Hacker News Reader

You can always count on nirvana to come up with the maximal libertarian argument. What proof is there that this is a government created monopoly? What exactly is the "violence" that Austin would do to competitors? Do libertarians not believe in the concept of natural monopolies?

The monopoly is not entirely created by the government. It would be more accurate to say, "the major cable companies have divided the country amongst themselves and agreed not to step on each other's turf." The FCC and the local governments have various levels of complicity in this arrangement.

A municipality would not likely visit any violence upon a competitor, but that's largely because the only way to become a competitor (you can't just start digging holes and dropping cable in them) is through the approval of the municipality. This is where the "government-sponsored monopoly" idea comes into play, because there is often a revolving door between the government agency nominally charged with regulating cable service and the cable company that administers it.

Also, no, libertarians in general do not "believe in the concept of natural monopolies". Many libertarians hold that monopolies are short-lived and are prolonged only through the complicity of governments--or other actors which may play the same role in context, like the mafia, or even the corporation itself, should it become a de facto government. Of course, with that last point, you start begging the question...

And where municipalities have not received sufficient -- or any (i.e. high speed) -- service from existing providers and have therefore, finally, attempted to deploy their own local service (an action with much established precendent, e.g. rural electrification cooperatives, water service, etc. -- even telephone exchanges), in many of those cases the incumbent telecommunications providers have lobbied and coerced state governments to outlaw such actions.

They don't want to offer service. But they're damned sure not going to let anyone else do so -- not even let the community do so for themselves.

I'd hardly call that healthy competition.

Do libertarians not believe in the concept of natural monopolies?

Many don't, and many others only admit of very special cases. Arguments against the idea can be found with a search on "rothbard" or "mises" and "monopoly".

> What exactly is the "violence" that Austin would do to competitors?

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: If you run your own cable, you'll need a permit. If you do it by negotiating with the landowners without a permit, you'll be blocked. If you do it anyway, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot.

>You can always count on nirvana to come up with the maximal libertarian argument.

Thank you!

>What proof is there that this is a government created monopoly?

I'm sorry, but I thought everyone knew that in the USA, most municipalities created a monopoly right, which they sell to the highest bidder, to operate cable services within their borders. This comes up for renewal on some long term, but during that term, only the government ordained company can operate a cable service.

That's the definition of a monopoly.

>What exactly is the "violence" that Austin would do to competitors?

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. And like fire it can be a fearsome servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington

>Do libertarians not believe in the concept of natural monopolies?

Since most of the people who reject liberty misuse the word "monopoly" in my experience, I think you'll have to define it more precisely.

But in this case, there isn't any argument that these are natural monopolies-- like the post office, they are government created monopolies.

It is literally illegal to compete.

I live in Austin and switched from TWC to U-Verse when it was launched. Many customers also have Grande. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that TWC's long dominance was from some government protection arrangement, but I'm not aware of it. Could you offer any specifics as to what gives TWC a monopoly and why it doesn't apply to U-Verse and Grande.

The monopoly lies in the fact that municipalities need not provide a franchise to more than one cable operator (such as TWC). In some municipalities you can switch Internet service from, say, cable to telephone-based service (such as U-Verse) but in many others this is not a realistic option.

The ability to pipe TV over IP is dramatically weakening the natural cable company monopolies. In AT&T phone service territory, as they upgrade their network you can switch to U-Verse for not just internet but also television, with a much improved set-top box experience.

I don't agree with the claim that opening up the ability to lay a cable network to everyone would help things -- heck, look how slow the deployment of U-Verse is taking over AT&T's existing infrastructure... having to do that from scratch, laying a whole new network over the city and in everybody's yards, would be a many times larger endeavor -- but technological changes are already making competition much more possible than before since now both of those entrenched networks can be used for TV.

Do you have the any evidence that cable monopolies have been dramatically weakened? E.g., dropping prices, reduced ability to pressure vendors?

I think we might get there one day, but I suspect they're barely noticing it right now.

In 1985 FCC rules were adjusted to create CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) by forcing the I(ncumbent)LECs to allow competition on their hardware.

This never happened in the cable industry because cable isn't considered necessary like phone service is.

Actually, not true in all of Austin. Much of the city is also wired for Grande Communications cable, and so far, I've found them to be much more responsive and with better tools than the TW people I'd used in the past.

How many times are you willing to let a startup tear up your yard? Or are you referring to the proposals that government should force private companies to share the critical infrastructure they created at their own expense? I can't imagine that sitting very well with libertarians or people vehemently opposed to government monopolies.

