This should be a wake-up call for people who believe in the free market's ability to further low prices and good products. In reality it is often up to governments to prevent monopolies from forming and ensure that there is enough competition.
This should be a wake-up call for people who believe in the free market's ability to further low prices and good products. In reality it is often up to governments to prevent monopolies from forming and ensure that there is enough competition.
This behavior isn't, in anyway, an example of a free market economy. Local governments collude with large corporations to create these monopolies by subsidizing underground cable to only one or two corporations.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusin...
Here in the UK we have a wholesale company (BT OpenReach) which is strictly regulated that provides all telephone lines, providers can then "rent" off those cables. This allows for a massive variety of competition and broadband packages from £5 a month.
This also allows a funnel for the govt to invest if required, say laying fibre to remote communities rather than having to rely commercial interests to, who never would.
http://www.sky.com/shop/broadband-talk/fibre-optic/ https://sales.talktalk.co.uk/product/fibre http://www.plus.net/home-broadband/package-guides/fibre-opti...
BT Retail has just been really good at advertising it, the rest of the ISPs don't seem to have branding budgets to compete.
I don't know if that's still the case, I would guess so. But I don't think it ever applied to cable.
LLU has been somewhat successful in increasing competition in larger metro areas, though not so much in smaller rural areas There's still significant start-up cost associated with starting a CLEC, and LLU only gives CLECs access to the CO and local loop infrastructure. As an example, a few years back, I was living in San Jose and my internet/telephone was provided by a CLEC at about 1/2 the cost of the ILEC (verizon) who owned the lines.
I've long thought that LLU applied to cable could provide the same sort of benefit. Since the "local loop" in most cases was subsidized (much like the ILEC situation), then the loss associated with LLU is minimal. It allows for increased competition, without forcing it, and gives the opportunity for increased consumer pressure to (because of additional competition) increase speeds/lower costs.
In the U.S. regulatory capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) is often the problem, per this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271044 . One reasonable alternative in the U.S. broadband situation is to allow municipalities to build their own networks, but in many states that's already illegal, per the linked comment.
But your point is well taken: claiming the actions of government established monopolies (actually duopolies when you're lucky) are a failure of the free market, and calling on these same governments "to prevent [the] monopolies [they created in the first place] from forming and ensure that there is enough competition" when same governments seem to be entirely happy with the results is ... well, I don't think we live in the same reality.
A bit more enlightened a government would at least have drawn a line at what these monopolies can do, i.e. keep them from competing with Netflix et. al., but that would be very problematic with cable companies.
Or, simply put, the incumbent carriers promised to put fiber to the home in millions of houses in exchange for deregulation; then they didn't fulfill their part of the bargain, because nobody was regulating them.
I could just as easily claim that political corruption is the source of ire, but I would be just as blind.
The fact that the Federal government de-regulated does not mean the market is free. State and local governments still regulate, not to mention making deals with particular providers, which is why there are so many local monopolies. In a true free market, something like Google Fiber would be deploying much faster than it is.