I worked at a mom and pop ISP in the 90s. Lucent did seem at the forefront of internet equipment at the time. We used Portmaster 3s to handle dial up connections. We also looked into very early wireless technology from Lucent.
Something I wanted to mention, only somewhat tanget. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 forced telecommunication companies to lease out their infrastructure. It massively reduced the prices an ISP had to pay to get T1, because, suddenly, there was competition. I think a T1 went from 1800 a month in 1996, to around 600 a month in 1999. It was a long time ago, so my memory is hazy.
But, wouldn't you know it, the Telecommunication companies sued the FCC and the Telecommunications Act was gutted in 2003
> I think a T1 went from 1800 a month in 1996, to around 600 a month in 1999. It was a long time ago, so my memory is hazy.
It varied a lot by region. At the mom and pop ISP I worked at, we went from paying around $1,500/month for a T1 to $500 to, eventually around $100/month for the T1 loop to the customer plus a few grand a month for an OC12 SONET ring that we used to backhaul the T1 (and other circuits) back to our datacenter.
But, all of it was driven by the Telecommunications Act requirement for ILECs to sell unbundled network facilities - all of the CLECs we purchased from were using the local ILEC for the physical part of the last mile for most (> 75%) of the circuits they sold us.
One interesting thing that happened was that for a while in the late 90’s, when dialup was still a thing, we could buy a voice T1 PRI for substantially less than a data T1 ($250 for the PRI vs $500 for the T1.) The CLEC’s theory was our dialup customers almost all had service from the local ILEC, and the CLEC would be paid “reciprocal compensation” fees by the ILEC for the CLEC accepting calls from them.
In my market, when the telecommunications act reform act was gutted, the ILEC just kept on selling wholesale/unbundled services to us. I think they had figured out at that point that it was a very profitable line of business if they approached it the right way.
Th gutting of telecom competition, the allowance of total monopoly power, was a travesty of the court system. The law was quite plain & clear & the courts decided all on their own that, well, since fiber to the home is expensive to deploy, we are going to overrule the legislative body. The courts aren't supposed to be able to overturn laws they don't like as they please but that's what happened here.
Regarding the price of connection, it's also worth mentioning that while T1 and other T-channel and OCx connection remains in high use, 1996-1999 is also the period where DSL became readily available & was a very fine choice for many needs. This certainly created significant cost pressure on other connectivity options.
I worked at a startup during the telecom boom. Then, startups were getting acquired by the likes of Cisco before the startup had a deployed product. And, back then, IPOs were the only form of liquidity event and engineers were locked up for 6 months. The lucky ones had their startups go IPO or get acquired with enough time to spare to get out before the ensuing bust. After the bust, funding dried up and most startups folded including the one I worked at. There was wipeout and desolation for a few years. Subsequently, green shoots started appearing in the form of a new wave of tech companies.
Capitalism only works if there is lots of competition.
Monopolies gum up the system, reward the institutional capital rather than innovation capital, and prevent new entrants from de-ossifying and being the renewing forest fire.
We've been so lax on antitrust. Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon - they all need to be broken up. Our economy and our profession would be better for it.
I don't agree with everything in this book, Goliath,[0] but his main argument was that business monopoly and democracy are in direct opposition. And that since the 1970s we've chosen to enable monopoly again and again.
How does Stoller explain why since the 1970’s there’s been massive turnover whether you look at the largest 10 companies, the largest 100, or the largest 1,000?
Turnover might be due to mergers, takeovers and periods of monopolization of different sectors of the economy, turnover doesn't measure the level of monopolization or duo-polization. Market share and relative capitalization per sector are the valid measures.
OK, which sectors were monopolies (or even duopolies) in the 1970’s that have survived to this day? Maybe oil? A few agricultural sectors?
If you actually look at the corporations that are consuming Americans’ income in 2025 vs. the equivalents in 1975, the idea that “monopolies” have controlled the economy for 50 years is self-evidently absurd.
If the number of providers that you yourself have direct access to is singular or limited to two or three? Yes that's a monopolistic environment. Consider that for most people in many more regions of the US than not will only be able to access the internet with ONE provider. They will only be able to get health care from one provider. They will only be able to get farm equipment from one provider and then not be able to fix said farm equipment. They will only be able to get seeds for food from one provider. And where 1 or 2 platforms are the only way for distribution in the digital space ("cough" app stores) or your logistical choices come down to 1 or 2 with prices fixed...again you may have comeptition on some level but at the macro level monopolistic effects are occuring because the distribution channel is what moves a market not necessarily sub vendors.
the fact that the incentives for shareholder interest has led to consolidation and then to again always end up in a market where there is less providers than more. Look the names may change But since derregulation of much of the M/A activity we have ended up in markets that have monopolistic effects.
So...semantically there may be "competition" in markets" but on the ground and in real life where it matters the effects and actual restrictions that monopoly brings is very much a fact. It's absurd to ignore actual in depth analysis that takes context of actual economics (from the regional facets to actual mechanics of trade) into account and not think that monopolization is not occurring and not have an overwhelming impact. It is very evident that you yourself have not looked to deep into this.
He's right. The very reason free markets don't exist is the same exact reason why communism doesn't work in practice. All markets collapse until there's a few dominant businesses (ie monopolies), just as how society naturally forms governing hierarchies. And this is easy to see how they're opposed. All you have to do is look at how there's only 4 types of governments based on how decision making power is distributed, and that democracy is actually closer to communism on that spectrum rather than dictatorships, and then see how monopolies behave quite like dictatorships.
That said, true dictatorships rarely work in practice but for different reasons as to why communism doesn't work. Which is why, when it comes to organizations, almost all are in fact oligarchies in practice, despite whatever they're called. This is known as the iron law of oligarchy. Notice the term: oligopoly? Go look at every industry and there's near always an oligopoly.
You're implying only 4 years of regulation was enough to shift the balance of power between telecoms and smaller ISPs."
If it's true that this regulation was what helped jumpstart the internet it's an interesting counterpoint to the apocalyptic predictions of people when these regulations are undone. (net neutrality comes to mind as well)
I've never heard anyone claim before that just having these laws on the books for a small period of time is "enough".
You bring up an interesting point. This is something I discovered years ago when I would have "political discussion lunch" with three of my friends who all had very different political views. After years of going to lunch together and debating things like, "Was giving AT&T a monopoly in 1913, good, or bad?"
The answer is... nobody will ever agree on anything. You can always cherry pick some detail to bolster your case, whatever it may be.
We can never visit the alternate reality where another choice was made and so you can not win an argument.
Now, you can go and find similar circumstances. You can find other countries who did not grant a monopoly (for instance). But then, your opponent will argue all the differences between that instance and what occurred.
Also, I think it is a shame your original reply is getting voted down. I am against people voting down comments just because they disagree. Voting down should be used for comments that are low quality.
Something I wanted to mention, only somewhat tanget. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 forced telecommunication companies to lease out their infrastructure. It massively reduced the prices an ISP had to pay to get T1, because, suddenly, there was competition. I think a T1 went from 1800 a month in 1996, to around 600 a month in 1999. It was a long time ago, so my memory is hazy.
But, wouldn't you know it, the Telecommunication companies sued the FCC and the Telecommunications Act was gutted in 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car...