The implications of the end of net neutrality(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
The implications of the end of net neutrality
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/the-implications-of-the-end-of-net-neutrality/
58 comments
You make it sound like Google gave up because it was unable to fight regulations designed to keep incumbents entrenched. Google got unprecedented concessions from municipalities in terms of franchise requirements, fast-track permitting, etc. For example, the kerfuffle in NYC with Verizon's FIOS buildout (whether it has built out to all housing units?) Google won't even bring fiber to any city that imposes build out requirements.
Your view of the world doesn't explain why Google doesn't build fiber to cities like Baltimore and LA that have been publicly disparaging their incumbent providers and begging someone to come build fiber and compete. Or why Google won't wire up Silicon Valley. Is it at all credible to suggest Comcast or whatever has more pull than Google in Google's own backyard?
I tend to agree with your overall point that regulated monopolies are the way to go for internet service. But that has its own set of challenges. The AT&T monopoly worked pretty damn well to tell the truth. They built what was at the time a gold-plated telephone network. It was also expensive for consumers, and the government was willing to let AT&T be profitable enough to make building worth its while. That's very different than how "utilities" are regulated today, where they deal with crumbling infrastructure because no politician wants to authorize raising water or sewer rates.
Your view of the world doesn't explain why Google doesn't build fiber to cities like Baltimore and LA that have been publicly disparaging their incumbent providers and begging someone to come build fiber and compete. Or why Google won't wire up Silicon Valley. Is it at all credible to suggest Comcast or whatever has more pull than Google in Google's own backyard?
I tend to agree with your overall point that regulated monopolies are the way to go for internet service. But that has its own set of challenges. The AT&T monopoly worked pretty damn well to tell the truth. They built what was at the time a gold-plated telephone network. It was also expensive for consumers, and the government was willing to let AT&T be profitable enough to make building worth its while. That's very different than how "utilities" are regulated today, where they deal with crumbling infrastructure because no politician wants to authorize raising water or sewer rates.
Google is slowly giving up because even with unprecedented concessions from municipalities it still can't access the infrastructure it needs to do its job.
The biggest municipal concession has been the "One Touch Make Ready" ordinances (in Louisville, Nashville) that theoretically should allow Google's installers access to poles without first waiting for red tape from existing cable, telephone, and power companies...
Those ordinances are now all currently locked up in court battles that may take years to sort out, with a byzantine individual lawsuit per city.
The biggest municipal concession has been the "One Touch Make Ready" ordinances (in Louisville, Nashville) that theoretically should allow Google's installers access to poles without first waiting for red tape from existing cable, telephone, and power companies...
Those ordinances are now all currently locked up in court battles that may take years to sort out, with a byzantine individual lawsuit per city.
The biggest municipal concession has been waiving build-out requirements. You know that because Google won't even start projects in cities that impose build-out requirements, whereas it has already deployed fiber in many cities without one touch make ready ordinances.
(And again, that doesn't explain why Google hasn't tried to bring fiber to the Bay Area. If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?)
(And again, that doesn't explain why Google hasn't tried to bring fiber to the Bay Area. If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?)
I can see build-out requirements being a big issue to picking a next city, but I don't see it as the reason for why it looks like Google appears to be slowly stopping all efforts across the board in existing cities. OTMR fights hint that Google may be losing a war of attrition with the entrenched monopolies to inflated costs and infrastructure battles.
«If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?»
I don't know much of nuance of geopolitics here, but I would assume that the cities that have started the OTMR battles think they are particularly underserved by incumbents, but more importantly may have more political jurisdiction in their respective states to pass OTMR ordinances/legislation within city limits. While Google has been the biggest suggestion influence and has been helping to fight the OTMR battles, it certainly seems like thus far the onus and a great majority of the work has been the cities themselves trying to reign in monopoly control incumbents. (Most of the cities even seem to be fighting for OTMR in spite of anti-regulationist-controlled state legislatures and public utility boards, where such a change might more naturally be easier.)
I think the question is more why hasn't the Bay Area tried to fight for OTMR ordinances than why hasn't Google tried to get the Bay Area to fight for OTMR ordinances.
As to why Google doesn't include the Bay Area at the top of its priorities, I'd assume it's economic as much as anything: they seem to be prioritizing places they can most easily compete against incumbents, and their values seem focused on "floating the most boats" for now by finding the cities that are most currently underserved. You may personally think the Bay Area isn't adequately served by Comcast, but have you seen some of the rest of the country that doesn't have millions of technical workers living in it? (Spoiler alert: we all have it terrible. Our for-profit infrastructure monopolies don't have our best interests in mind and most of our regulations and oversight has been defanged or destroyed.)
«If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?»
I don't know much of nuance of geopolitics here, but I would assume that the cities that have started the OTMR battles think they are particularly underserved by incumbents, but more importantly may have more political jurisdiction in their respective states to pass OTMR ordinances/legislation within city limits. While Google has been the biggest suggestion influence and has been helping to fight the OTMR battles, it certainly seems like thus far the onus and a great majority of the work has been the cities themselves trying to reign in monopoly control incumbents. (Most of the cities even seem to be fighting for OTMR in spite of anti-regulationist-controlled state legislatures and public utility boards, where such a change might more naturally be easier.)
I think the question is more why hasn't the Bay Area tried to fight for OTMR ordinances than why hasn't Google tried to get the Bay Area to fight for OTMR ordinances.
As to why Google doesn't include the Bay Area at the top of its priorities, I'd assume it's economic as much as anything: they seem to be prioritizing places they can most easily compete against incumbents, and their values seem focused on "floating the most boats" for now by finding the cities that are most currently underserved. You may personally think the Bay Area isn't adequately served by Comcast, but have you seen some of the rest of the country that doesn't have millions of technical workers living in it? (Spoiler alert: we all have it terrible. Our for-profit infrastructure monopolies don't have our best interests in mind and most of our regulations and oversight has been defanged or destroyed.)
Places like Austin, Atlanta, Provo, etc., were not "underserved" relative to Bay Area cities before Fiber. I lived in Atlanta in 2007--we had the same Comcast packages you could get anywhere else.
The difference between Atlanta and Menlo Park is not that Comcast had better service in Menlo Park. It's that Atlanta is in a low-regulation red state and was willing to give tons of concessions and waive requirements it imposes on everyone else.
Moreover, deployment in most Fiber cities has gone forward without litigation. There was no major litigation in Kansas City, Provo, etc. I think the OTMR lawsuits are stupid, but pointing to them as the reason why Google is pulling back on fiber is willful blindness to the obvious. Google is pulling back on fiber because there isn't enough money in it.
The difference between Atlanta and Menlo Park is not that Comcast had better service in Menlo Park. It's that Atlanta is in a low-regulation red state and was willing to give tons of concessions and waive requirements it imposes on everyone else.
Moreover, deployment in most Fiber cities has gone forward without litigation. There was no major litigation in Kansas City, Provo, etc. I think the OTMR lawsuits are stupid, but pointing to them as the reason why Google is pulling back on fiber is willful blindness to the obvious. Google is pulling back on fiber because there isn't enough money in it.
Sorry, I was using the OTMR lawsuits as a proxy/definitive example for why there isn't enough money in it. I agree, the big problem is that there isn't enough money in it, I just disagree that build-out requirements are the big reason there isn't enough money in it. I may not have made that clear enough.
It's hard to control costs when the incumbents are doing everything in their power to delay and inflate costs. OTMR is one attempted solution to one particular angle in which the incumbents have a power to delay and inflate project costs. The OTMR lawsuits are emblematic of how far the incumbents are willing to go to continue to delay and inflate costs (to years in court and years of legal fees) and how much "defense depth" they have to accomplish it (the parties involved in the court cases are different incumbents in each jurisdiction).
Build-out requirements can be estimated in the fixed capital costs of a project, assuming no other interference. The need for OTMR and the current OTMR lawsuits are proof that the interference exists and is not easily contained/constrained and quite probably not even possible to estimate as they will be different in every city in the country.
I use OTMR as an example because it is the most visible example. I mostly suspect it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost issues into a project like Google Fiber.
It's hard to control costs when the incumbents are doing everything in their power to delay and inflate costs. OTMR is one attempted solution to one particular angle in which the incumbents have a power to delay and inflate project costs. The OTMR lawsuits are emblematic of how far the incumbents are willing to go to continue to delay and inflate costs (to years in court and years of legal fees) and how much "defense depth" they have to accomplish it (the parties involved in the court cases are different incumbents in each jurisdiction).
Build-out requirements can be estimated in the fixed capital costs of a project, assuming no other interference. The need for OTMR and the current OTMR lawsuits are proof that the interference exists and is not easily contained/constrained and quite probably not even possible to estimate as they will be different in every city in the country.
I use OTMR as an example because it is the most visible example. I mostly suspect it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost issues into a project like Google Fiber.
Does Verizon FIOS still exist, or has it all been "sold" to Frontier?
I can get up to 500/500 (bumping up to 750/750 later this year) and I live in a Chesapeake Bay community that until two years ago didn't even have public water/sewer. That doesn't count the Comcast 2 gig I could also get.
But then again, my fiber hangs down from a teetering utility pole and is held in place by a single, bent rusty nail. Unlike in SV, it's cheap and easy to build here.
But then again, my fiber hangs down from a teetering utility pole and is held in place by a single, bent rusty nail. Unlike in SV, it's cheap and easy to build here.
Is that Verizon's FIOS, or is it Frontier FIOS?
I'm in the former Bell Atlantic footprint, so Verizon.
>you need to end any ADDITIONAL regulations
Isn't that what the new administration promises? Deregulation and ending net neutrality. I don't like monopolies either, but it's not like Google/Apple/Facebook/Amazon don't have them. They have all the patents in the world to bludgeon telecom operators to death if those operators tried to start their own competing social networks or search engines.
Isn't that what the new administration promises? Deregulation and ending net neutrality. I don't like monopolies either, but it's not like Google/Apple/Facebook/Amazon don't have them. They have all the patents in the world to bludgeon telecom operators to death if those operators tried to start their own competing social networks or search engines.
I disagree. Theres no monopolies on ad revenue or search?
Anyways, 'the free market' is usually just an excuse for politicians to justify favoritsm to certain groups and has nothing to do with actually working to make markets free and healthy.
