9 ms·

Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be

Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
I think business might be a little more complicated than you think. :)
- Fasebook 13y ago
  I think collusion might be more likely than you think.
- bdhe 13y ago
  Care to elaborate? I was a bit struck by that point too.
Aloha 13y ago
No. I believe in the concept of a natural monopoly for most utilities though - Building outside plant is horrendously expensive - it to me makes as much sense to have multiple cable providers as it does multiple sets of power/telephone/water/sewer infrastructure. I'd even like to see a fewer wireless carriers (consider that each for carrier are spending billions of dollars to roll out what amount to essentially identical network infrastructure often even from the same vendors - how on earth does that even begin to make sense? We - the rate payer ends up paying for it in the end thru higher rates - economy of scale is a thing, and it works. Having been in the industry for about 2 years now, looking at the spectrum, I believe that we have enough for two, possibly three really competitive national wireless carriers - as in a complete nation wide footprint. That means 20x20 LTE even in rural areas, plus whatever 2g (CDMA 1x or GSM) tech you need for circuit switch voice, and whatever legacy 3g you need too (EDGE and HSDPA or EV-DO), with the eventual goal of multiple 20x20 or 40x40 carriers once we can replace all the legacy stuff - but consider the current for a moment, that Sprint in Seattle on 1900 mhz only has 20 mhz duplex, and nothing on 800 at all - this is excluding the acres on 2.5, because of the obvious limitations of use with atmospheric issues. That said - the only way natural monopolies do not become abusive natural monopolies is thru intense and careful regulation - mostly by setting a fixed rate of return for the infrastructure, and then building rates from that.
- kevinalexbrown 13y ago
  I used to install internet for Comcast. I appreciate the natural monopoly line of thought, but I would love to see solutions that worked around it. I'm not an expert municipal telecom policy, so I'm interested in your perspective, but I would propose a finite number of lines that companies bid for. There's definitely benefit from a natural monopoly in cable, but I'm not convinced they outweigh the costs of alternative solutions.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    It would be to take something like what the UK did - have an entity that doesnt own the network itself do the retail sales, and lease a portion of the network, or simply build multiple networks, its a much harder thing to do with cable than phones.
- thedaveoflife 13y ago
  Conventional economics states that in a natural monopoly the state should be the sole provider.
  - zackmorris 13y ago
    You just nailed it, I think yours is possibly the most important comment on this page. Roads, bridges, education, prisons, electricity, water, managing public lands/other commons, the postal service, and now communication infrastructure are all things that should be owned by the public. Putting control of communication in the hands of a few large oligopolies is undemocratic. Since the most common objection to this is privacy, I propose that the government provide the infrastructure (fiber, airwaves, satellites, etc) and that the use of that infrastructure have strong privacy guarantees and the protections of the existing unalienable rights in the forth amendment of the constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” ISPs already have strict privacy guidelines, and if anyone thinks that corporations act to insulate users from government surveillance, they are fooling themselves. The protections must start with government itself and require constant vigilance. With regard to the commons, the profit motive should be limited to government contractors in service to the people, not the other way around.
brador 13y ago
One of the benefits of working with government agencies is they can pull strings that make regulators look the other way. This is a clear monopoly position, and it's being ignored. That's no accident.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

I think business might be a little more complicated than you think. :)

Fasebook 13y ago
I think collusion might be more likely than you think.
bdhe 13y ago
Care to elaborate? I was a bit struck by that point too.

Aloha 13y ago

No. I believe in the concept of a natural monopoly for most utilities though - Building outside plant is horrendously expensive - it to me makes as much sense to have multiple cable providers as it does multiple sets of power/telephone/water/sewer infrastructure. I'd even like to see a fewer wireless carriers (consider that each for carrier are spending billions of dollars to roll out what amount to essentially identical network infrastructure often even from the same vendors - how on earth does that even begin to make sense? We - the rate payer ends up paying for it in the end thru higher rates - economy of scale is a thing, and it works. Having been in the industry for about 2 years now, looking at the spectrum, I believe that we have enough for two, possibly three really competitive national wireless carriers - as in a complete nation wide footprint. That means 20x20 LTE even in rural areas, plus whatever 2g (CDMA 1x or GSM) tech you need for circuit switch voice, and whatever legacy 3g you need too (EDGE and HSDPA or EV-DO), with the eventual goal of multiple 20x20 or 40x40 carriers once we can replace all the legacy stuff - but consider the current for a moment, that Sprint in Seattle on 1900 mhz only has 20 mhz duplex, and nothing on 800 at all - this is excluding the acres on 2.5, because of the obvious limitations of use with atmospheric issues. That said - the only way natural monopolies do not become abusive natural monopolies is thru intense and careful regulation - mostly by setting a fixed rate of return for the infrastructure, and then building rates from that.

kevinalexbrown 13y ago
I used to install internet for Comcast. I appreciate the natural monopoly line of thought, but I would love to see solutions that worked around it. I'm not an expert municipal telecom policy, so I'm interested in your perspective, but I would propose a finite number of lines that companies bid for. There's definitely benefit from a natural monopoly in cable, but I'm not convinced they outweigh the costs of alternative solutions.
- Aloha 13y ago
  It would be to take something like what the UK did - have an entity that doesnt own the network itself do the retail sales, and lease a portion of the network, or simply build multiple networks, its a much harder thing to do with cable than phones.
thedaveoflife 13y ago
Conventional economics states that in a natural monopoly the state should be the sole provider.
- zackmorris 13y ago
  You just nailed it, I think yours is possibly the most important comment on this page. Roads, bridges, education, prisons, electricity, water, managing public lands/other commons, the postal service, and now communication infrastructure are all things that should be owned by the public. Putting control of communication in the hands of a few large oligopolies is undemocratic. Since the most common objection to this is privacy, I propose that the government provide the infrastructure (fiber, airwaves, satellites, etc) and that the use of that infrastructure have strong privacy guarantees and the protections of the existing unalienable rights in the forth amendment of the constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” ISPs already have strict privacy guidelines, and if anyone thinks that corporations act to insulate users from government surveillance, they are fooling themselves. The protections must start with government itself and require constant vigilance. With regard to the commons, the profit motive should be limited to government contractors in service to the people, not the other way around.

brador 13y ago

One of the benefits of working with government agencies is they can pull strings that make regulators look the other way. This is a clear monopoly position, and it's being ignored. That's no accident.