undefined | Better HN

0 pointspsadauskas7y ago0 comments

No, you're putting words in my mouth, or misunderstanding my point.

> you think Comcast should be broken up

I think efforts to break up tech monopolies should first be focused on telecommunication companies.

> because they lobby for things you don't like,

Not just me, but are objectively harmful to 99% of the people they would affect

> but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.

I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align.

With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition.

[1]: https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...

0 comments

rayiner7y ago

> With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition.

I'm sure if the U.S. government was proposing to sell public bonds to build a search engine or ride-sharing service, you'd see a lot of lobbying from Silicon Valley. It's not "actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition" to oppose government backed and funded competition in your industry.

elefanten7y ago

It's municipal, so the magnitude of threat you're implying (oooh Government) is a misdirection. GP's point is that consistently lobbying to shut down the existence of any competition, public or private, is monopolistic behavior. And it is, pretty much by definition.

rayiner7y ago

GP used an example of lobbying against the government entering what had heretofore been a private market. Pushing back on that is not "monopolistic" by any sense of the term. If you have examples of Comcast lobbying to prevent private competition, I'd like to hear them. The biggest impediment to private competition actually comes from the public interest sector, which insists on build-out requirements that make it very difficult to start competing ISPs, on the theory that it's better for nobody to have competing choices than to only have wealthier areas have competing choices.

3 more replies

brmgb7y ago

Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is.

Still I agree breaking up Comcast is not the solution. You will just end up with smaller more localized monopolies. That's pretty much what happened with Bell after all.

The solution would be either nationalizing the infrastructure and leasing it to operators or forcing existing operators to rent their infrastructure to their competitors for a set price. The later is actually working quite well in France. Short of that you will never get competition. It's simply not profitable.

rayiner7y ago

It's working terribly in France. France has some of the slowest broadband in the OECD: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Just 18% of French households have connections faster than 15 mbps, versus 48% of American households.

1 more reply

18pfsmt7y ago

How about we stop trying to come up with "solutions" that just cause more distortions, and exercise a bit of patience?

The 'cost vs. benefit' analysis should reveal similar ROI as "the wall."

rexpop7y ago

No, it's worse.

What's the purpose of monopoly laws? What is their spirit? Consumer benefit, right? If that is better served by municipal utilities, then while it may not violate the word of antitrust, it certainly violates the spirit.

bhl7y ago

> I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align.

There’s definitely an argument to be made here that their interests don’t align with the public, and that they should therefore be targeted first — public interests is a subjective phrase.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspsadauskas7y ago0 comments

No, you're putting words in my mouth, or misunderstanding my point.

> you think Comcast should be broken up

I think efforts to break up tech monopolies should first be focused on telecommunication companies.

> because they lobby for things you don't like,

Not just me, but are objectively harmful to 99% of the people they would affect

> but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.

I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align.

[1]: https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...

0 comments

rayiner7y ago

elefanten7y ago

rayiner7y ago

3 more replies

brmgb7y ago

Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is.

Still I agree breaking up Comcast is not the solution. You will just end up with smaller more localized monopolies. That's pretty much what happened with Bell after all.

rayiner7y ago

1 more reply

18pfsmt7y ago

How about we stop trying to come up with "solutions" that just cause more distortions, and exercise a bit of patience?

The 'cost vs. benefit' analysis should reveal similar ROI as "the wall."

rexpop7y ago

No, it's worse.

bhl7y ago

> I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align.

There’s definitely an argument to be made here that their interests don’t align with the public, and that they should therefore be targeted first — public interests is a subjective phrase.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse