ShawshankExemption t1_ixfs3le wrote
I don’t think your argument that if it was state owned, prices would be stabilized. There are broadly to paths, municipal level, or federal. At the municipal level you’d be relying on individual municipalities to set up and maintain the broadband system. You’d get widely varying quality, procedures, and prices, just based how those locales manage this ish. At the state or federal level, you’d have fewer fiefdoms of policy, but then the prices and costs would vary widely because of political pork barreling. Some places would get economic boondoggle projects because their Congressperson is stellar, while others place few burdens and both end up paying the same? That’s not really right.
Yes the major broadband provides should be more heavily regulated but it should be in a way that forces them to compete more directly with each other and introduce other competitors into the market.
Another issue is technical choice, what if in 10 years satellite internet becomes the default Choice for access? Without competition or choice those determinations aren’t made and we end up locking into legacy tech hindering development. This akin to telephone access in the ‘developing’ world. Many of these countries don’t have land line infrastructure because they skipped straight to cellular.
wallet535 OP t1_ixft31p wrote
What I and most other people are talking about is potential state (not municipal or federal) regulation (not ownership) of ISPs. The direction of that regulation takes depends I’d think on whether broadband constitutes a natural monopoly, as other utilities do. If it is in fact a natural monopoly, encouraging competition might be a fool’s errand. Innovation might indeed be an issue, but is there evidence it’s being stifled in already-regulated utility markets? These I’d think are the relevant questions.
ShawshankExemption t1_ixfvlm2 wrote
I think it’s pretty reasonable to look at energy providers in electricity to see how particular regulation/utility status can hinder innovation. MA opened up its electricity markets in the 90s which cause more generators to enter the market, and then further liberalized generator regs to allow for wind, solar, and attempt at hydro. The variety of alternative sources wasn’t available until a variety of measures were introduced to allow more players in the market. IMO another issue with them being ‘natural monopolies’ is the products are able to be differentiated, somewhat technically but also business services (contract length, bundling, etc). Could you put regs in place that would limit those options and thus push them toward NM? Sure but I don’t think it would be popular. Personally, I switch from xfinity to Verizon recently and it’s made a world of difference.
It would be very difficult for the state to pass regulations that don’t end up superseded by FCC or other federal regulation, muni ownership is the only real way around that, which is why I jumped there. Your original prompt didn’t raise that prospect just some other commenters so my bad.
wallet535 OP t1_ixfx27k wrote
No worries, and I think we basically agree. u/thedoormaan summarized the FCC issues and also suggested ISP regulation, but probably not exactly how we regulate electricity, for example. I totally agree with this approach. Electricity itself was an interesting example of decomposing the natural monopoly analysis to distinguish between those parts that truly naturally monopolistic (delivery) from those that aren’t (generation). I don’t think broadband can be similarly decomposed, but maybe one day?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments