2 ms·

What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a

What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a perfect alignment of incentives and a huge win for customers, so naturally ISPs fiercely oppose it and look to immediately crush any move in that direction whenever they can.

nickff 2y ago
It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.
- eqvinox 2y ago
  The term "monopoly" doesn't really make sense for a government, they don't operate in a commercial/economic space where 2 governments could compete with each other. Also luckily a lot of us live in democracies where you have at least some degree of control over what the government does. (Edit: eh, I'm too tired, I guess you're arguing there is a monopoly on last-mile infrastructure then, which theoretically doesn't need to be a monopoly. Okay. In most cases it's a monopoly anyway because "over-building" existing last-mile connectivity won't be used by everyone and is thus less profitable.)
  - nickff 2y ago
    Your edit caught my meaning; I should have been more clear. There's always less profit potential where there is more competition, which is one reason why people suggest that monopolies are capable of providing higher-quality products (and services). Interestingly, some local governments are known (or at least have historically) to use their permitting powers to extract significant amounts of money from telecoms and others. I am not really sure what to do about this, but in the early days of power poles, few/no permits were required to use them, and there were many power providers sharing the same poles; it was messy, and contributed to unreliability, but it worked and allowed for competition.

nickff 2y ago

It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.

eqvinox 2y ago
The term "monopoly" doesn't really make sense for a government, they don't operate in a commercial/economic space where 2 governments could compete with each other. Also luckily a lot of us live in democracies where you have at least some degree of control over what the government does. (Edit: eh, I'm too tired, I guess you're arguing there is a monopoly on last-mile infrastructure then, which theoretically doesn't need to be a monopoly. Okay. In most cases it's a monopoly anyway because "over-building" existing last-mile connectivity won't be used by everyone and is thus less profitable.)
- nickff 2y ago
  Your edit caught my meaning; I should have been more clear. There's always less profit potential where there is more competition, which is one reason why people suggest that monopolies are capable of providing higher-quality products (and services). Interestingly, some local governments are known (or at least have historically) to use their permitting powers to extract significant amounts of money from telecoms and others. I am not really sure what to do about this, but in the early days of power poles, few/no permits were required to use them, and there were many power providers sharing the same poles; it was messy, and contributed to unreliability, but it worked and allowed for competition.