Because both are built upon cable television and telephone infrastructure, which were given monopolies because they were considered essential infrastructure.
So now you have an at-best duopoly service that is carried over infrastructure links that were given monopoly protection, but the service itself is not considered or regulated as monopolistic infrastructure.
It might be that given the cost of the infrastructure, high speed internet is a natural monopoly and should be run either as a state monopoly or as a common carrier, the owner company being obligated to allow traffic by concurrents on its infrastructure, or the owner company should be barred from providing the service itself (just being paid by actual providers to rout their traffic through its infrastructure).
Let me guess. We have to be reading the thread for the whole time until you post the answer, otherwise we won’t see it. Also, no, you aren’t able to contact us on the day to give us a more accurate indication of what time it will be. Neither are you able to let us know when you are on your way to posting the answer so that we can quickly open the thread in time.
Thank you for subscribing to BryComm.
It is a monopoly if I don’t have access to any of those companies except Time Warner. These companies collude to set boundaries to maintain high prices and avoid competition.
I tried some remote work on a satellite connection last month. 1.5-2 second ping made for cripplingly slow work.
It would have been funny to attempt some games.
Yep. In my town there’s exactly one choice for high speed internet or cable. It might not technically be a monopoly because there are other cable/internet providers in the state (all of whom are any given town’s single option) but it’s damn sure collusion.
Where do you live that you can’t get anything other than Time Warner ? I mean, it’s possible you can’t get any other cable service and you might not be able to get FIOs or U-verse but if you have a phone line you should be able to get DSL from Verizon or Earthlink or AT&T.
DSL coverage areas are notoriously spotty. If you are not immediately in the vicinity of a station, you’ll either get significantly degraded quality of signal or none at all. Even in well covered cities, large swaths of areas are not covered by DSL. It’s entirely possible that cable and dial up are your only options. Do dial up ISPs even exist anymore?
Is anti-trust still a thing in U.S.A.? I thought that ship sailed when one of the first things GWB did in 2001 was to drop the case against Microsoft that Justice was on the verge of winning.
Uh… Read any elementary expanation of monopoly power, … or report to the Pit! 
The same reason we allow monopolies on the corner store in a rural village.
There’s a difference between “I have only one option” and a monopoly supported by legislation or illegal anti-competitive tactics. The fact that you have only one option does not mean that there is a monopoly, just as Sam Drucker wasn’t operating an illegal country store in Hootersville.
ISPs typically have to specifically apply to be an ISP in a particular location. And they are often denied based on the lobbying efforts of existing ISPs in those areas to protect their own market. Google fiber, for example, is not allowed to build their network in a whole lot of areas. Municipalities often go out of their way to try to attract new ISP infrastructure because theirs sucks, and state governments will come in and shut them down. It’s absolutely a government-enforced monopoly in many places.
I bet you’re mistaken. Instead, there may be monopolies on laying a cable plant, or using the phone lines. There are property issues regarding bandwidth for wireless services. But I don’t think there is any regulation at all to provide internet service per se.
Companies laying out cable plants are often granted monopolies, to encourage a company to do it at all. It’s often not economical to go to the expense (and the greatest expense is legal, getting the right-of-ways for the cable to be laid) unless you can be granted a monopoly. So yeah, the cable company may have a monopoly on the cable. The same story goes for the telco land lines. However, the service provider has been deregulated to the point where different long-distance service carriers can compete. And whaddyaknow: the cable company can provide phone service, or can provide cable access to a company that provides the telephone service!
Of course, I don’t doubt for one moment that existing service providers do anything they can to block competition. A great example was Tesla, who was barred from selling cars in some location because they didn’t have dealerships in the area! Sheesh.
Whether it is in fact a monopoly or not doesn’t really matter to the consumer. I love the people who are saying “it is not really a monopoly…” fact is, I only have one valid choice for high speed internet and it is Time Warner which is now being eaten or is eating Comcast. So now two of the biggest companies are one. And the government is just going to sit back and allow this to happen and not stop it, because the government is in bed with all of the rich people.
We had a week not too long ago where we lost Internet coverage every day for about an hour, right after we came home from work. Awesome. I mean, that’s only when we eat and watch Netflix? And there is nothing we can do about it. I can’t vote to fix it, because the lobbyists are out there sucking the cocks of the legislators. Why the hell would they listen to me when they have so many people throwing money at them?
It’s no different than charging us for incoming and outgoing calls on a cellphone. The companies can do it, so they will. And no one stops them.
Oh, the cable companies actually do make it illegal to compete with them when and where they can.
I can’t speak for coax but as far as the twisted pair cooper is concerned there do exist resold and unbundled DSL services which are provided over the main companies network by other “phone companies” and maintained by the main phone companies personnel.
Yes, that’s the common carrier model, which is explicitly not how we treat cable even though it’s a similar infrastructure service at this point. That would allow much greater competition, provide alternatives, and probably improve prices and services.
It also sells short that laying millions of miles of coaxial cable, fiber, or twisted copper wire still represents an investments of tens of billions by Comcast, TWC, AT&T and Verizon (and the smaller players.) They’re only doing that in exchange for a certain profit margin.
