ISP Monopoly Regulation

I am bothered by it, but I don’t think lack of regulation is going to fix the issue, because an ISP is a natural monopoly. The rights they have acquired from the government and from the private sector to lay all those wires provide too big a hurdle in the absence of regulation, and passing laws to make to easier to lay wires for competition would have to have all sorts of negative externalities for property owners and cities, not to mention the inefficiency of building the infrastructure twice.

I'm against most regulation when it comes to technology. The only time I think the government should step in would be in cases where there is a natural monopoly.For instance, internet service providers like cable companies have a natural monopoly or duopoly at most. The financial and legal restrictions (establishing right of ways) makes it nearly impossible to compete in delivering internet to the last mile.Mobile carriers should also not be allowed to merge. There are only limited fr

Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility.But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where

Telecommunications companies have a regulatory body because their market is a 'granted monopoly'. They have a pseudo monopoly in the sense that for any other company to compete would require a giant initial investment, and possibly a concession from the government, as is the case in wireless communications, so immediately they have all the customers. The government says, ok, will lets you use this spectrum, but you play by our rules.It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind o

Yes, because when entities compete, consumers typically win.The government in the U.S. has already regulated ISPs to the point that an enormous artificial barrier has arisen to market entry.We need deregulation. Approval for the major carriers in the U.S. is low enough[0] that someone could probably disrupt the entire industry, except it is next to impossible to enter.You're also aware of regulatory capture, right? This regulation was premature, and, as is typical of government, ov

ISPs aren't really a free market, they are more like natural monopolies because it's virtually impossible to compete given large capex costs, long dated infrastructure projects, etcGiven the lack of competition, this is precisely the kind of non-free market in which government regulation is not only fine but advisable.

I think a big part of this, in the US at least, is that ISPs are monopolies that can do whatever they want to their customers. We granted telecoms monopoly power back before deregulation became popular, and those monopolies have carried over to the internet. But since the general trend over the past 20-30 years has been to remove existing regulations and not add new ones, there are few laws on the books to protect consumers in the realm of new technology. This is, I think, often a good thing in

the case in question involves limited licensed spectrums and companies which have legal monopolies over who can use their network and how. it's like bellsouth requiring you to use an Apple for broadband and comcast requiring Microsoft. it's anti-competitive and unfair to both consumers and any company that may want to compete due to the harsh cost of either entering the market or for a consumer to pay for the expensive new devices or contracts. considering this is the most ubiquitous method of c

This is true for both sides of the debate.On one side you have the lobbyists and big cable companies (and telcos).On the other you have the people who want more regulation because these companies are too big-- but who ignore the fact that the only reason these companies are so big is that they are state granted monopolies in the first place.The "right" to run cable is a monopoly that the local municipality uses to extract money from the populace (via cable fees that the popula

This article is off the reservation. 5G is the best hope for actual competition in broadband. By dramatically decreasing deployment costs (compared to wireline), it will enable several competing providers in places that have de facto monopolies today. Putting up red tape is not the way to go about fostering competition.There are differing views on the appropriate level of regulation for uncompetitive markets and natural monopolies. But almost nobody sane would prefer a regulated market