Hacker News Reader

Comment by intrasight | Hacker News Reader

I lean towards the belief that the FCC is involved specifically because there is little or no competition in broadband because it has characteristics of a natural monopoly when delivered via wire/cable/fiber. The FCC didn't hand them a monopoly. The market handed them a monopoly and therefore the FCC needs to regulate it. Besides that, I agree with your other sentiments.

View on HN

> The market handed them a monopoly

Local governments handed them a monopoly.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...

I disagree that ISPs are a natural monopoly. It's crazy to think that my house could choose between two competing road systems, but my house already has multiple wired communications networks.

And if we all agree that ISP monopolies are real -- then we have a way of dealing with monopolies: break up the companies.

It seems to me that this is the proper solution -- yet for some reason it's never discussed and instead we just keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It seems like the idea of going AT&T on modern corporations is completely off the table. Any time I bring this up, people look at me like I'm pro-tyranny.

Break them up. They're holding our nation back and don't deserve to use us as a crutch.

Given that Google, Amazon, and Apple are all larger than Comcast in market-cap and most measures of market-share or customer count, will those three be broken up before Comcast, or after?

During.

They each have meaningful competition. I'm not sure what your definition of "monopoly" is if it includes companies like those.

Almost everywhere in the US, almost every ISP faces at least 4 (and often more) alternative ways to get on the internet.

Compared to Google or Apple, Comcast has a smaller market cap and smaller profit margins – and profit margins are a more reliable indicator of market power than eyeballing whether the competition looks "meaningful".

Almost everywhere in the US, almost every ISP faces at least 4 (and often more) alternative ways to get on the internet. How is that a "monopoly"?

>Almost everywhere in the US, almost every ISP faces at least 4 (and often more) alternative ways to get on the internet.

When you typed "ISP" is that supposed to mean "customer"? Citation?

Against whom is Comcast competing? I know very few people who can choose even between Comcast & AT&T. It's widely known that Comcast colludes with other cable companies (Time Warner) to avoid competition.

You're using a straw man argument. "Comcast is a monopoly." "Hey, look over there at something unrelated to your statement! Therefore, Comcast faces competition."

Citation?

I had 1 choice in Dallas (TimeWarner). In McKinney (Dallas exurb with a population of 400K) I only had UVerse as a choice.

The next best in those markets is ADSL. But that doesn't fit the bill if we're talking about broadband.

So right now, myself and everyone I'm familiar with, face monopolies.

And you're seriously trying to say Apple doesn't have competition? I have a hell of a lot more choice in what laptop I buy than what broadband provider I have for my home address (read: none).

I decided a couple weeks ago to switch toe DuckDuckGo for search. I opened my Safari Preferences. Made the change. Done.

This seems like an issue of basic reasoning skills.

We live in a country where our public officials openly state that companies are "too big to jail", and they are unwilling to prosecute them for wrong doing because it could cause "systemic failure".

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_45/ag-holder-confir...

There are many different ways of dealing with monopolies. Sometimes breaking them up is not the best solution. Unbundling like we had with DSL, is another way to deal with telecom monopolies that doesn't result in breaking them up.

Unfortunately ever since BrandX the FCC has fought against unbundling.

You've got multiple wired communications networks at home partly because that market is operating inefficiently, which is a thing that tends to happen in the real world.

We need to do both. Working to increase competition sounds like the most effective strategy in the long run, but that will be difficult and take a long time by Internet standards. Net neutrality will help curb abuse in the (relatively) short run.

I wonder what it would look like if the last mile were a) unbundled and b) operated as a co-operative.

You make an important distinction. Perhaps I should have said, "The FCC missed an opportunity to regulate a natural monopoly."

Because you're right in that last-mile Internet delivery is a natural monopoly. Just like last-mile phone service is a natural monopoly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com