4 ms·

Telecom is not a free market and ending net neutrality in no way benefits the free market. There are serious monopolys in telecom all the way down to the actua

Telecom is not a free market and ending net neutrality in no way benefits the free market. 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.

danjoc 10y ago
>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.
- nickthemagicman 10y ago
  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.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    There is this (which Google licensed from Yahoo/Overture/Go): https://www.google.com/patents/US6269361 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/facebook-friendster-patents https://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2010/aug/05/faceb...
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> 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.
the-dude 10y ago
Please read guidelines about capitalisation
- coldtea 10y ago
  Parent has 3 capitalized words among 200 for emphasis. How is that excessive, or are "guidelines about capitalization" relevant?
rayiner 10y ago
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.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Does Verizon FIOS still exist, or has it all been "sold" to Frontier?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    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.
    - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
      Is that Verizon's FIOS, or is it Frontier FIOS?

danjoc 10y ago

>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.

nickthemagicman 10y ago
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.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  There is this (which Google licensed from Yahoo/Overture/Go): https://www.google.com/patents/US6269361 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/facebook-friendster-patents https://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2010/aug/05/faceb...
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> 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.

the-dude 10y ago

Please read guidelines about capitalisation

coldtea 10y ago
Parent has 3 capitalized words among 200 for emphasis. How is that excessive, or are "guidelines about capitalization" relevant?

rayiner 10y ago

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.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Does Verizon FIOS still exist, or has it all been "sold" to Frontier?
- rayiner 10y ago
  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.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    Is that Verizon's FIOS, or is it Frontier FIOS?