4 ms·
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies
by workhere-io 13y ago
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
This should be a wake-up call for people who believe in the free market's ability to further low prices and good products. In reality it is often up to governments to prevent monopolies from forming and ensure that there is enough competition.
- larrik 13y agoA free market for companies that need to tear up every road in your town to lay their own cable is impossible (to say nothing of apartment and office buildings). Internet pricing and business has nothing to do with a free market, and likely never will. Deregulating them was asinine.
- hga 13y agoBit worse than that, in that the telco monopoly starts at the Federal level. But your point is well taken: claiming the actions of government established monopolies (actually duopolies when you're lucky) are a failure of the free market, and calling on these same governments "to prevent [the] monopolies [they created in the first place] from forming and ensure that there is enough competition" when same governments seem to be entirely happy with the results is ... well, I don't think we live in the same reality. A bit more enlightened a government would at least have drawn a line at what these monopolies can do, i.e. keep them from competing with Netflix et. al., but that would be very problematic with cable companies.
- dsr_ 13y agohttp://www.alternet.org/story/148397/how_the_phone_companies_are_screwing_america:_the_$320_billion_broadband_rip-off?page=entire http://www.alternet.org/story/148397/how_the_phone_companies... Or, simply put, the incumbent carriers promised to put fiber to the home in millions of houses in exchange for deregulation; then they didn't fulfill their part of the bargain, because nobody was regulating them.
- cones688 13y agoOr control the infrastructure on which it relies. Here in the UK we have a wholesale company (BT OpenReach) which is strictly regulated that provides all telephone lines, providers can then "rent" off those cables. This allows for a massive variety of competition and broadband packages from £5 a month. This also allows a funnel for the govt to invest if required, say laying fibre to remote communities rather than having to rely commercial interests to, who never would.
- Nux 13y agoA massive variety of crap, mostly. The only thing that gets close to well connected countries in Europe is BT's Infinity. The rest are just pathetic ADSL offers or throttled-to-hell cable offers (Virgin, now UPC).
- dasmoth 13y agoOther ISPs have access to BTs FTTC (and, in the few areas it's deployed, FTTP) systems. Not every ISP offers this, but there are plenty of alternatives to BT Infinity.
- orf 13y agoI have a non-bt fiber package and my speeds beat most of my European friends top speeds. In fact it sometimes beats my Hetzner (German) based servers.
- ryanSrich 13y agoI think you're confused about the free market. This behavior isn't, in anyway, an example of a free market economy. Local governments collude with large corporations to create these monopolies by subsidizing underground cable to only one or two corporations. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusin...
- ihsw 13y agoThis is probably one of the most short-sighted and narrow-minded comments I've seen. The cablecos and telecos have carved America into fiefdoms where the result is neither free nor a market -- it is wholesale feasting on the American populace and our municipal leaders are happily complicit. I could just as easily claim that political corruption is the source of ire, but I would be just as blind.
- brewdad 13y agoYes. And the reason these fiefdoms exist is because they operate in a largely unregulated market. Companies make these agreements because they are in the company's best interests. Established market leaders don't WANT a free market. They want to set the rules themselves and in today's America they do.
- jseliger 13y agoIn reality it is often up to governments to prevent monopolies from forming and ensure that there is enough competition. In the U.S. regulatory capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) is often the problem, per this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271044 . One reasonable alternative in the U.S. broadband situation is to allow municipalities to build their own networks, but in many states that's already illegal, per the linked comment.
- pdonis 13y agothe free market's ability to further low prices and good products The fact that the Federal government de-regulated does not mean the market is free. State and local governments still regulate, not to mention making deals with particular providers, which is why there are so many local monopolies. In a true free market, something like Google Fiber would be deploying much faster than it is.