4 ms·
Everyone here is saying the word monopoly, but realistically ISPs are natural monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/
by vsbuffalo 14y ago
Everyone here is saying the word monopoly, but realistically ISPs are natural monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly). We don't see competition because startups (even incredibly well funded ones) just don't have the funds to start pulling fiber all across cities. This is also why most high-speed internet today is based on some new utilization of older technology: DSL utilizes phone lines and cable utilizes, well, cable — it's even too expensive (and in terms of business, not worth it given their natural monopoly status) for existing companies. This situation will persist for a while, until either Google starts pulling fiber through tunnels in major cities and the threat forces other ISPs to improve. The only other alternative is fast wireless, as then infrastructure investments decrease drastically.
- joezydeco 14y agoThe ISPs that remain are not natural monopolies. My town is exclusively Comcast, but that doesn't mean Comcast beat out the other cable-tv companies on price/service and ran the competition out of town. Comcast was granted a franchise by the municipality. That's why Comcast spent the money to pull cable all through the town over poles and under trenches. You're granted the monopoly by virtue of spending on the physical plant and providing equal coverage to all sections of town, not just the wealthier neighborhoods that can afford coax-pulling crews. Google can "shame" the other companies all they want with speed and service but, at least in my town, Comcast doesn't have to do jack shit.