Competition Among ISPs Can't Be Bad, Right?!?!

When was the last time you got up in the morning singing the praises of the service you are provided from your local monopoly Cable/Internet franchisee? Never, right? Well, in some major cities the local municipalities are "allowing" ISPs such as Earthlink to set-up and manage, at little or no cost to the taxpayer, wireless internet. So what we have now is competition, a great and necessary thing for the success of a capitalist economy! Then who would be complaining? Of course, it is the local monopoly franchise, customer no-service (We Don't Care 'Cause We Don't Have To) cable and internet providers. For too long they have been given the exclusive right to be the sole provider of tv and internet service for the local community. The lack of competition has given rise to unreasonably high rates for service, and lax (at best) customer service, because, honestly, where else do you have to turn. In a city like Athens you are too far from ATL to receive any good antenna signals, and satellite service, which requires the installation of a dish on your roof, is for-the-most-part restricted by landlords. This situation is similar to many college towns and more geographically isolated areas surrounding large cities.

So the problem has been identified, what then is the best approach for finding a solution? Incorporate competition into the industry. However, the local governments seem to think this means bankrolling portions of the project for the ISP providers, who then, in turn, allow government to "own" the service. I say that if you are going to use my money to pay for the service, just cut out the bureaucracy and let ALL service providers compete in any given market. This will drive down cost, allow for better customer service, and allow people to choose the service that is right for them. Of course this will also mean that the kickbacks local politicians get from the monopoly franchisee will be gone...You didn't think that Charter airs the Athens School/Government Public Access channels just because they love you?!?! No, they do it to remain exclusive providers, and politicians can return to their district saying that they were able to get the cable company to provide "at no cost to the taxpayers" local access channels. Of course this is also untrue, just look at your next cable bill and you will see what is called a franchise fee. This fee is what is going to pay for the cost of the local public access channels.

But I digress.

Obviously competition is the solution to monopoly cable/internet service, but government owned ISP is not the way to go. True competition among business is what drives the economy and innovation. Without it we get into a situation similar to China, where the government decided what ISPs could and could not display during searches. This is not a road we want to see ourselves heading down.



The original article can be viewed at: http://www.ajc.com/wednesday/content/epaper/editions/wednesday/business_342fcae5a1a631230012.html