Hacker News Reader

Comment by nrb | Hacker News Reader

I think the hangup there is that in many cities there exists a government-sanctioned monopoly in internet access, in many areas the public actually funded the infrastructure, or in other areas collusion exists to limit customer freedom to choose a provider. Monopoly of access and absolute control over the network should be inversely proportional.

View on HN

The same argument could be made, and often is, that a few private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors etc. hold similar monopoly status, for different reasons.

And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.

"private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors" - interesting how all of those on your list require me to use an ISP first. in my town there is literally one ISP option. I have used several different providers for every service you listed. there is a big difference between a near/effective monopoly and literally one option or no service at all.

Copy pasting from another of my replies in this thread:

The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck.

E.g., your ISP is likely not the only option, just the only decent one.

"Just use" the exact same company for a dial up option. "Just use" a cellular provider that does not actually provide a data signal (dropped calls and constantly resending texts is my reality not tethering my computer for fast data). I guess technically I have the "option" to use overpriced satellite service that has a latency that makes RDP to my data center 80 miles away unusable (geo stationary orbit altitude is a bitch). I actually appreciate that I even have 5Mbit DSL but don't tell me I have a weak argument about ISP choice - there is but one choice - even if I grant you a satellite option I have literally two or three choices total. To re-address my original points, I first have to use an ISP to access any of the dozens, hundreds, thousands of other digital services that have been brought up. I'm not sure how you are so dismissive of this fact that alone places this service in a category unto itself. Once I have an internet pipe, I can freely use the 0.1% market share or the 99% market share social media/hosting/search engine/registrar/etc company with literally no friction and based on my whim on that day. And the next day I can cancel and choose another option. And a year later I can choose the 5% share up and coming option and so on. Explain to me how this is so similar to my ISP "choice"? I can also literally start my own social media platform, hosting company, or registrar tomorrow. However, even if I were independently wealthy and purchased spools upon spools of fiber/coax cable that totaled thousands of linear miles, I could NOT just start digging and running it where I chose and become an ISP option for my neighbors. Again, explain to me how ISPs are just exactly like all of these other examples you brought up?

That's a pretty dishonest comparison to a massive percentage of the country that literally has no ISP choice; I can name several viable products for each of the industries you mentioned off the top of my head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com