But yes, cellular and satellite providers have started to provide a saving grace of disruption in that market. We'll see if it ends up being enough.
But yes, cellular and satellite providers have started to provide a saving grace of disruption in that market. We'll see if it ends up being enough.
So while it appears that wired telecom is a monopoly they don't make money like monopolies. Compare Google Fiber with Google Plus. Google had people literally begging them to put Fiber in but backed off because they couldn't make (enough) money. Plus was a hugely important project for them but they canceled it because they couldn't beat Facebook.
We've seen major tech companies take aim at the monopoly/duopoly product of a rival and they've all failed:
Microsoft poured billions into Bing, Maps and mobile for little market share
Google couldn't dent Facebook with Plus
Amazon and Facebook's phones fell flat
Was that the reason, or was it because the other telecom companies were lobbying to keep Google from accessing rights of way and expanding to other cities. (One failed example:[0])
In many jurisdictions, the cable and telecom companies are attempting to make it illegal for municipalities to install their own government-run internet because they really don't want to compete. It's ridiculous. [1]
Had Google been allowed to compete like in other industries, they probably would have crushed the telecom companies. But they weren't allowed to.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber#Reactions [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la...
Yes.
> or was it because the other telecom companies were lobbying to keep Google from accessing rights of way and expanding to other cities. (One failed example:[0])
A failed lobbying example is terrible evidence compared to the sweetheart deals Google got and the lengths cities went to attract Google (from Wikipedia):
The initial location was chosen following a competitive selection process.[18] Over 1,100 communities applied to be the first recipient of the service.[19][20] Google originally stated that they would announce the winner or winners by the end of 2010; however, in mid-December, Google pushed back the announcement to "early 2011" due to the number of applications.[21][22][23]
The request form was simple, and, some have argued, too straightforward.[24] This led to various attention-getting behaviors by those hoping to have their town selected.[24] Some examples are given below:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana supporters remade the Supertramp song "Give a Little Bit" to "Give a Gigabit".
Greenville, South Carolina utilized 1,000 of their citizens and glow sticks to create "The World's First and Largest People-Powered Google Chain."[25] From an aerial view, the title "Google" was colorfully visible.
Topeka, Kansas, temporarily renamed itself "Google".
A small plane bearing a banner reading "Will Google Play in Peoria, IL?" flew over the Google campus in Mountain View, California.[26]
The mayor of Duluth, Minnesota, jokingly proclaimed that every first-born child will be named either Google Fiber or Googlette Fiber.[27]
The city of Rancho Cucamonga, California, dubbed their city, "Rancho Googlemonga".[28]
One of the islands in Sarasota, Florida, was temporarily renamed "Google Island".[24]
Municipalities and citizens have also uploaded YouTube videos to support their bids. Some examples:
A YouTube video in support of Sarasota, Florida, used the Bobby McFerrin song "Don't Worry, Be Happy".[24] A video for Sarasota was uploaded through Facebook’s video service.[24]
Comedian and United States Senator Al Franken made a YouTube video to support the bid of Duluth, Minnesota.[29]
Ann Arbor, Michigan, has its own YouTube channel[30] featuring a David Letterman-style Top Ten list delivered by town VIPs such as Mayor John Hieftje and University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. Ann Arbor also held a city-wide GoogleFest,[31] kicking off with a gathering of hundreds of participants dancing and chanting "Ann Arbor Google Fiber, ain't Nothing any finer."[32]
All of those examples are the kind of thing that municipalities do because it's easy and doesn't actually address any of the base issues.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/08/04/how-ka...
Provo sold them their fiber network for $1 as another example. Every city that got Google Fiber gave up concessions and promised to help Google expedite construction.
It seems pretty clear to me that ISP is like landlord - they need to either be nonprofit or it is a matter of time until whoever is in charge discovers or is replaced by someone who knows that most of the customers are pretty darn stuck and can be shaken for loose change.
I feel like the fact that cities are willing to kowtow to google for Please God Any Alternative To Our Isp Overlords is evidence that the ISPs are doing something that is particularly bad and most small governments are powerless to stop it.
I would want to see the margins for just operating high speed internet service. I suspect their overall margins are lower because their financial picture is clouded by things like cable TV and content costs. A big reason why telecoms suck is precisely because if you just want high speed internet, they force you to buy all their bullshit content as well (for me, it's cheaper to buy internet + cable TV than just internet!), and they make it hard to buy that content any other way. The main action I'd like to see taken against telecoms is to force them to spin off their content businesses (and they never should have been allowed to buy them in the first place).
Something doesn't add up. If it costs $50/mo to get cable TV content, why does it cost me $-10/mo with comcast?
1. https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2016/04/11/googl...
You can't really break it out that way. The TV service and internet service use the same physical wire. That's a fixed cost per household and once you have it, it's only marginally more expensive to send TV with the internet. Double so since people without cable packages tend to replace them with streaming services.
That values the content at near zero, which I think is not correct, and part of the game telecoms are playing with their (local) monopoly pricing power.
If you want to do a comparison compare consumer internet cost vs performance to places with a healthy and regulated market for internet service.
Also, by this logic Amazon could never be regulated. It doesn't make sense.
If they were really wasting ~20% of their revenue someone would buy them or do a hostile takeover.
Why risk innovation when stomping out competition is much more straight forward and predictable?