9 ms·

I'm really looking forward to the point in the future where we look back and say, "Why did we ever think it was a good idea to allow the same company to provide

by 1_2__3 10y ago

I'm really looking forward to the point in the future where we look back and say, "Why did we ever think it was a good idea to allow the same company to provide the pipe, the content, and the backbone?"

gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Does anybody think that (besides the lobbyists telling the congresscritters)?
- tragic 10y ago
  Devil's advocate: the British railways were privatised in the 1990s in such a way that different companies ran the tracks than the trains, and a bunch of different companies ran different trains. I must say that it would probably be better to have some single vertically integrated monopoly running everything, since in reality the government would curb its worst excesses more easily.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    I do not know how it is even slightest relevant here.
    - cracell 10y ago
      Here's saying if you own the whole system you can optimize things to be more efficient than if you have a ton of separation between the people who run the different pieces of the system. So in the this case maybe AT&T having vertical integration is a good thing. Personally I haven't seen any positives for consumers from Comcast buying NBC Universal so I don't see how this would benefit consumers either.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        Sorry, but these two systems are incomparable because you just do not run any random train on the railway. If you would like to find something that is comparable, I'll recommend to look for it related to the roads. Try to imagine a situation were single private company owns all the roads (of one region), including all the highways and local roads and has also a bus company.
  - raz32dust 10y ago
    It could go either way. In the US, everything tends to favor the business and decisions tend to be more capitalistic. I think government interference would be minimal in the US.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    I am curious why you think that the government could curb its worst excesses more easily as a monopoly when it fails to do so now when its basically a duopoly.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    The french SNCf is a good dxample of a vertical integration not working. Constantly bleeding billions of euros of deficit, trains late, strikes on regular basis, this is just the worst.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    The limited term franchises are a far greater limitation than the unusual organisation, as it near guarantees short-termism over improving capacity or rolling stock. Though I do agree that returning to the earlier regional railways, along with additional mainline and freight train operators, would have been a better way to organise.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Matt Stone and Trey Parker perhaps.
xenobioticants 10y ago
To be honest, the situation across the pond is flummoxing to Europeans.. ISPs here are only service providers and nothing more. They're seen as a pipe to the internet and that's it. They often do offer 3-in-1 packages (television, phone and internet) but thats because they evolved from telephone or cable providers to ISPs and/or the copper/cable provides the signal space anyway, why not offer it. I have cable and pay €49 for 40Mbit/4Mbit. Its €59 for 150/15 and €77 for 300/30, and all these packages include TV. TV-less is the same speeds but €40, €50 and €58. And you get what you pay for, I consistently hit 33+/4+ on speedtest.net. Copper prices and speeds are a bit worse: €48 for 20/2 and €63 for 60/6 (although that does include Spotify), both packages with TV and telephone (can't get a separate TV+Internet deal). Speeds are a bit more janky since it depends on how many people are active on the block line, but still generally pretty close to what's advertised.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  Europe has much better, cheaper Internet than the US, but the prices you cite aren't better than what you will find in the US. In NYC I am paying $69/mo (approximately 61.50 EUR) for 50/50, and that's fiber. No TV. I have seen bandwidth prices cited in places like Bulgaria, Estonia etc. that are much better.
  - lumberingjack 10y ago
    Im in ohio, with what was TWC but just bought out by spectrum $70 for 50/4.7
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Germany, 34€, 80/40Mbps, no TV.
  - juhq 10y ago
    Finland, 100/10, 29,90€/month, no TV. First year was 19,90€/month
  - nsheridan 10y ago
    Ireland: 360/36 €60pm. No tv.
oldmanjay 10y ago
It seems to be a problem in some abstract sense to a certain group of people, but the reality of widely available internet and all the content one chooses for gorging seems to belie the idea that it's bad in a concrete sense
vonklaus 10y ago
I honestly think non-technical Joe the Plumber hypothetical U.S. citizen would be against this given that Time Warner is villified & consistently ranked one of the worst companies in customer service annually. However, neither I (nor Joe) have the ear of any trade comission reviewing this, nor any power to do anything about it. While I don't want to put forth a defeatist attitude, clearly a much more robust strategy than "write your senator/rep" must be devised. Ddos attacks at an unprecedented scale are occurring and probing all internet infrastructure. Not only is this a single point of fail, but is anti competitive, dangerous and bad for essentially everyone in the country. I think something like Calyx networks has a good small strategy, but literally short of raising a SPAC and buying a controlling interest, it seems hard to thwart.
return0 10y ago
I raise my glass of Brawndo to that
dade_ 10y ago
I think this is about infrastructure and pipe, not content. Carriers should already know that content isn't going to solve their problems, but they should be forced to divest it by regulators as part of their approval. To compete in the future as a carrier, you need right of ways, infrastructure and access into as many buildings and homes as possible, and massive amounts of capital. Then you automate everything and fire most of the employees. Just an industry hitting maturity...

