3 ms·
> I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Internet access is more or less a “natural monopoly” because of right of way issues and
by scarface_74 2y ago
> I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market.
Internet access is more or less a “natural monopoly” because of right of way issues and cost to build just like electricity and gas and water. Those things have always been regulated and had price controls.
> Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". Which sounds nice, but you can't really get something for nothing. This will increase costs for ISPs and likely increase prices for others. How much? Who knows!
And what happens when ISPs can charge whatever they want - again a natural monopoly - should the subsidies increase,
- pksebben 2y ago> And what happens when ISPs can charge whatever they want - again a natural monopoly - should the subsidies increase, You're making an assumption here. It worked fine when we did it for healthcare. /s
- Terr_ 2y ago> because of right of way issues Also, before someone says "that's only for cables", I'd point out that useful electromagnetic-spectrum bands and orbital-paths are finite collective resources as well.
- braiamp 2y ago> Internet access is more or less a “natural monopoly” Finally someone with some economic sense. Natural monopolies don't get to dictate prices or conditions of services. That's something that monopolies, have to be content with. If you put yourself in a position where no one can realistically compete with you, you can't complain that the state makes sure that the consumers aren't harmed by the lack of options.