4 ms·

Why are there only one or two ISPs in your area? Because of regulation. Cable companies are government granted monopoly. The reason you don't have cable choi

by MCRed 12y ago

Why are there only one or two ISPs in your area? Because of regulation. Cable companies are government granted monopoly. The reason you don't have cable choice is that monopoly. Local phone service, similar thing, though regulations have opened up long distance access, only one company has the infrastructure. Wireless Broadband, similar thing, artificial scarcity created by regulation (spread spectrum would support hundreds of local services) and spectrum auctions literally selling regulated monopolies created out of thin air. And while they did offer multiple bands, they limited it to only 3 monopolies per a given area (and one company has the choice band while the other two have lesser bands.) The only reason these companies have power to shape traffic is the federal and local governments have given them monopolies.

lomnakkus 12y ago
Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice. EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?
- MCRed 12y ago
  We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers? I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists of nothing more than the word "bullshit" and an assertion that I must be astroturfing. Labeling the argument without a counter argument and then labelling me. Can't you do better?
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    Learn to read separate statements as separate. Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit. In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular country). (I readily acknowledge that my original post was perhaps a little hasty and inflammatory, but one gets tired of this shit.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    > "I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel...". This has got to be the height of irony. See my posting history to see why you're Oh So very wrong. Goodbye, I'll stop replying or acknowledging you from now on.
- dang 12y ago
  > Stop spewing bullshit. > How's that astroturfing going for you? Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News. Please stop.
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    While I can still reply and in retrospect: I sort-of agree. The astroturfing comment was out-of-line. I'm not sure "bullshit" can be construed as a personal attack, but... reprimand accepted nonetheless.
eropple 12y ago
Your posts in this thread have had the woe-is-me scream of the right wing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being disingenuous when you're being wrong. There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high. It's fantastically, stupefyingly expensive to run that much cable. There's a reason we as a country have paid for so much of it. Wireless broadband and satellite are inferior goods and don't replace hardline connections. Even so, you seem to have this curious idea that spectrum usage isn't rivalrous...which is not exactly borne out by reality.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  > There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high Infrastructure and Internet service used to be separate businesses at one point, the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out. I had dozens of ISP choices when I signed up for DSL in 1998.
  - orthecreedence 12y ago
    > the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out This stinks of deregulation to me.

by MCRed 12y ago

lomnakkus 12y ago

Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice. EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?

MCRed 12y ago
We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers? I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists of nothing more than the word "bullshit" and an assertion that I must be astroturfing. Labeling the argument without a counter argument and then labelling me. Can't you do better?
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  Learn to read separate statements as separate. Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit. In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular country). (I readily acknowledge that my original post was perhaps a little hasty and inflammatory, but one gets tired of this shit.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  > "I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel...". This has got to be the height of irony. See my posting history to see why you're Oh So very wrong. Goodbye, I'll stop replying or acknowledging you from now on.
dang 12y ago
> Stop spewing bullshit. > How's that astroturfing going for you? Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News. Please stop.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  While I can still reply and in retrospect: I sort-of agree. The astroturfing comment was out-of-line. I'm not sure "bullshit" can be construed as a personal attack, but... reprimand accepted nonetheless.

eropple 12y ago

Your posts in this thread have had the woe-is-me scream of the right wing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being disingenuous when you're being wrong. There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high. It's fantastically, stupefyingly expensive to run that much cable. There's a reason we as a country have paid for so much of it. Wireless broadband and satellite are inferior goods and don't replace hardline connections. Even so, you seem to have this curious idea that spectrum usage isn't rivalrous...which is not exactly borne out by reality.

mullingitover 12y ago
> There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high Infrastructure and Internet service used to be separate businesses at one point, the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out. I had dozens of ISP choices when I signed up for DSL in 1998.
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  > the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out This stinks of deregulation to me.