4 ms·

This is a pretty silly comment given the "private" options that could have been at gbps speed for a decade+ are still at DSL and Cable speeds. Blind faith in 't

This is a pretty silly comment given the "private" options that could have been at gbps speed for a decade+ are still at DSL and Cable speeds. Blind faith in 'the market' to solve these things after it's failed to do so seems odd.

dfee 2y ago
It has given us starlink. The market makes interesting decisions.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Praise the Market.
ethbr1 2y ago
Parent's argument wasn't that the existent private market was great, but rather that a public utility monopolizing the market might not be great in the future.
- akie 2y ago
  Many of these remote areas are barely being served by companies at the moment because they’re not profitable (enough). Why would anyone object to the people just doing it themselves instead? That way at least they’re not at the mercy of some company that needs to earn a dime.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Objecting to people providing their own infrastructure where private companies have failed to do so, because at some undefined point in the distant future those same companies hypothetically could offer better service is the most worm-brained thing I've read in awhile. If the 10gbps network isn't fast enough in 10 years (already a hilarious premise), the same citizens who voted to invest in muni fiber to begin with could choose to increase their speed/capacity.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Who says they’re monopolizing it? I’m not aware of any municipal deployment that is a monopoly, and the one in the article is open-access. > The inter-local agency collaborative venture then set about building an “open access” fiber network that allows any ISP to then come and compete on the shared network. Comcast et. al can still build all the fiber they want to in these markets.
FredPret 2y ago
The market works when there's at least 4-5 competitors. That's enough to make monopolistic backroom deals impractical.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  That is what driving me nuts about these threads. These aren’t free markets. They’re government regulated into being something else entirely, then people stomp their feet and complain about capitalism.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Uh, how did the government forbid there from being more than one ISP in a neighborhood? The regionalization of ISPs is entirely their own doing to avoid competition.
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      > The regionalization of ISPs is entirely their own doing to avoid competition. And what mechanism did they use to do that?
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        Explicit contracts [1] and implicit collusion [2] [3]. There aren't that many large ISPs in the US. They know that if they compete they have to lower prices and if they don't compete they don't; so rather than compete and all of them accept lower prices (and worse margins) they don't. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/08/14/parallel-conduct-how-isps-make-consolidate-internet-service-market-even-worse/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/08/14/parallel-conduct-how-isp... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... [3]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/charter-wont-compete-against-cable-firms-because-it-might-buy-them-later/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/chart...
Wytwwww 2y ago
But that seems more like an US issue? In places which actually allow or even encourage free market competition providers tend to be able to keep their infrastructure up to date while still offering reasonably low prices.

dfee 2y ago

It has given us starlink. The market makes interesting decisions.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Praise the Market.

ethbr1 2y ago

Parent's argument wasn't that the existent private market was great, but rather that a public utility monopolizing the market might not be great in the future.

akie 2y ago
Many of these remote areas are barely being served by companies at the moment because they’re not profitable (enough). Why would anyone object to the people just doing it themselves instead? That way at least they’re not at the mercy of some company that needs to earn a dime.
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Objecting to people providing their own infrastructure where private companies have failed to do so, because at some undefined point in the distant future those same companies hypothetically could offer better service is the most worm-brained thing I've read in awhile. If the 10gbps network isn't fast enough in 10 years (already a hilarious premise), the same citizens who voted to invest in muni fiber to begin with could choose to increase their speed/capacity.
bobthepanda 2y ago
Who says they’re monopolizing it? I’m not aware of any municipal deployment that is a monopoly, and the one in the article is open-access. > The inter-local agency collaborative venture then set about building an “open access” fiber network that allows any ISP to then come and compete on the shared network. Comcast et. al can still build all the fiber they want to in these markets.

FredPret 2y ago

The market works when there's at least 4-5 competitors. That's enough to make monopolistic backroom deals impractical.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
That is what driving me nuts about these threads. These aren’t free markets. They’re government regulated into being something else entirely, then people stomp their feet and complain about capitalism.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Uh, how did the government forbid there from being more than one ISP in a neighborhood? The regionalization of ISPs is entirely their own doing to avoid competition.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    > The regionalization of ISPs is entirely their own doing to avoid competition. And what mechanism did they use to do that?
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Explicit contracts [1] and implicit collusion [2] [3]. There aren't that many large ISPs in the US. They know that if they compete they have to lower prices and if they don't compete they don't; so rather than compete and all of them accept lower prices (and worse margins) they don't. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/08/14/parallel-conduct-how-isps-make-consolidate-internet-service-market-even-worse/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/08/14/parallel-conduct-how-isp... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... [3]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/charter-wont-compete-against-cable-firms-because-it-might-buy-them-later/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/chart...

Wytwwww 2y ago

But that seems more like an US issue? In places which actually allow or even encourage free market competition providers tend to be able to keep their infrastructure up to date while still offering reasonably low prices.