Anyways, 'the free market' is usually just an excuse for politicians to justify favoritsm to certain groups and has nothing to do with actually working to make markets free and healthy.
There is this (which Google licensed from Yahoo/Overture/Go):
https://www.google.com/patents/US6269361
and then there are the patents filed by Friendster, that Facebook later acquired:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2010/aug/05/faceb...
https://www.google.com/patents/US6269361
and then there are the patents filed by Friendster, that Facebook later acquired:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2010/aug/05/faceb...
>> Isn't that what the new administration promises? Deregulation and ending net neutrality.
As far as I know, this is the case.
It would be similar to what happened in telecom when a lot of the regional Bell operators were deregulated in the early aughts. A ton of CLECS were created (competitive local exchange carriers) who then had the opportunity to lease copper from Qwest at cost, and then become re-sellers to their clients. What happened was predictable and would happen again if you did the same with Comcast and other cable/internet operators.
You'd get a gold rush of companies looking to lease their networks, low-ball their clients and appear to be a much lower cost alternative. Customers will flock to them, and within 5-8 years, many will go under (poor management, losing margins on cost, etc) many will merge together and a few will ultimately survive if they're fiscally responsible enough.
In the early 2000's there were something like two dozen CLECS here in Minnesota. Today, there's around 5.
As far as I know, this is the case.
It would be similar to what happened in telecom when a lot of the regional Bell operators were deregulated in the early aughts. A ton of CLECS were created (competitive local exchange carriers) who then had the opportunity to lease copper from Qwest at cost, and then become re-sellers to their clients. What happened was predictable and would happen again if you did the same with Comcast and other cable/internet operators.
You'd get a gold rush of companies looking to lease their networks, low-ball their clients and appear to be a much lower cost alternative. Customers will flock to them, and within 5-8 years, many will go under (poor management, losing margins on cost, etc) many will merge together and a few will ultimately survive if they're fiscally responsible enough.
In the early 2000's there were something like two dozen CLECS here in Minnesota. Today, there's around 5.
> And while the FCC currently supports some regulation, it still allows zero-rating, which many critics believe violates net neutrality.
> Eliminating regulations essentially means ISPs can continue charging consumers for access to the internet while simultaneously charging institutions for prioritized access to those customers. This means any organization without deep enough pockets to pay an ISP’s ransom will load much slower than those with ties to ISPs.
Zero-rating may actually lead to a much more dire but subtle future: it's impossible to start a new service because you can't afford to have your content zero-rated (let alone do it at every ISP). If zero-rating increases, data caps can be lowered without a lot of consumer complaint. The lower the caps get, the more necessary it is to be zero-rated if you want consumers to use your service.
The really bad part of this is there isn't any need to have fair pricing. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Google can all negotiate lower rates than a new startup because of their volume. Worse, the ISP's own zero-rated services automatically get a pricing advantage because they don't have to pay to be zero-rated.
> Eliminating regulations essentially means ISPs can continue charging consumers for access to the internet while simultaneously charging institutions for prioritized access to those customers. This means any organization without deep enough pockets to pay an ISP’s ransom will load much slower than those with ties to ISPs.
Zero-rating may actually lead to a much more dire but subtle future: it's impossible to start a new service because you can't afford to have your content zero-rated (let alone do it at every ISP). If zero-rating increases, data caps can be lowered without a lot of consumer complaint. The lower the caps get, the more necessary it is to be zero-rated if you want consumers to use your service.
The really bad part of this is there isn't any need to have fair pricing. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Google can all negotiate lower rates than a new startup because of their volume. Worse, the ISP's own zero-rated services automatically get a pricing advantage because they don't have to pay to be zero-rated.
This is the end of innovation on the internet, and the beginning of a few large, highly-entrenched incumbents with high barriers to entry. Unless your application is unusually low-bandwidth, you won't be able to compete, and that's the way the big players will want it. In less than 30 years, we'll have gone from a completely wild-west open internet to a totally locked-up playing field. It was fun while it lasted, I suppose...
Innovation could still happen in countries with net neutrality.
"The Internet...well, as much of it as only requires transit within Estonia" would be a poor simulacrum of the whole.
I actually agree that it's going to be a county-by-country battle. Also, Estonia in fact has some of the best ISP service. Yet the point of the internet is that nobody should care where you are, _especially_ whether you are in a G8 country.
I actually agree that it's going to be a county-by-country battle. Also, Estonia in fact has some of the best ISP service. Yet the point of the internet is that nobody should care where you are, _especially_ whether you are in a G8 country.
Why only Estonia?
Is net neutrality in danger in the rest of the EU?
Is net neutrality in danger in the rest of the EU?
Yes. In Germany for example. Deutsche Telekom openly advocates against net neutrality, https://www.telekom.com/en/company/management-unplugged/deta..., and already practiced (don't know whether they still do that) zero rating to boost their offerings, and some partners like Spotify. Politicians wanted to end net neutrality, see http://www.dw.com/en/german-parliamentarians-tackle-net-neut....
The last EU regulations protect net neutrality, but afaik there still are loopholes.
The last EU regulations protect net neutrality, but afaik there still are loopholes.
You bet it is. I'm pretty sure that european providers are watching very closely and are trying to figure out how to make something similar work over here. It's always easier to argue if there's a precedent.
People consistently ignore the middle course, which is to allow a market for differentiated quality of service, zero-rating, whatever -- but to regulate that market as to what can be offered in it. The point would be that large companies couldn't get quantity discounts with which they can blow away small ones.
It's legitimate to suggest that remote/waldoed surgery needs superb data delivery guarantees, or that providers of ad-heavy contents should be allowed to pay for the data their users consume. But it's also legitimate to ensure that a small entertainment provider has a chance in bidding against the large ones.
There's been a low-volume discussion of all this on my blogs for many years. http://www.dbms2.com/2014/05/14/solve-the-network-neutrality... is pretty much the latest.
It's legitimate to suggest that remote/waldoed surgery needs superb data delivery guarantees, or that providers of ad-heavy contents should be allowed to pay for the data their users consume. But it's also legitimate to ensure that a small entertainment provider has a chance in bidding against the large ones.
There's been a low-volume discussion of all this on my blogs for many years. http://www.dbms2.com/2014/05/14/solve-the-network-neutrality... is pretty much the latest.
The middle course is an illusion. Look at your examples:
> remote/waldoed surgery needs superb data delivery guarantees
It isn't a question of bandwidth or latency, the problem is that life-critical systems need hardware-level redundancy that mass market networks just don't have. Some drunk crashes into the pole at the end of your street and your internet goes down in the middle of surgery because there is only one path.
This is why the hospitals that do this sort of thing have redundant dedicated physical connections on both ends. There is no other reliable way to do it. But network neutrality has nothing to do with that sort of dedicated physical point to point connection.
> providers of ad-heavy contents should be allowed to pay for the data their users consume
Nobody actually wants to do that. If ad providers actually cared about customer bandwidth charges they would spend more than the obviously-zero-if-not-somehow-negative amount of time they currently spend on optimizing their ads for resource consumption.
The entire thing is a sham. Nobody wants to subsidize data. The ISPs raise data rates but zero-rate their own offerings to push customers away from their competitors, then go back to their competitors with their hand out and demand money to reestablish the level playing field. Or worse, charge a toll to get on the high side of the unleveled playing field.
If this wasn't the case then there would be no need to involve the ISP in the transaction. If advertisers wanted to give away their profits to users then they could just pay the users directly. Some have tried this and given up, because it's ridiculous. Users would much rather have more/better journalism or services or whatever thing the ads are supporting than some tiny subsidy which is nothing more than a pittance at the level of an individual user.
The only reason ISPs are involved is that they can charge $PROHIBITIVE_PRICE for data to end customers but $MONOPOLY_PRICE to content producers and it's only by getting this "discount" that it makes any sense for the content producer to engage in the transaction. The only result compared to the situation where this is prohibited is a harmful transfer of resources from high-competition content producers to low-competition ISPs.
> remote/waldoed surgery needs superb data delivery guarantees
It isn't a question of bandwidth or latency, the problem is that life-critical systems need hardware-level redundancy that mass market networks just don't have. Some drunk crashes into the pole at the end of your street and your internet goes down in the middle of surgery because there is only one path.
This is why the hospitals that do this sort of thing have redundant dedicated physical connections on both ends. There is no other reliable way to do it. But network neutrality has nothing to do with that sort of dedicated physical point to point connection.
> providers of ad-heavy contents should be allowed to pay for the data their users consume
Nobody actually wants to do that. If ad providers actually cared about customer bandwidth charges they would spend more than the obviously-zero-if-not-somehow-negative amount of time they currently spend on optimizing their ads for resource consumption.
The entire thing is a sham. Nobody wants to subsidize data. The ISPs raise data rates but zero-rate their own offerings to push customers away from their competitors, then go back to their competitors with their hand out and demand money to reestablish the level playing field. Or worse, charge a toll to get on the high side of the unleveled playing field.
If this wasn't the case then there would be no need to involve the ISP in the transaction. If advertisers wanted to give away their profits to users then they could just pay the users directly. Some have tried this and given up, because it's ridiculous. Users would much rather have more/better journalism or services or whatever thing the ads are supporting than some tiny subsidy which is nothing more than a pittance at the level of an individual user.
The only reason ISPs are involved is that they can charge $PROHIBITIVE_PRICE for data to end customers but $MONOPOLY_PRICE to content producers and it's only by getting this "discount" that it makes any sense for the content producer to engage in the transaction. The only result compared to the situation where this is prohibited is a harmful transfer of resources from high-competition content producers to low-competition ISPs.
"waldoed"?
A "waldo" is a remote manipulator. I think the term comes from 1940s Robert Heinlein SF.
It would be nice if there was more focus on how to make our regulatory landscape more competitive to enable new ISP competition and innovation, instead of worrying about the lack of a particular regulation (which wouldn't be a big deal if there was more competition/consumer choice in telecoms).
Can anyone with expertise on the subject shed some light on the kinds of zoning changes, regulatory changes, and/or 'open infrastructure' policies that established cities could take to make it easier for smaller entities to build their own Internet infrastructure around public land? I'm not convinced it's such a difficult problem to allow Internet providers to compete at close to the same level as other industries.
Can anyone with expertise on the subject shed some light on the kinds of zoning changes, regulatory changes, and/or 'open infrastructure' policies that established cities could take to make it easier for smaller entities to build their own Internet infrastructure around public land? I'm not convinced it's such a difficult problem to allow Internet providers to compete at close to the same level as other industries.
Here's the rundown.
The cost of providing last mile internet service is dominated by fixed costs, meaning costs that are the same regardless of whether you serve 10 or 20 customers on a particular street, and regardless of how much data those customers transfer. These costs are not small; creating the capacity to serve a million households will cost north of a billion dollars.
There are some policies that can knock that cost down some. The best one is to require conduit to be installed in the road anywhere it doesn't exist when road service is done. We should enact this policy. It will save us a lot of money. But it's hard to get passed because the cost is in current-year tax dollars to install conduit and the benefit is in much lower long-term costs for power distribution and telecommunications.
And it "only" lowers costs, it doesn't change the competitive dynamic. The nature of the problem is this. If you have one telecommunications company then you have one piece of fiber in the ground, and when some idiot with a backhoe cuts the fiber, they need to send a truck out to fix it. If you have three competitors then there are three pieces of fiber, all next to each other, owned by different companies, all get cut at once, so you need three trucks. If you have ten competitors you need ten trucks. Most of the costs of operating last mile infrastructure share this horrible scalability.
Meanwhile if you have ten competitors then each competitor has 1/10th as many customers, so the cost per customer is ten times as high. This is why last mile telecommunications is called a natural monopoly -- having a single provider will give you half the cost of having even two.
So that is the source of the problem, how do we fix it? The answer is to isolate the natural monopoly to the fullest extent possible. Let it be a monopoly but let it be nothing else. Some entity (the government, a nonprofit, Comcast) owns the fiber in the ground but they do nothing else. They don't offer retail internet service, they don't offer TV service, their only job is to maintain the physical infrastructure and lease wholesale capacity to third party providers at uniform rates.
Then you have plenty of competition, because anyone can lease capacity and offer service, no one has any undue advantage over the others because the rates are uniform and published, and the monopoly provider can't give any advantage to its own over-the-top offerings because it doesn't have any.
The cost of providing last mile internet service is dominated by fixed costs, meaning costs that are the same regardless of whether you serve 10 or 20 customers on a particular street, and regardless of how much data those customers transfer. These costs are not small; creating the capacity to serve a million households will cost north of a billion dollars.
There are some policies that can knock that cost down some. The best one is to require conduit to be installed in the road anywhere it doesn't exist when road service is done. We should enact this policy. It will save us a lot of money. But it's hard to get passed because the cost is in current-year tax dollars to install conduit and the benefit is in much lower long-term costs for power distribution and telecommunications.
And it "only" lowers costs, it doesn't change the competitive dynamic. The nature of the problem is this. If you have one telecommunications company then you have one piece of fiber in the ground, and when some idiot with a backhoe cuts the fiber, they need to send a truck out to fix it. If you have three competitors then there are three pieces of fiber, all next to each other, owned by different companies, all get cut at once, so you need three trucks. If you have ten competitors you need ten trucks. Most of the costs of operating last mile infrastructure share this horrible scalability.
Meanwhile if you have ten competitors then each competitor has 1/10th as many customers, so the cost per customer is ten times as high. This is why last mile telecommunications is called a natural monopoly -- having a single provider will give you half the cost of having even two.
So that is the source of the problem, how do we fix it? The answer is to isolate the natural monopoly to the fullest extent possible. Let it be a monopoly but let it be nothing else. Some entity (the government, a nonprofit, Comcast) owns the fiber in the ground but they do nothing else. They don't offer retail internet service, they don't offer TV service, their only job is to maintain the physical infrastructure and lease wholesale capacity to third party providers at uniform rates.
Then you have plenty of competition, because anyone can lease capacity and offer service, no one has any undue advantage over the others because the rates are uniform and published, and the monopoly provider can't give any advantage to its own over-the-top offerings because it doesn't have any.
>Let it be a monopoly but let it be nothing else. Some entity (the government, a nonprofit, Comcast) owns the fibre in the ground but they do nothing else. They don't offer retail internet service, they don't offer TV service, their only job is to maintain the physical infrastructure and lease wholesale capacity to third party providers at uniform rates.
This is a good idea and is precisely what Australia is doing. It's called the NBN. The problem is, it was fibre to the home from 2009 - 2013, then a conservative government got in and now they're deliberately running it into the ground, by spending more money to do it with copper phone lines instead. Just for the sake of partisan politics and not keeping Telstra/Foxtel happy. Instead of a gigabit-fibre-to-the-home network, they're going to still be installing new 25Mbit/s connections in 2020 (yes, really), that have no potential for upgrades.
They also changed the "uniform rates" part, so that the big companies get a big discount and small ISPs just straight up get charged more for the same thing.
It was a great plan, 10% of homes got fibre! It just got screwed up by an actively malicious government gaining power.
Luckily if you had Telstra cable before, or in your street, you can keep it. (Not if you had Optus cable though, then you're bumped down to VDSL). And there's those few areas with fibre, and new apartment buildings still get fibre. So as a young person who hasn't settled into a long term house, I have the luxury of making sure I at least get cable. Sucks for the 60% of the population that are stuck with horrible old unreliable copper lines that can't be upgraded tho.
Here is a previous thread on the matter:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13613308
That being said, I'd still prefer this to the mess the US has, and the concept of having a publicly owned utility own fibre everywhere and providing access to ISPs is a great one. Just do it with fibre, not ancient technology.
Look to New Zealand's UFB for an actually good example, with gigabit fibre just about everywhere.
This is a good idea and is precisely what Australia is doing. It's called the NBN. The problem is, it was fibre to the home from 2009 - 2013, then a conservative government got in and now they're deliberately running it into the ground, by spending more money to do it with copper phone lines instead. Just for the sake of partisan politics and not keeping Telstra/Foxtel happy. Instead of a gigabit-fibre-to-the-home network, they're going to still be installing new 25Mbit/s connections in 2020 (yes, really), that have no potential for upgrades.
They also changed the "uniform rates" part, so that the big companies get a big discount and small ISPs just straight up get charged more for the same thing.
It was a great plan, 10% of homes got fibre! It just got screwed up by an actively malicious government gaining power.
Luckily if you had Telstra cable before, or in your street, you can keep it. (Not if you had Optus cable though, then you're bumped down to VDSL). And there's those few areas with fibre, and new apartment buildings still get fibre. So as a young person who hasn't settled into a long term house, I have the luxury of making sure I at least get cable. Sucks for the 60% of the population that are stuck with horrible old unreliable copper lines that can't be upgraded tho.
Here is a previous thread on the matter:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13613308
That being said, I'd still prefer this to the mess the US has, and the concept of having a publicly owned utility own fibre everywhere and providing access to ISPs is a great one. Just do it with fibre, not ancient technology.
Look to New Zealand's UFB for an actually good example, with gigabit fibre just about everywhere.
The nice thing about this is that in concept it doesn't require any involvement from the central government at all. The monopoly part is purely local. Any municipality can issue a bond to fund the network and then use the subscription revenue to repay the bond.
This is exactly what was happening in multiple US cities until the ISPs lobbied to kill it at the state level.
Presumably we could have it back if people would make enough noise in favor of it.
This is exactly what was happening in multiple US cities until the ISPs lobbied to kill it at the state level.
Presumably we could have it back if people would make enough noise in favor of it.
I'm not an expert in network topology but I'd argue that there are benefits to doing it at the national or at least state level, like structuring the network to provide the lowest latency and highest bandwidth, general efficiency, and equal access and pricing.
The market does that for you when there is actually competition, which there is for transit providers. The natural monopoly is only the last mile which by definition is at city-level scale or less.
I remember in the early 1990's, IETF leadership burning lots of time flying to Washington, to explain the importance of common carriage and network neutrality for the infant Internet. It wasn't clear it would be allowed to survive. The telcos wanted it dead. Monopoly ITT crippled it throughout the Caribbean. But it flourished. And even when neutrality wasn't law, it hovered as a threat - don't get too sociopathic, or there will be crackdown. And here we are, a human generation later. Still fighting the telcos, and still struggling to educate an ignorant Washington. Let me make a prediction for the next quarter century, and for 2040... we continue.
Vi Hart recap of Net Neutrality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M
The first 5 minutes are conceptual background and explanation, while the last 6 minutes move on to the 2014-era politics of net neutrality. It's my favorite net neutrality summary for (IMO) naïve people who think net-neutrality stifles innovation.
The first 5 minutes are conceptual background and explanation, while the last 6 minutes move on to the 2014-era politics of net neutrality. It's my favorite net neutrality summary for (IMO) naïve people who think net-neutrality stifles innovation.
Basically if you wish the Internet were more like cable TV, then the end of net neutrality is for you.
Hey man, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes...
But on a more serious note, given this new environment if one were say, developing/bootstrapping a B2B SaaS would it make sense to prioritize developing/selling a self-hosted(e.g., "enterprise") version of the product over a "cloud-based" offering?
Or, perhaps the major cloud-based IaaS/PaaS providers like AWS might negotiate with all of the bridge trolls themselves (on behalf of their customers), and just pass down the costs via higher rates to all of their subscribers?
But on a more serious note, given this new environment if one were say, developing/bootstrapping a B2B SaaS would it make sense to prioritize developing/selling a self-hosted(e.g., "enterprise") version of the product over a "cloud-based" offering?
Or, perhaps the major cloud-based IaaS/PaaS providers like AWS might negotiate with all of the bridge trolls themselves (on behalf of their customers), and just pass down the costs via higher rates to all of their subscribers?
The series of tubes analogy was pretty sound. Hell, it is even literally true now.
I, like much of Silicon Valley, make more money with strongly-enforced net neutrality. I try to remove those blinders from time to time and think from the other side.
Could an oscillation between hard and soft net neutrality b better than NN "always on"? Let me explain. Strongly-enforced NN earns those using the pipes (including those not yet founded) more. Weakly-enforced NN earns those owning the pipes (including those not yet laid) more.
When returns to content creators are low, you get incumbency--no Netflix or Spotify. When returns to pipe owners are low, you also get incumbency. No Google Fiber or SpaceX satellite Internet [1]. (Another solution is weak-form NN on new (and utilized) capacity. After some time, that incentive would phase out to strong-form NN. Like patent protection.)
Corollary: is a pro-NN ISP something consumers would pay more for?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_constellation
Could an oscillation between hard and soft net neutrality b better than NN "always on"? Let me explain. Strongly-enforced NN earns those using the pipes (including those not yet founded) more. Weakly-enforced NN earns those owning the pipes (including those not yet laid) more.
When returns to content creators are low, you get incumbency--no Netflix or Spotify. When returns to pipe owners are low, you also get incumbency. No Google Fiber or SpaceX satellite Internet [1]. (Another solution is weak-form NN on new (and utilized) capacity. After some time, that incentive would phase out to strong-form NN. Like patent protection.)
Corollary: is a pro-NN ISP something consumers would pay more for?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_constellation
There are alternatives to that would allow Telcos to profit without compromising net neutrality, but are more complicated because they imply cultural changes.
For instance, deploying content systems inside the network would reduce bottlenecks and improve latency, and you don't need to mess with the rest of the traffic to do so. Net neutrality is there because we don't want telcos to differentiate traffic based on their value, but based on value for the customer, and that changes faster than commercial agreements.
However, that means changing business models and creating value for users and content creators, unless today, not only providing the network, but a real service on top.
With the end of net neutrality, small companies (that can start without that close to the home content distribution up to a certain traffic), would not be able to compete with the established ones, so innovation will be hindered (unless we all want faster horses)
For instance, deploying content systems inside the network would reduce bottlenecks and improve latency, and you don't need to mess with the rest of the traffic to do so. Net neutrality is there because we don't want telcos to differentiate traffic based on their value, but based on value for the customer, and that changes faster than commercial agreements.
However, that means changing business models and creating value for users and content creators, unless today, not only providing the network, but a real service on top.
With the end of net neutrality, small companies (that can start without that close to the home content distribution up to a certain traffic), would not be able to compete with the established ones, so innovation will be hindered (unless we all want faster horses)
Can someone explain to me why edge servers do not have all of the terrible effects of non-net-neutrality? ISPs install edge servers that result in faster service for content from some providers. Maybe they charge for them. Maybe they also charge for a leased line from the content provider's data center. They can of course do this for their own content as a way of utilizing their monopoly power. Why hasn't the sky fallen already?
Because, generally speaking, the end users currently have an internet connection with the capacity and (relative lack of) traffic discrimination to pull that content over the internet.
If the boxes collocated at an ISP broke today, the data would flow to users from distant data centers. All that would happen is the ISP and the content provider might end up paying a little more in network costs.
The edge servers in the ISP network would only have the same non-network-neutrality effects if the ISP offered a string-and-soup-can connection to the internet that could not support the service.
The fear is - as it's always been - the ISP's ability to make a remote service effectively unavailable to their customers.
If the boxes collocated at an ISP broke today, the data would flow to users from distant data centers. All that would happen is the ISP and the content provider might end up paying a little more in network costs.
The edge servers in the ISP network would only have the same non-network-neutrality effects if the ISP offered a string-and-soup-can connection to the internet that could not support the service.
The fear is - as it's always been - the ISP's ability to make a remote service effectively unavailable to their customers.
Basically this whole argument comes down to two viewpoints:
1) If you believe in Net Neutrality, then you believe the government will be a good and objective manager of the internet.
2) If you believe nearly everything the government touches it fucks up and cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone something as open and free as the internet, then you're against Net Neutrality.
1) If you believe in Net Neutrality, then you believe the government will be a good and objective manager of the internet.
2) If you believe nearly everything the government touches it fucks up and cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone something as open and free as the internet, then you're against Net Neutrality.
I can use a strawman argument too:
1) If you are against Net Neutrality, then you believe Comcast will be a good and objective manager of the internet.
2) If you believe nearly everything Comcast touches it fucks up and cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone something as open and free as the internet, then you are for Net Neutrality.
1) If you are against Net Neutrality, then you believe Comcast will be a good and objective manager of the internet.
2) If you believe nearly everything Comcast touches it fucks up and cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone something as open and free as the internet, then you are for Net Neutrality.
Am I correct in assuming this is only a US problem?
I am curious what the landscape will look like in the next decade, as "data" prices increase, while local storage continues to plummet.
It reminds me of "Exit Strategy" by Douglas Rushkoff, where it discusses vertical brand integration.
I am curious what the landscape will look like in the next decade, as "data" prices increase, while local storage continues to plummet.
It reminds me of "Exit Strategy" by Douglas Rushkoff, where it discusses vertical brand integration.
> Am I correct in assuming this is only a US problem?
Yes and no. The direct effect is on US consumers, but because of how much of the money made from internet content and online services is from US consumers, it likely has a very significant indirect effect on global competition.
Yes and no. The direct effect is on US consumers, but because of how much of the money made from internet content and online services is from US consumers, it likely has a very significant indirect effect on global competition.
I do not welcome the new Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy oligopoly.
Also, how will this affect mobile app-developers that rely on a server backend? Will this drastically curtail mobile app development?
Also, how will this affect mobile app-developers that rely on a server backend? Will this drastically curtail mobile app development?
I think yall are on the wrong side of this. Benefits of the free market vanish once regulations begin. If comcast wants to charge by the hour, let 'em try. How long until some guy creates the same product for 1/100 the price?
Scarcity being the key point here. You don't have a RIGHT to use the internet, that's why it works in the first place as a commodity of sorts.
I want the market to destroy comcast, Google fiber, etc. No more megacorp ISPs.
I'd love to see the FCC dissolved entirely, tbh. We're not helpless, if like a meshnet initiative r we got some real big faces behind it, we'd have a gov-proof Internet in no time.
Scarcity being the key point here. You don't have a RIGHT to use the internet, that's why it works in the first place as a commodity of sorts.
I want the market to destroy comcast, Google fiber, etc. No more megacorp ISPs.
I'd love to see the FCC dissolved entirely, tbh. We're not helpless, if like a meshnet initiative r we got some real big faces behind it, we'd have a gov-proof Internet in no time.
> How long until some guy creates the same product for 1/100 the price?
A last mile telecommunications network to your house? Comcast is known to immediately increase speeds and slash prices whenever anyone does, but only in the specific region the competitor offers service, thereby ensuring that the new competitor is unprofitable and that all future competitors get the message not to do that.
So presumably indefinitely.
A last mile telecommunications network to your house? Comcast is known to immediately increase speeds and slash prices whenever anyone does, but only in the specific region the competitor offers service, thereby ensuring that the new competitor is unprofitable and that all future competitors get the message not to do that.
So presumably indefinitely.
It has nothing to do with the free market.
Ending net neutrality simply gives control of the internet to companies with currently established hardware monopolies.
Net neutrality is what's keeping the internet a free market currently.
Ending net neutrality simply gives control of the internet to companies with currently established hardware monopolies.
Net neutrality is what's keeping the internet a free market currently.
I understand the sentiment, but doesn't it sound much more reasonable to have strictly enforced net neutrality (or consumer protection policy X), than it does to assume the "free market will take care of it someday"?
These megacorps have a stranglehold on large swaths of the States – they won't allow challengers without a fight.
Well actually I'd say that I just explained exactly why that's a bad idea. No business is too big for consumers to choose to destroy. Yahoo is a good case in point. People chose, Yahoo was killed.
The free market could do it overnight tonight, if people chose to. I get the feeling there's a lot of uninformed people who think the free market is some boogie man voodoo science that someone made up, but it's all black and white in reality. The core forces of markets are very well understood for the past... Oh about 400+ years.
"wouldn't it be better to just let the govt strictly enforce arbitrary rules with zero checks and balances from people who actually have to experience it?"
No.
The free market could do it overnight tonight, if people chose to. I get the feeling there's a lot of uninformed people who think the free market is some boogie man voodoo science that someone made up, but it's all black and white in reality. The core forces of markets are very well understood for the past... Oh about 400+ years.
"wouldn't it be better to just let the govt strictly enforce arbitrary rules with zero checks and balances from people who actually have to experience it?"
No.
I agree with you that unchecked enforcement of rules by the government is a negative. But perhaps you would agree with me that net neutrality, and perhaps more broadly the FCC, are not in an "unchecked" state.
Like I said in my original comment though: I don't disagree with you entirely; I understand that the free market in most cases does correct itself. It just seems that there is a certain balance required for free-market correction, which if upset, allows for unchecked behavior by private companies.
I suppose a better articulation is as follows: the free market, when working correctly, allows me to choose with my wallet. I literally can't do that in my city, unless you mean to say that spending thousands to millions to construct my own ISP is a reasonable alternative to true competition. At least from a consumer perspective? My point was that net neutrality would solve this specific issue in a top down manner, removing the need for people in cities across the country to "take matters into their own hands".
It seems that you are suggesting that free market forces are capable of correcting all imbalances? (not 100% sure your position)
Like I said in my original comment though: I don't disagree with you entirely; I understand that the free market in most cases does correct itself. It just seems that there is a certain balance required for free-market correction, which if upset, allows for unchecked behavior by private companies.
I suppose a better articulation is as follows: the free market, when working correctly, allows me to choose with my wallet. I literally can't do that in my city, unless you mean to say that spending thousands to millions to construct my own ISP is a reasonable alternative to true competition. At least from a consumer perspective? My point was that net neutrality would solve this specific issue in a top down manner, removing the need for people in cities across the country to "take matters into their own hands".
It seems that you are suggesting that free market forces are capable of correcting all imbalances? (not 100% sure your position)
There are serious monopolys in telecom all the way down to the actual fiber in the ground...
So ending net neutrality is not making the internet more free market...its just giving control of the internet to the companies with established hardware monopolys.
It's that simple.
Just like other public utilities like electricity and plumbing there's only so much room for infrastructure so the companies with that infrastructure in place have a monopoly.
It's as far from free market as it gets.
Google fiber couldn't compete because of local regulations for laying wire and hardware and the massive barriers of entry involved that established carriers overcame a half century ago before there were so many barriers.
When a company like GOOGLE couldnt make fiber happen you know something seriously stinks in telecom land.
To truly establish free market internet, you need to end any ADDITIONAL regulations keeping the Googles and the Elons from laying their own cables and hardware and break up the major telecom monopolies or regulate internet like a utility..not JUST end net neutrality.