ISP Monopolies

aimeeandbeatles

watermelon
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
20,112
I know in some parts of the U.S., one ISP often has monopolies over an area. Other than special agreements (where a subdivision allows one ISP to move in but not others), why would this happen? Should something been done about it? Also, what about those special agreements? Should something be done about those? An ISP can have crappy service but, since there is no one else to go to, you either have to deal with it or not have internet access at all. Either way, they win.

I was just wondering this and, instead of posting it in questions, thought that was a discussion topic. I will RD it to keep a lot of the weird stuff out.
 
Not actually true. If you're willing to accept dial-up speeds and have a landline, you can go with any dial-up provider that has the equipment in your area to service you. Man, back in the 90s even small towns usually had plenty of choice in this.

That said, you were probably talking about high speed internet access. The problem is infrastructure. Typically it is only going to be the local phone company or the local cable company that has the infrastructure in place to offer you high speed service. Usually, I'd say most places have at least two choices due to this, but I am sure there are some rather rural areas that may just have the one choice.

IN short: Location, location, location. If you want to live in the boonies, you have to accept that your choices are more limited. Heck, there ARE still plenty of areas of the USA that only have dial-up service. Well, I suppose satellite internet is available to pretty much anyone, so there is an alternative.
 
In my area of NYC there is only 1 cable provider.

There is only 1 DSL provider.

They both charge the same rate (coincidence or collution :dunno)
 
There is a limit to how many companies can run a cable to any given address. The phone company can do it because of the phone monopoly. The cable company can do it because of the cable monopoly. They are, or were, both natural monopolies. Both companies piggybacked internet onto their existing cables. But then advances in tech changed the rules. The new tech hasn't entirely worked its way through the system so far.
 
There is a limit to how many companies can run a cable to any given address. The phone company can do it because of the phone monopoly. The cable company can do it because of the cable monopoly. They are, or were, both natural monopolies. Both companies piggybacked internet onto their existing cables. But then advances in tech changed the rules. The new tech hasn't entirely worked its way through the system so far.
The phone company want me to switch internet provision to them.
The cable company want me to switch phone provision to them.

The cable company gives me 36meg internet link already.
The phone company provides 12 as standard and 20 at a pinch.
Guess what? :)
 
Just because there is only one line does not mean companies cannot piggyback on it. For instance here a bunch of smaller DSL providers offer DSL using AT&T's lines. Comcast, however, has cable sown up pretty well and no one really offers competitive speeds to cable in SF. I hear it is different in the South Bay (Silicon Valley.)

More choice in ISPs is obviously a good thing.
 
Just because there is only one line does not mean companies cannot piggyback on it. For instance here a bunch of smaller DSL providers offer DSL using AT&T's lines. Comcast, however, has cable sown up pretty well and no one really offers competitive speeds to cable in SF. I hear it is different in the South Bay (Silicon Valley.)

More choice in ISPs is obviously a good thing.

That may be tricky though. If a major ISP owns a line they could lease it to other ISPs for an inflated price and their own internet service for a low cost and others go out of business in a mean way. I read about that happening but I dont remember other details.
 
Back
Top Bottom