Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zanny 3164 days ago
Except in the context he is speaking of, extremely few Americans have more than one company supplying them with Internet access. It is definitionally a monopoly, and to say existing anti-trust legislation is sufficient is saying the monopolies as they exist now are acceptable and nothing needs to be done.

It is a dismissive comment from the senator, he should feel insulted. It is like saying "help I'm bleeding" and the guy next to you saying "its not that bad, get over yourself".

2 comments

I'm not so sure monopoly captures the root of the internet access problem. Yes, in many markets there is a single provider (e.g., Comcast). There are other providers (e.g., Verizon). But neither enters the other's markets.

I'm not suggesting their is a spoken conspiracy. But when neither side benefits from direct competition, what's the word for that?

Trust, in the business sense of the word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business)

In the days of Rockefeller, these things were a little more formal. Nowadays companies know better than to put such silent agreements in writing.

or him saying “it’s ok, wait a little longer and a hearse will come help.”