by 1_2__3 10y ago

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

Does anybody think that (besides the lobbyists telling the congresscritters)?

tragic 10y ago
Devil's advocate: the British railways were privatised in the 1990s in such a way that different companies ran the tracks than the trains, and a bunch of different companies ran different trains. I must say that it would probably be better to have some single vertically integrated monopoly running everything, since in reality the government would curb its worst excesses more easily.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I do not know how it is even slightest relevant here.
  - cracell 10y ago
    Here's saying if you own the whole system you can optimize things to be more efficient than if you have a ton of separation between the people who run the different pieces of the system. So in the this case maybe AT&T having vertical integration is a good thing. Personally I haven't seen any positives for consumers from Comcast buying NBC Universal so I don't see how this would benefit consumers either.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      Sorry, but these two systems are incomparable because you just do not run any random train on the railway. If you would like to find something that is comparable, I'll recommend to look for it related to the roads. Try to imagine a situation were single private company owns all the roads (of one region), including all the highways and local roads and has also a bus company.
- raz32dust 10y ago
  It could go either way. In the US, everything tends to favor the business and decisions tend to be more capitalistic. I think government interference would be minimal in the US.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  I am curious why you think that the government could curb its worst excesses more easily as a monopoly when it fails to do so now when its basically a duopoly.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  The french SNCf is a good dxample of a vertical integration not working. Constantly bleeding billions of euros of deficit, trains late, strikes on regular basis, this is just the worst.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  The limited term franchises are a far greater limitation than the unusual organisation, as it near guarantees short-termism over improving capacity or rolling stock. Though I do agree that returning to the earlier regional railways, along with additional mainline and freight train operators, would have been a better way to organise.
tedmiston 10y ago
Matt Stone and Trey Parker perhaps.

xenobioticants 10y ago

To be honest, the situation across the pond is flummoxing to Europeans.. ISPs here are only service providers and nothing more. They're seen as a pipe to the internet and that's it. They often do offer 3-in-1 packages (television, phone and internet) but thats because they evolved from telephone or cable providers to ISPs and/or the copper/cable provides the signal space anyway, why not offer it. I have cable and pay €49 for 40Mbit/4Mbit. Its €59 for 150/15 and €77 for 300/30, and all these packages include TV. TV-less is the same speeds but €40, €50 and €58. And you get what you pay for, I consistently hit 33+/4+ on speedtest.net. Copper prices and speeds are a bit worse: €48 for 20/2 and €63 for 60/6 (although that does include Spotify), both packages with TV and telephone (can't get a separate TV+Internet deal). Speeds are a bit more janky since it depends on how many people are active on the block line, but still generally pretty close to what's advertised.

lobster_johnson 10y ago
Europe has much better, cheaper Internet than the US, but the prices you cite aren't better than what you will find in the US. In NYC I am paying $69/mo (approximately 61.50 EUR) for 50/50, and that's fiber. No TV. I have seen bandwidth prices cited in places like Bulgaria, Estonia etc. that are much better.
- lumberingjack 10y ago
  Im in ohio, with what was TWC but just bought out by spectrum $70 for 50/4.7
- kuschku 10y ago
  Germany, 34€, 80/40Mbps, no TV.
- juhq 10y ago
  Finland, 100/10, 29,90€/month, no TV. First year was 19,90€/month
- nsheridan 10y ago
  Ireland: 360/36 €60pm. No tv.

oldmanjay 10y ago

It seems to be a problem in some abstract sense to a certain group of people, but the reality of widely available internet and all the content one chooses for gorging seems to belie the idea that it's bad in a concrete sense

vonklaus 10y ago

I honestly think non-technical Joe the Plumber hypothetical U.S. citizen would be against this given that Time Warner is villified & consistently ranked one of the worst companies in customer service annually. However, neither I (nor Joe) have the ear of any trade comission reviewing this, nor any power to do anything about it. While I don't want to put forth a defeatist attitude, clearly a much more robust strategy than "write your senator/rep" must be devised. Ddos attacks at an unprecedented scale are occurring and probing all internet infrastructure. Not only is this a single point of fail, but is anti competitive, dangerous and bad for essentially everyone in the country. I think something like Calyx networks has a good small strategy, but literally short of raising a SPAC and buying a controlling interest, it seems hard to thwart.

return0 10y ago

I raise my glass of Brawndo to that

dade_ 10y ago

I think this is about infrastructure and pipe, not content. Carriers should already know that content isn't going to solve their problems, but they should be forced to divest it by regulators as part of their approval. To compete in the future as a carrier, you need right of ways, infrastructure and access into as many buildings and homes as possible, and massive amounts of capital. Then you automate everything and fire most of the employees. Just an industry hitting maturity...