The only way last mile utilities are going to be fair is if government steps in (correctly). To my mind, that means municipally laid and maintained last-mile fiber patched to the commercial provider of my choosing, but I expect that will remain a dream for a few decades, at least.

In the UK, that's essentially exactly what we have: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/br...

You're not familiar with the concept of easements, are you? Generally, the first meter or two of your property is designated as an easement, for the purposes of running utility lines, telephone lines, and yes, cable lines. So yes, most people have given others the right to tear up their yard. It's just that the city then re-grants the rights to one or two utilities as opposed to having a genuinely competitive bidding process for the city's cable, telephone, or even electricity business.

>So yes, most people have given others the right to tear up their yard

To one cable company, one electrical utility, one telephone company, and to the local government-run water and sewage monopolies. Not to fifty startups.

A situation with a "genuinely competitive bid process" is a government-granted monopoly granted based on better criteria, and would certainly benefit consumers. It's still not a free market, which is my point: nobody actually wants a completely free market for last-mile utilities.

What exactly could I personally do to change this situation?

It's a democracy - cast your vote.

Psyche!

Learn to love your monopolist overlords.

You could actively petition your friends and neighbors locally and try to change your local representation. Especially in elections for Alderman, niche issues like cable monopolies can carry weight, especially because voting is based on the issues raised by a vocal minority. In some places being elected to city council is not that difficult and can be managed in addition to a full time job. Anecdotal evidence but - a friend of mine works as a VP of a local consulting firm and also manages to do a great job as an Alderman.

Cable monopolies are not government-created. They are government-backed in limited circumstances. In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed internet, despite cable television monopolies.

>Notice that they charge ever higher and higher fees, in part because the municipalities are on the take here and get a cut of the fees, but also because the demand is inelastic. If you live in Austin and you want cable, they have your business.

Notice that every year, content companies demand more and more money to carry their channels. ESPN alone probably accounts for 5% of most cable bills. Maintenance of hundreds or thousands of miles of cable is also very expensive. Upgrading all of that cable infrastructure is even more expensive.

>So, there's no reason to spend the money to have enough technicians to ensure they are able to do a good job and a timely one.

More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers. Yet you complain about higher fees. At some point, you must recognize that there is cost to pay for all of the services you demand. Technicians do not work for free.

>But you don't hear this issue at election time. Why do people not hold their city council peeps accountable for imposing this overpriced monopoly on them? My guess is that most don't realize it is a government created monopoly, and the ones who do, many think that there would be no cable if the city hadn't given those rights away as an incentive to install all the cable. (not the case... places where this doesn't happen, still get cable because it isn't that expensive to put in the cable.)

Simple solution: don't subscribe to cable. Cable is not a right. It's a choice that is not forced upon you. Alternatively, subscribe to satellite, use the free OTA signals, or learn to live without live TV.

> In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed internet, despite cable television monopolies.

Are you kidding me? I currently live in LA and used to live in SD and my choices were either TWC or... DSL. Previously Cox and... that's pretty much it.

Which is hilarious considering my parent's choices in San Bernardino are: Fios, Time Warner Cable, and of course DSL.

In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed Internet, despite cable television monopolies.

Even if that was true, it would only show limited competition between two government maintained monopolies that happen to imping on each other through historical circumstances (we know that there's no real price competition - what we see is the song-and-dance customer competition characteristic of duopolies). The relative phone and the cable monopolies are maintain through the state granting right-of-ways to a limited number of companies.

Your use of "government-backed" in supposed contrast to "government-created" is just verbal slight of hand, a pedantic distinction that does not make a difference (a maneuver that seems sadly popular here). The enterprises (cable and phone for that matter) palpably extract a surplus from their positions in the cat bird seat.

(sure, I'm using "monopoly" in the sense of rent-extractor and "duopoly" in the rent of market position. The overall situation should be clear enough).

> More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers

Entirely wrong. This story is littered with false economies. E.g.: Rather than giving him good tools, they wasted the technician's time. And another technician's time. And more later, to get the helpful tech back his tool. And let's not forget that the whole error was caused by a poorly trained tech who ruined the tool. And that's before we get to the large amount of customer time wasted.

Of course, when you're a vastly profitable monopoly, who gives a fuck? There's little reward for internal efficiency, and there's definitely no reward for caring about the customer's time.

And yes, it's a monopoly. Per the GAO, only 4% of cable marketplaces in the US have effective competition:

http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/opinion/story/116...