[padmanabhan01]

"when we’re talking about ISPs that are near-monopolies built in large part on the basis of government subsidy or exclusive federal licensing,"

Isn't that the real problem? Govt first helps create monopolies and then worries about how to deal with them with antitrust and what not and starts lecturing about the flaws of free market or capitalism. Why create those monopolies in the first place? Why not have free market all along? This is the same story in telecom, healthcare, etc etc

[aaronblohowiak]

"Why not have free market all along?" -- Because having every company dig up ditches along public thoroughfares and through yards would be untenable. Also, some companies only decide to make the infrastructure investment in towns if the town council would agree to allow that provider to be exclusive (a town council then has to decide if the monopoly is better than no service... but the problem is that these contracts are sooo long.)

[tc]

More companies than you probably realize lay fiber and copper. You can check the permits issued by your local municipality to see what I mean.

If you wanted to lay a few miles of fiber yourself, you'd find that it is fairly straightforward in most areas. You cross a bit of red tape, fill out all the forms, and pay the impact costs. If you don't want to do it yourself, companies like Comcast actually do a good bit of work laying fiber on contract for smaller carriers.

As far as cable monopolies, those are fortunately on their way out anyway, at least in Tier 2 cities and their near suburbs. Increasingly, Brighthouse is competing in Comcast territory, and vice-versa. That's the direction. But of course, networks take time to build, with or without a bunch of government mandates.

[seabee]

> More companies than you probably realize lay fiber and copper.

Could be misleading, since these jobs are often performed by contractors, at least in the UK. If you see work being done, there's often a sign by the site saying "X ltd., on behalf of Y plc".

[wmf]

Why not have free market all along?

That's nice to say in retrospect, but simply deregulating rights of way and video franchises wouldn't address the fact that strong incumbents exist today. Overbuilding an incumbent like AT&T or Comcast will cost billions and the reward for this investment is 20-30% market share. I think we're dealing with genuine natural monopolies here.

[tc]

Being a competitor in this industry, I'm always surprised by the simplistic treatment telecom issues receive even by technical people.

I suppose it is the difference between being a driver on a road, or perhaps even the manufacturer of an automobile, and knowing anything about the messy business of road construction.

For one thing, everyone seems to focus just on consumer internet. But this is hardly the whole picture. Most people spend over half of their waking hours at work. To the consternation of many employers, people probably spend more hours on the internet at work than at home. And the market for business internet services is highly competitive and quite far from monopolistic. It perhaps shouldn't be surprising that a smaller number of names stand out in the consumer space -- it seems to happen with all consumer products.

Further, even the argument you posed is self-contradictory. Do you know how much a 30% market share is worth? It's worth enough that plenty of people are building to compete in that space right now.

[wmf]

everyone seems to focus just on consumer internet.

Because evil is lurking there, and we want to stamp it out. AFAIK business Internet service has always been neutral so there's not much to discuss.

Do you know how much a 30% market share is worth? It's worth enough that plenty of people are building to compete in that space right now.

I hope so, but I don't see any fiber coming down my street.