4 ms·

The alternative is that your only last-mile private broadband provider is in complete control of your link to the internet, and you can't even begin to have a s

The alternative is that your only last-mile private broadband provider is in complete control of your link to the internet, and you can't even begin to have a say in how the link is managed... Markets with multiple private competitors end up the most efficient, but when you exclude a government based solution, what do we do about critical markets without competition?

gojomo 12y ago
Very few places in the US have "only" one last-mile provider. Most have 2 or more wired, and 3 or more wireless options. (The wireless isn't usually cost-competitive for bulk HD video yet... but will get there in another 5-10 years.) Running new wires is also always possible. It'll be even easier now, with a richer society and new automation, and municipalities less likely to offer monopoly franchises, than the cable deployments of the 60s-80s. Bits are bits, and the ways to deliver them to any point on the planet keep growing. Any brief advantage one medium or company may have – such as cable & Comcast at this precise moment – can disappear quickly. And will disappear even faster if they try to abuse their power, providing an easy motivational/marketing/profitability hook for competitive alternatives.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Huh? Wireless isn't a legit broadband solution, and 2+ wired situations are very rare for residential service. Large swaths of the remote state of New York are in precisely this circumstance. Verizon has essentially abandoned POTS, and many places cannot provision new DSL service, or can only receive very low speed DSL. Outside of the FIOS footprint, the cable company is it. In some cases, you can subscribe to an unbundled cable offering and get 10/1 EarthLink cable service for $4 less than 25/2 Time Warner.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Why isn't wireless 'legit'? Monkeybrains is wiring up much of San Francisco with service that's ~300Mbps (6X Comcast's best) for $35/month. My T-Mobile LTE gets 20-45Mbps throughout my apartment. Yes, it's more expensive – as I'd mentioned, not yet cost-competitive for lots of HD video watching. But it's good for everything else, and getting better. Almost everywhere has both cable and DSL options – that is, two providers, not "only" one. Some places have more than one cable option – including my previous SF address. And more wires can be run: for example Google Fiber, or even actual Ethernet cabling. By all means, add new options to areas with limited choices! Use antitrust, or have localities take steps tuned to their needs. But forcing a unified, commodity-like national regulated-service model on the whole industry doesn't run any new wires or add any consumer options... it only adds constraints & compliance costs for potential new entrants.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Rural areas are completely different from large metropolitan areas like San Francisco in this respect and vast chunks of the US have only one provider for the last mile creating de-facto monopolies. The money isn't there to keep multiple sets of infrastructure going which in turn leads to exorbitant pricing for the customers of the one remaining option. And due to the distances involved and lack of 3G/4G coverage in those areas the other obvious option is usually also in short supply.
      - gojomo 12y ago
        In my experience, rural (but still populated) areas have great wireless coverage in the US – the networks have plenty of places to put their towers, and the service is uncongested. Wired service is more hit-or-miss. Still, if the problem were in fact limited rural options, for the minority of citizens who live in rural areas, the fix would be new options for them, or regulations of their monppoly provider – not new federal rules and discretionary oversight for every ISP, including those in urban areas with vigorous competition.

gojomo 12y ago

Very few places in the US have "only" one last-mile provider. Most have 2 or more wired, and 3 or more wireless options. (The wireless isn't usually cost-competitive for bulk HD video yet... but will get there in another 5-10 years.) Running new wires is also always possible. It'll be even easier now, with a richer society and new automation, and municipalities less likely to offer monopoly franchises, than the cable deployments of the 60s-80s. Bits are bits, and the ways to deliver them to any point on the planet keep growing. Any brief advantage one medium or company may have – such as cable & Comcast at this precise moment – can disappear quickly. And will disappear even faster if they try to abuse their power, providing an easy motivational/marketing/profitability hook for competitive alternatives.

Spooky23 12y ago
Huh? Wireless isn't a legit broadband solution, and 2+ wired situations are very rare for residential service. Large swaths of the remote state of New York are in precisely this circumstance. Verizon has essentially abandoned POTS, and many places cannot provision new DSL service, or can only receive very low speed DSL. Outside of the FIOS footprint, the cable company is it. In some cases, you can subscribe to an unbundled cable offering and get 10/1 EarthLink cable service for $4 less than 25/2 Time Warner.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Why isn't wireless 'legit'? Monkeybrains is wiring up much of San Francisco with service that's ~300Mbps (6X Comcast's best) for $35/month. My T-Mobile LTE gets 20-45Mbps throughout my apartment. Yes, it's more expensive – as I'd mentioned, not yet cost-competitive for lots of HD video watching. But it's good for everything else, and getting better. Almost everywhere has both cable and DSL options – that is, two providers, not "only" one. Some places have more than one cable option – including my previous SF address. And more wires can be run: for example Google Fiber, or even actual Ethernet cabling. By all means, add new options to areas with limited choices! Use antitrust, or have localities take steps tuned to their needs. But forcing a unified, commodity-like national regulated-service model on the whole industry doesn't run any new wires or add any consumer options... it only adds constraints & compliance costs for potential new entrants.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Rural areas are completely different from large metropolitan areas like San Francisco in this respect and vast chunks of the US have only one provider for the last mile creating de-facto monopolies. The money isn't there to keep multiple sets of infrastructure going which in turn leads to exorbitant pricing for the customers of the one remaining option. And due to the distances involved and lack of 3G/4G coverage in those areas the other obvious option is usually also in short supply.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      In my experience, rural (but still populated) areas have great wireless coverage in the US – the networks have plenty of places to put their towers, and the service is uncongested. Wired service is more hit-or-miss. Still, if the problem were in fact limited rural options, for the minority of citizens who live in rural areas, the fix would be new options for them, or regulations of their monppoly provider – not new federal rules and discretionary oversight for every ISP, including those in urban areas with vigorous competition.