My point is if you alter the profit margin, you also have to alter other things to keep the system working. Natural gas distribution companies (these are your gas utilities) have what is called a utility business model. They don’t earn amazing profit margins, but they also almost never have losses because their agreements with public utility companies basically say, “You guys get to decide how often and how much we can increase our rates. Since you’re accountable to rate payers and not us, that means our profit margins will be low. But we are also guaranteed a level of profit even if something happens in the system that should drive it into the red.” So it creates a boring but safe business model. If there’s a massive hurricane that causes millions in damages the company isn’t on the hook for that, they are allowed to pass the costs on to the ratepayers.
Comcast and Time Warner don’t want to be regulated utilities because they are low growth enterprises, and by and large government doesn’t want them to be regulated utilities because that means tax dollars have to be spent insuring Comcast/Time Warner don’t go into the red on their services offered.
This is a chicken and egg problem, though. Before there was ever this fight over the Internet the government made decisions that guaranteed this would happen. Before Comcast or Time Warner Cable even had skin in the Internet game, legislators did this stuff, long before any significant lobbying was going on. Like any rent-collectors they will use all means available to continue collecting their rents. But this is the predictable result of decisions starting 30 years ago that had honestly little to do with the companies you are getting a hard-on criticizing.
When we decided AT&T shouldn’t be a monopoly any longer we had a few ways we could have gone. We could have actually said “okay, we’re going to split up parts of this company, but we’re going to nationalize the infrastructure itself and run it like the Federal Highways.” If that had happened we’d have an internet infrastructure today very similar to what say, South Korea has and several other countries where government owns the infrastructure and leases it to companies who all compete directly on price. This doesn’t address coaxial cable networks, but doesn’t really need to, initial growth in the internet was driven by the phone infrastructure and if it was a government run infrastructure you would’ve seen most likely fiber in 100x as many places as now and coaxial cable would be the modern day equivalent of DSL service–no one would care if it was duopolied or monopolied because the government infrastructure would be better maintained and more competitively utilized.
Instead we adopted laws that guaranteed there would be local monopolies. Comcast and Time Warner didn’t create this stuff through lobbying, they simply benefited from it. Like anyone who runs a toll booth they can only be expected to fight hard to keep that toll booth operating. I don’t see how that’s evil or cause to make up stories about bribery or to over-state the importance of lobbying, it’s just predictable cause/effect.
Comcast isn’t really working to destroy net neutrality. You’re hand waiving, believing propaganda, and exaggerating quite a bit. The fraudulent charges stuff is just laundry-listing and has nothing to do with the infrastructure/monopoly discussion. That’s just garden variety shitty customer treatment and seen in all industries even those that are highly competitive–AT&T is in trouble for doing similar to their cell phone customers and cell service is fairly competitive with four major players and lots of smaller ones.
Netflix takes up like 30% of the Internet’s bandwidth, it makes sense that Comcast/TWC and others require Netflix to pay more money to continue their stream of data at its current pace. I imagine massive consumers of resources even in a totally government run system would be levied special fees or etc, government wouldn’t be cool with heavy users paying the same tariff as small time ones. This is actually how road taxes were originally schemed up, the more you use them the more gas you use, and since they are paid for in part through gas taxes, the more you pay for the roads.
Not since 2006 or so, because of lingering twisted-copper regulations the surviving baby bells were required to do this but are no longer. If any continue to do so it is solely out of a business arrangement they’ve chosen to enter into.
Actually it did not and would not. When they were forced to share their lines it meant the incumbent telcos had no reason to invest in infrastructure expansion because they had no guarantee of being able to profit off of that investment. It’s like saying if I’m a farmer with 1,000 acres and 10,000 acres of total land, and a law is passed saying any land I clear and till is “first come first serve” for whoever wants to plant on it that I’d have no reason not to clear the rest of my land and till it. Obviously I’d have exactly the opposite-an incentive not to clear or till the land.
For line-sharing schemes to work the government has to pay the companies involved and has to offer them lucrative transportation charge schemes (this is how deregulated energy markets work, your bill will show a transportation charge and an energy charge, the energy can come from whichever company anywhere you want to buy it from, but the incumbent utility gets to levy lucrative transportation charges, and they continue to have a monopoly on those transportation charges.) The DSL sharing framework really didn’t provide for this, DSL non-utility providers did pay the telcos some, but not much, not enough to incentivize building new infrastructure.
Both DSL access and speed have gone up considerably relative to cable since this scheme was put to an end. Throughout rural Virginia and West Virginia for example DSL service is now almost ubiquitous where as recently as 2004 it wasn’t available (or any high speed Internet) in a majority of those counties. Two things happened to make that possible, one is the government gave companies like Frontier some money to do the build out, and the other is they didn’t have to worry about competing with other DSL providers. Could we have gotten the expansion in both DSL access and speed we’ve seen since while still mandating line sharing? Sure, but we’d have had to pay a lot more tax dollars to the telcos to do it, and we weren’t willing to do that (it goes back to my point about fundamental choices, and the only solution is to spend more tax dollars.)
Stuff like fiber-to-the-node (which underlies U-Verse) never would have happened if AT&T had to share that infrastructure with other companies, unless we offered a company enticing utility-like benefits to provide it. Even then AT&T may not have done it (as it’d be a low margin business), but some company would have emerged to take those government-guaranteed profits.
If you knew anything at all about toll roads, and the utter corruption, greed, lies and bullshit that go hand in hand with them, your example would be completely appropriate in this case.