[icebraining]

Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe.

And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from competing with it.

After all, if the problem is that private companies are greedy, a public ISP funded only by their customers' fees and without profit-seeking shareholders should solve the problem within a system of fair competition.

[zanny]

It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled renting of those lines.

But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at all. Nobody would have a reason to develop faster consumer fiber systems since there is no money to be made.

[MawNicker]

The market has already converged on essentially this reality. We have cable and fiber monopolies controlling the local networks. These used to be more open when DSL was the prevalent technology. This allowed a variety of ISPs to utilize that shared infrastructure. The telcos didn't care about the Internet before. Once there was apparently money to be made they changed their game. They developed faster connections on closed infrastructure and displaced the smaller players. The only way to compete is with new infrastructure. The incumbent monopoly has a massive advantage overcoming this barrier to entry. They have, and need only maintain, dominance. It takes a massive initiative (like Google Fiber) to provide a threat and revive genuine competition. The "free market" isn't optimal here. Google is taking one for the team. We can't always count on this sort of thing. Without public ownership and regulation of monopolies there's no "free" market. There is of course but the entirety of the market is the only object for sale. Once privatized it becomes anything but free. Government ownership mitigates this problem by allowing the public to assert further market freedom via regulation. Like net neutrality. As we are beginning to see, without owning the infrastructure, we can't make this regulation stick.

When a monopoly is the optimal solution, it ought to be the government. If it isn't then it will be a private company. The former can be shaped by public vote in order to enforce an optimal solution. That is: solve the problems that require a monopoly and give the rest back to the free market. The latter has impunity and seeks to monetize it. That is: to control access to the market.

[icebraining]

The logic would be funny if it wasn't sad. The government creates a monopoly (AT&T). That company uses that power and money accumulated through decades to extend its reach into the cable system (current "Comcast" is actually the merger of a medium provider with AT&T Broadband, which held dozens of millions of cable subscribers). Then that is used to show that a government monopoly is needed.

Maybe you could actually decide to try a free market before declaring it a failure?

[MawNicker]

I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn't a fungible commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn't be a thing. Also, local demand isn't scalable. You only need one road outside your house. Several competing roads would be horribly underutilized on the low end of scale. On the high end you're maybe onto something. Private bridges and freeways may be a decent idea. Private airlines certainly are. But then you're right back to what I'm advocating.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe. Governments provide the "last mile" connectivity. ISPs compete to provide access to the outside world. This competition isn't possible if the local infrastructure is owned by an ISP. They are incentivized to shut down the free market and reap their monopolistic rewards. They lock down their infrastructure. This creates a huge barrier to entry. They can then: Overcharge. Inspire competition. Crush them with their accumulated capital. Overcharge... Anyone attempting to compete is necessarily constructing redundant infrastructure. The "zero government involvement" thing actually hinders the free market here. Our road system enables tremendous free market enterprise. If retailers had to pay a road cartel for the right to do business it would be a disaster. Walmart would take over the roads and overpower anything it cared to which depended on them. Basically what Facebook is trying to do in India.

[icebraining]

As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are anything like roads (or sewage, for that matter). "Infrastructure" means many things, and it's certainly not obvious that the same solution is the best for all.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe.

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here. ISPs own their own cables. Yet I have four of them offering me service, four of them over fiber, but also cable, DSL and 4G. Yes, it's expensive. Many private investments are, yet they still get made. Yes, it's redundant. Reliability depends on it.

From what I've read, our situation is hardly atypical, as private installation seems to be the case in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Moldova, Slovakia and others.

The US case, on the other hand, it's hardly representative of a free market, and your problems can not be attribute to it.

[MawNicker]

As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are anything like roads

The earlier post:

Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe.

Ah. That's a great point actually. Maybe the solution is just to have the public provide and support this "fiber pipe". Not the fiber; Just the pipe. This would lower the barriers to competition for last mile connectivity. I still think this ought to be insulated from the upstream connectivity providers. To continue the analogy: The cables are self-driving uber-like taxies and the pipe is the rode. I want regulation to ensure every taxi is totally interoperable with every private freeway/bridge/airline in a given area. I also want the option to just use the taxi for local services. I don't want a taxi cartel to tell me where to shop.

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here.

Okay. I'm pretty ignorant about these issues. I'm operating from a cached worldview. I did some searching and I'll concede this point. I'm a sucker for "Europe has this figured out already" narratives. I still like the idea. In general I'm opposed to government protected monopolies. If monopoly is the emergent reality then it should be reduced to the narrowest causal factor and kept under government control. Everything that remains should be returned to the free market.

[themartorana]

Yeah, but you have to dig up roads to put new fiber down.

[icebraining]

Nope, you just install plastic tubing which you can then use to run the fiber. The US federal government has already passed the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act to that end.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/new-bill-wants-fi...