If we had a free market, without laws preventing competition like we do now, then there'd likely be alternatives to choose from, e.g. people could pay more for privacy or get a bargain if they don't care about privacy. Since Comcast uses the state to enforce its monopoly, the artificial scarcity has the effect of locking in users. Comcast is a great example of why free markets should exist -- to give users more choice.
Pure laissez-faire capitalism naturally converges toward monopolies. Without regulation, the only thing that prevents monopolies from developing is if there is a low cost of entry to a market. In an industry where there is a very high cost of entry (like building out a massive telecommunication network), the end result is very assuredly a single monopoly power.
Think about it. The telecoms were already broken up once. The continue to attempt to merge (AT&T + T-mobile, TWC + Comcast). Without a regulatory agency disallowing mergers in the name of competition, you wouldn't have choice at all.
The end result of competition is no competition at all.
These are good points but you're leaving off the fact that these companies paid off State legislatures to make competition illegal in various ways. Particularly stopping people in a city or state from using tax dollars to fund something better. It's banned in some with only the local utility able to do it in others. Plus, the big companies got billions in tax subsidies to build their networks with promise of getting broadband to about everyone.
Quite a lot of corruption by a cartel of a few instead of laissez-faire.
Exactly. Businesses will use whatever means at their disposal to remove competition, whether that's government, financial, and even morally reprehensible actions at the expense of others.
My point is that even if companies weren't able to leverage government to reduce competition, they'd find other mechanisms to accomplish the same goal, such as just buying up all the competition.
Think about it. If you're a competitor and trying to make profit, how better to do that than to consolidate with the big players until one player gains significant control over the market to demand whatever price they wish to maximize their profit?
I think the counter point is: What's stopping another player from entering the market? They can only keep buying up the competition if the competition is always willing to sell. More over, the ability to buy up the competition presumes a sufficient surplus of profits to be able to do that in perpetuity. Another large actor (say, Google), could recognize this and enter the market without any intention of selling (only of capturing those surplus profits).
To be clear I'm not for any ideology here -- my point above is to get at what I want to discuss: Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? (I hope Yes / No / Yes, but don't know!)
> Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field?
1. Yes. Consider the cities where Comcast had to compete with G. Fiber and see how much faster the speeds they are offering are.
2. They exist for good reason for Comcast, not so much for everyone else. And Comcast spent a good deal of money to lobby policymakers to install those regulations in the first place. The government didn't just mandate them out of the blue.
3. You can work on removing them if you have a comparable level of access to policymakers as Comcast does. Do you?
So... which countries have very good competition on wired Internet services without Government forcing competitors to share infrastructure, or otherwise subsidize competition? If free market capitalism had that result when applied to this market, you'd think at least one country would exist somewhere.
Who were they buying the uplink from? When the company that owns the cables is also a retail ISP, selling cheap uplink to another retail ISP is never a good idea.
EDIT: From reading a bit, it looks like these neighbourhood ISPs managed to get off the ground and develop significant clout before the telecoms companies managed to start providing consumer retail broadband services?
Depends on what king of monopolies those are. We are better off with an Apple (smartphone) and Google (search) monopoly because they are pretty good in their quality. If they slip (like blackberry or yahoo) someone will throw them out pretty quickly in a free market.
In a non-free market government will eventually help someone accumulate lot more power and money without a competition is sight. Government is the reason why Google fiber is not available in Sunnyvale.
It's one thing to replace a mobile phone that you replace every two years anyway. It is another to pull a fibre optic cable through half of your neighbourhood all the way to your living room. The acquisition cost of a new client for utility companies is prohibitive, so it is biasing capitalism a lot (very little competition).
I can't think of a situation in which a monopoly has benefitted consumers over time. I'd kill for a 2003-2008 era Google search product, but the competition is slim. Not to mention, Google likes to use its monopoly to encroach upon other markets.
Wouldn't a large monopoly just swallow the competition, and the competition would be internal? Its competition between humans that makes companies see success.
