Just because the internet is important doesn't mean the same laws of economics don't apply to it and it will somehow be better provided by government.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230341040...
They are still wrapping up the details on a couple of long-term rollouts, but they decided they would rather spend their money on the more lucrative wireless oligopoly. They did manage to get the DoJ to sign off on a deal to collude with comcast so as not to poach each other's customers.
http://stopthecap.com/2012/08/16/settlement-over-verizon-cab...
So there may well have been regulatory hurdles in your case, but Verizon pussing out (with a new CEO) is the reason you will never get FIOS.
There can be more than one problem. In your area regulation may be a significant part of the problem but in other places (e.g. Europe) regulation can really help in places to enable competition.
Most economic "laws" apply in competitive markets with limited barriers to entry. It is hard to see how they apply even in an unregulated situation where infrastructure costs are so high and one market participant already has infrastructure in place.
Looking at an existing market with an incumbent trying to move in and challenge them is rarely a wise move whatever their current price. They are in a position to reduce prices and make your entry unviable, they know it and you know it so they can continue charging high monopoly rates until a challenger does announce themselves.
Government can do better (doesn't mean they always will) because:
1) They can look at community benefits not just the ROI for the provider. In a way they win if the incumbent just reduces prices and improves service even if they actually lose some money they have invested in a competitor.
2) They can look long term.
3) They can set rules such as requiring the infrastructure owner to allow other providers to use their lines and regulate the pricing in that monopoly market (happens in the UK). [Don't know what level of government in the US could be capable of this.]
>Most economic "laws" apply in competitive markets with limited barriers to entry. It is hard to see how they apply even in an unregulated situation where infrastructure costs are so high and one market participant already has infrastructure in place.
The problem here is certain city councils putting a price tag on the license to lay cable. Government creates a barrier to entry in order to aid Comcast's monopoly. All the laws of economics are intact and this isn't a problem of infrastructure costs.
>There can be more than one problem. In your area regulation may be a significant part of the problem but in other places (e.g. Europe) regulation can really help in places to enable competition.
Government is not a business. It does not enable competition ever. Maybe you feel better telling yourself such fairy tales but there is no example you can point to. People also generally believe things like that IP aids innovation, yet there is not a single study showing this and a bunch of studies showing it hampers innovation. IP is a state-granted monopoly over an idea/pattern/concept.
When it is favorable to certain corrupt city councils, they aid Comcast's monopoly. I didn't mention it but the place I live now which also has no FIOS is Harrisburg, PA. This is the Detroit you never heard of with 7x the public debt per capita vs. Detroit. The long-time mayor took a bunch of loans for stuff like a Wild West museum and left the city crippled with debt. They are in the process of selling off assets to avoid bankruptcy. Same deal here as Baltimore, too expensive to play ball with the city council so it isn't worth it to get a license but FIOS is everywhere in surrounding municipalities.
I don't disagree that government can make things worse or even that they may be the main problem in Baltimore and many areas. However I also believe that there can often be problems in unregulated infrastructure markets and also that government can help.
Almost everyone in the UK has a choice of ADSL providers (and most now have the option of VDSL/FTTC from many providers at higher prices). It isn't perfect but the situation could be much worse. This is enabled by the regulation of the wholesale prices of BT Openreach, the arm of the former telephone monopoly company responsible for the lines. I offer this as an example of government enabling competition and a much better scenario than if the incumbent infrastructure owner could charge monopoly rents and only face competition in the highest density most lucrative areas at the cost of significant disruption as more companies dig up the roads.
Bad government is bad and there are places even good government doesn't help much but that doesn't mean that government always makes things worse and less competitive.
Don't forget that even in pure economic theory there are two "efficient" outcomes, perfect competition where the consumers obtain the entire surplus value and monopoly where the monopolist obtains the surplus.
Because the local loop is regulated you can then have competition at the level above that with different pricing and service offers, so you can choose BT or at very similar price a number of others or for a little more really good ones offering IPv6 and good support (within the limits of the Openreach managed lines).
Is it perfect - definitely not but it is a hell of a lot better than the situation in much of the states and I believe than pure unregulated market in this sector.
Seems Ars is similarly citing unspecified regulations. It's often the case that regulations that vary by city aren't the most straightforward topic to describe.
>In the state of Maryland, Verizon currently offers FiOS service in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. Thus, the only major jurisdiction in the state that is not yet wired for FiOS is Baltimore City. Verizon recently told members of the City Council that they have no plans to apply for a franchise agreement with the Baltimore City Office of Cable and Communications.
I'm not sure on all the ins and outs of it. Feel free to dig more yourself but basically Verizon needs some sort of permit to lay cable and the city council or this office has a certain price for it that makes Verizon see it as unprofitable to provide the service then, unlike most other areas.
But given that Verizon is not rolling out any more FIOS nation-wide[1], I really have trouble believing it's a regulatory issue in this case. And they slowed down way before 2010[2]. VZW gave up on FIOS, plain and simple. Everywhere.
[1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-Fi... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-great-veriz...