3 ms·

Hard to underestimate the ramifications of an agreement like this. Many would say this is the market acting in the way it should.

karmajunkie 13y ago
I'd say my internet provider is fucking me over in failing to provide me with reliable connectivity I'm paying for. But that's just me.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  Yeah, that sounds like the market I'm familiar with.
aaronblohowiak 13y ago
Local Cable companies are not a free competitive market; they are state-sanctioned local monopolies.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Actually they are natural monopolies.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Can't they be both?
  - justincormack 13y ago
    The cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Why would Verizon want to spend 10 million wiring up your neighborhood and potentially not get you as a customer in an area where Comcast has already spent 10 million to do so? Also why should Comcast be forced to let competitors use their infrastructure they've spent massive amounts of money on building and maintaining?
      - toast0 13y ago
        If service is provided over Verizon or Comcast lines, they would still get paid for that. If they provide internet over their lines, they would get paid more. (Unless they operate their wholesale system like AT&T did, with wholesale access prices above retail prices including internet... grumble)
      - gergles 13y ago
        Little bit from my sibling response and a little bit more from the fact that they drained the ratepayers, government (through tax credits and accelerated depreciation), and the USF to the tune of $200 billion to provide universal broadband access (which they didn't do.) We paid for the network, anybody selling transit across it should be able to use it.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Who agreed to pay for what, where?
    - TranceMan 13y ago
      I only became aware that you can get Fibre from other providers this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128
      - justincormack 13y ago
        Not really. The unbundling is restricted (you have to use BT equipment) and there is no price cap that BT can charge. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/bt_fibre_eu/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/bt_fibre_eu/ from the time. Eventually we will get full LLU. Ofcom does claim http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/04/25/uk-broadband-competition-reaches-new-milestone/ http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/04/25/uk-broadband-competitio... there are 80 providers of fibre, but the terms are not attractive that I can find. I dont mind paying a bit more for non BT but not if its capped and has the same congestion as BT as its on their equipment...
nodata 13y ago
With a monopolist ISP? How are they arguing that one?

karmajunkie 13y ago

I'd say my internet provider is fucking me over in failing to provide me with reliable connectivity I'm paying for. But that's just me.

badman_ting 13y ago
Yeah, that sounds like the market I'm familiar with.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago

Local Cable companies are not a free competitive market; they are state-sanctioned local monopolies.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Actually they are natural monopolies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Can't they be both?
- justincormack 13y ago
  The cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Why would Verizon want to spend 10 million wiring up your neighborhood and potentially not get you as a customer in an area where Comcast has already spent 10 million to do so? Also why should Comcast be forced to let competitors use their infrastructure they've spent massive amounts of money on building and maintaining?
    - toast0 13y ago
      If service is provided over Verizon or Comcast lines, they would still get paid for that. If they provide internet over their lines, they would get paid more. (Unless they operate their wholesale system like AT&T did, with wholesale access prices above retail prices including internet... grumble)
    - gergles 13y ago
      Little bit from my sibling response and a little bit more from the fact that they drained the ratepayers, government (through tax credits and accelerated depreciation), and the USF to the tune of $200 billion to provide universal broadband access (which they didn't do.) We paid for the network, anybody selling transit across it should be able to use it.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Who agreed to pay for what, where?
  - TranceMan 13y ago
    I only became aware that you can get Fibre from other providers this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128
    - justincormack 13y ago
      Not really. The unbundling is restricted (you have to use BT equipment) and there is no price cap that BT can charge. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/bt_fibre_eu/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/bt_fibre_eu/ from the time. Eventually we will get full LLU. Ofcom does claim http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/04/25/uk-broadband-competition-reaches-new-milestone/ http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/04/25/uk-broadband-competitio... there are 80 providers of fibre, but the terms are not attractive that I can find. I dont mind paying a bit more for non BT but not if its capped and has the same congestion as BT as its on their equipment...

nodata 13y ago

With a monopolist ISP? How are they arguing that one?