 1 or 2 choices in most locations.

Most economists? BS. Most economists understand that ISPs in the US are a natural monopoly, you simply can not have more than 1 or 2 choices in most locations. And when there is no possibility of competition, regulation becomes necessary.

eru 3y ago
Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly. What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account. (Regulations that make market entry harder push things into the monopoly direction, but that's far from 'natural'. See some of the recent troubles SpaceX has been having.) See also https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/net-neutrality-changing-regulations-wont-kill-internet https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/net-neu... or https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2011-2012/economics-network-neutrality# https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2011-2012/economics-n... > Network neutrality makes competition and consumer welfare dependent on law and lobbying, not natural competition. So you’ve chosen the area in which the telcos are strongest on which to fight!
- cyberax 3y ago
  > Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly. Black is white. War is peace. Yeah, we know that. > What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account. Neither mobile nor satellite (even Starlink) can compete for the main Internet connection for the majority of people. Around 50-70% of the US population has exactly ONE choice of a wired broadband ISP, and maaaaybe 2 if you count ADSL as broadband. Less than 10% of the population has access to 3 or more wired broadband ISPs.
  - eru 3y ago
    Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only? No one cares how the internet comes into the house. Btw, you can also do ethernet-over-powerline for the last mile. And there's tv cables, and the plain-old-telephone wires already in the ground. If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only? Because wireless simply is not enough. There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments. This is not a theory, btw. I had T-Mobile 5G "fixed wireless" connection and could immediately tell when major live games were on. It also became nearly useless during the Superbowl. And that's with T-Mobile limiting the number of subscribers (there's a waitlist for 5G home Internet in my area). > If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation. The main problem is morons who think that you can compete within the ISP market, and thus strangling regulations meant to improve it. After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers?
      - eru 3y ago
        > There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments. I live in Singapore which is denser than basically any place in the US, and people are obsessed with their phones. Mobile bandwidth works just fine. I suspect your underwhelming 5G experience could be related with cells in your area being rather big, so they had many people in them? If you have a higher density of people, you need a higher density of cells. > After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers? Try starting up a new tap water or sewage provider. I don't think the government will let you. In any case, providing new 'last mile' connectivity whether with wires or with water pipes is hard to make work economically, if someone else is already there with an established service. (So in that sense I agree that last mile connectivity does have network effects. Though I wouldn't classify things binary into 'natural monopoly' or not; it's a spectrum.) In any case, that's why I was emphasising the different wires we already have (cable tv, plain old phone cables, power line, and in some places optical fibre, etc) and the wireless options (3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, satellite, and the more directed exotic microwave transmission, etc). I probably missed a few. If you can sort out the last mile, or you can piggy back on some already existing last mile, the tendency for what you call 'natural monopoly' drops a lot. If there's insufficient competition in the US, perhaps don't blame 'nature'.

eru 3y ago

Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly. What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account. (Regulations that make market entry harder push things into the monopoly direction, but that's far from 'natural'. See some of the recent troubles SpaceX has been having.) See also https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/net-neutrality-changing-regulations-wont-kill-internet https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/net-neu... or https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2011-2012/economics-network-neutrality# https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2011-2012/economics-n... > Network neutrality makes competition and consumer welfare dependent on law and lobbying, not natural competition. So you’ve chosen the area in which the telcos are strongest on which to fight!

cyberax 3y ago
> Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly. Black is white. War is peace. Yeah, we know that. > What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account. Neither mobile nor satellite (even Starlink) can compete for the main Internet connection for the majority of people. Around 50-70% of the US population has exactly ONE choice of a wired broadband ISP, and maaaaybe 2 if you count ADSL as broadband. Less than 10% of the population has access to 3 or more wired broadband ISPs.
- eru 3y ago
  Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only? No one cares how the internet comes into the house. Btw, you can also do ethernet-over-powerline for the last mile. And there's tv cables, and the plain-old-telephone wires already in the ground. If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only? Because wireless simply is not enough. There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments. This is not a theory, btw. I had T-Mobile 5G "fixed wireless" connection and could immediately tell when major live games were on. It also became nearly useless during the Superbowl. And that's with T-Mobile limiting the number of subscribers (there's a waitlist for 5G home Internet in my area). > If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation. The main problem is morons who think that you can compete within the ISP market, and thus strangling regulations meant to improve it. After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers?
    - eru 3y ago
      > There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments. I live in Singapore which is denser than basically any place in the US, and people are obsessed with their phones. Mobile bandwidth works just fine. I suspect your underwhelming 5G experience could be related with cells in your area being rather big, so they had many people in them? If you have a higher density of people, you need a higher density of cells. > After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers? Try starting up a new tap water or sewage provider. I don't think the government will let you. In any case, providing new 'last mile' connectivity whether with wires or with water pipes is hard to make work economically, if someone else is already there with an established service. (So in that sense I agree that last mile connectivity does have network effects. Though I wouldn't classify things binary into 'natural monopoly' or not; it's a spectrum.) In any case, that's why I was emphasising the different wires we already have (cable tv, plain old phone cables, power line, and in some places optical fibre, etc) and the wireless options (3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, satellite, and the more directed exotic microwave transmission, etc). I probably missed a few. If you can sort out the last mile, or you can piggy back on some already existing last mile, the tendency for what you call 'natural monopoly' drops a lot. If there's insufficient competition in the US, perhaps don't blame 'nature'.