
This Is What Happens When You Let A Monopoly Own The Last Mile  - jseliger
http://avc.com/2014/06/this-is-what-happens-when-you-let-a-monopoly-own-the-last-mile/#comment-1429316094
======
rayiner
This is content-free. Major infrastructure construction projects are always
behind schedule. Also, Verizon isn't a monopoly in NYC. RCN, TWC, and
Cablevision all operate there too. Verizon isn't even the incumbent broadband
ISP--it's being brought in to create competition for TWC and Cablevision.

Also, NYC folks can't complain when they elect people like de Blasio, who has
turned FIOS into a civil rights issue, complete with hiring a demagogic civil
rights lawyer:
[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-
pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor).

The irony of complaining about the "monopoly" here is that it's precisely
behavior like NYC's that has led to these problems in the first place. Look at
the NYC cable franchise map:
[http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/images/photos/NYC_Cable_Territ...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/images/photos/NYC_Cable_Territories_090413.jpg).
Why don't TWC and Cablevision overlap? It's because the city originally
granted exclusive franchises to these companies, in the name of "universal
access." In many places, the de-facto monopoly status is perpetuated by
policies like build-out requirements, again imposed in the name of universal
access.

There is no free lunch. Infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming to
build. Cities like New York turn infrastructure development into a proxy war
on race/class/economic issues, and investors unsurprisingly stay away. There's
a reason why Google is building Google Fiber in places like Provo and Atlanta,
not places like San Francisco and New York City.

~~~
selmnoo
The greatest irony in all of this is that it's precisely the capital-rentiers,
the venture capitalists (this post, for example), etc. who are complaining
about this.

Anyway, one place where I disagree with you is about the 'civil rights' being
thrown in in this debate. I'm actually happy to see instability of this sort
panning out, because it seems to me that we really need to go over this and
let it play out in the hopes of getting greater stability in the end. So let
this become a civil rights issue, as it happens there actually are lots of
legitimate reasons why it should become a civil rights issue. This will get me
downvoted, but here I go anyway: rich people shouldn't have faster internet
just because they're rich -- what'll end up happening if this is true across a
large scale is poor folks will have difficulty innovating for the future's
faster internet. I'd rather that inequality in this way not play out, we
already have enough of it in the tech space.

~~~
rayiner
I'd support subsidizing service with tax money. My problem is that people like
de Blasio are looking for a free lunch: that Verizon's shareholders will
subsidize broadband for poor people in NYC instead of NYC taxpayers. It
doesn't work that way. Taxpayers will pay in the end. It'd be most efficient
if they paid via direct subsidy. As it stands, they pay in the form of higher
prices, less competition, and less choices.

