Hacker News Reader

Comment by trendia | Hacker News Reader

Utility companies usually enjoy both natural and state-granted monopolies for many reasons. The state grants them monopolies because cities don't want multiple companies laying conduits or having disputes over access to existing conduits. Imagine the difficulty of having 10 different cable companies, each wanting to lay cable throughout the city!

Even without state intervention, utility companies tend to become local monopolies, duopolies, or non-competitive oligopolies because of the high barriers to entry. This makes it difficult for startups to compete with the incumbents.

In this case, legislation is much more effective at handling the second-tier consequences of utility companies (e.g. the natural tendency away from competition) than handling the problem itself (the high barriers to entry)

View on HN

I know this is America, but from a conceptual standpoint, my natural reaction to that is to think that Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state. It solves the practical problem of multiple companies wanting to dig the same holes to put the same pipes; solves the liberal problem of forcing companies to comply with an arbitrary way to pursue business; solves the problem of neutrality since by virtue of freedom a state-maintained Internet would be neutral.

It raises the problem of the state controlling Internet. But 1. They already can pass laws to outlaw some parts of the Internet if they want to and 2. ISPs are so big I'm not sure them controlling Internet is more reassuring.

This is just a suggestion. I didn't process all the implications.

> Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state.

Some cities and counties have tried this and were immediately sued by the incumbent operators. Cable and Telco have multidecade long contracts with local municipalities. Having a government just up and attempt to start doing their own thing is arguably a breach of contract/illegal.

I mean, they sue regardless of if they have contracts or not.

Comcast et al. sued Longmont, CO up the road from me when they first started their municipal internet, and tried to get the state senate to retroactively change the law in their favor. Luckily that didn't go anywhere.

Ehh I feel like this is a little murky. I am having a hard time finding a precedent, and IANAL so maybe one can chime in here, but illegal contracts are unenforceable. Therefore if laws regarding Internet regulation were to change such that contracts between telecomms/municipalities are rendered illegal, then I would think they become void.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com