3 ms·

In my opinion this is the problem of monopoly. US ISP don't have to compete among themselves to offer a better service as I learned recently. You/they get one I

In my opinion this is the problem of monopoly. US ISP don't have to compete among themselves to offer a better service as I learned recently. You/they get one ISP per area with no option to use a different one. Then they become huge and start to compete for other things, which in this case is the content. This turns out is bad for: - the user for getting subpar Internet access with a fixed conditions and no option. - the user since they loose all privacy. - the content companies who now have to compete with someone in an power position who has abused of that power before. Arguably (because of FB) Google has a big monopoly on Advertising, but the solution is not to go thermonuclear on the other side!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
saganwrap 10y ago
Usually there are two main options - an evil cable TV company and an equally evil telephone company. In distant third are evil cellular data providers, clueless WISPs, and struggling CLECs. Oligopoly may be a natural state for last-mile high-speed Internet service. I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH. In low population density areas it seems really difficult to avoid a monopoly or oligopoly situation. However, I think other factors are to blame for the privacy issues: Primarily, public ownership of corporate stock, which has caused a focus shift from the value of the provided product or service to maximizing short-term returns. This was the driving force between the telecom providers claiming to be enhanced services (so they can do nasty things), when they had formerly aggressively claimed to be common carriers (because they didn't want to be liable for the content of customer traffic). The state PUCs have also been asleep at the wheel while the telcos used sleight-of-hand to recategorize tariffed services as non-tariffed. Another factor may simply be the state of computer networking as a mass-market, consumer product and the ensuing race to the bottom.
- nikcub 10y ago
  > I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH Australia has done this on a national scale. There is now a government owned network which the existing providers were forced to sell their networks into. The ISPs then compete for services over the top of this network. The idea is that eventually the national network is also privatized but constrained into being a dumb pipe by regulation. This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband, but there are many benefits to accepting that internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband Until the conservatives got into power it was going to advance broadband considerably. Now it's just a multibillion dollar gift to their political mates. 20 years from now when we still have slow internet I'm still going to be telling everyone it's the Liberal parties fault.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      You see how that's a structural problem with having the government own and build the wires? It makes investment into the network a political decision. Some people don't want fiber installed because the ONT is too big and ugly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_ont_on_side_of_house_or_indoors https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_o.... People tried to hold up FTTN rollout in SF because the thought the fiber cabinets were ugly: https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4.... When you nationalize the broadband, you give these folks the power to vote on whether to use their tax dollars to invest in broadband. That might work in a country like Japan or South Korea where people see technological development as the path to prosperity. I suspect it won't work in a country like Australia or the US.
bogomipz 10y ago
>"In my opinion this is the problem of monopoly. US ISP don't have to compete among themselves to offer a better service as I learned recently." This is true, in some cases there will be a duopoly where Verizon FIOS might exist but that's it. The really unforgivable part about all this is that these local monopolies uses public right aways to lay their cable that allows them to deliver service at all. This is because local governments must approve their charter to operate there. These local governments are bought and sold by these monopolies/duopolies the same way Washington is bought and sold by them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

saganwrap 10y ago

Usually there are two main options - an evil cable TV company and an equally evil telephone company. In distant third are evil cellular data providers, clueless WISPs, and struggling CLECs. Oligopoly may be a natural state for last-mile high-speed Internet service. I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH. In low population density areas it seems really difficult to avoid a monopoly or oligopoly situation. However, I think other factors are to blame for the privacy issues: Primarily, public ownership of corporate stock, which has caused a focus shift from the value of the provided product or service to maximizing short-term returns. This was the driving force between the telecom providers claiming to be enhanced services (so they can do nasty things), when they had formerly aggressively claimed to be common carriers (because they didn't want to be liable for the content of customer traffic). The state PUCs have also been asleep at the wheel while the telcos used sleight-of-hand to recategorize tariffed services as non-tariffed. Another factor may simply be the state of computer networking as a mass-market, consumer product and the ensuing race to the bottom.

nikcub 10y ago
> I believe Sweden has avoided this in high population density areas with ISP access to city provided FTTH Australia has done this on a national scale. There is now a government owned network which the existing providers were forced to sell their networks into. The ISPs then compete for services over the top of this network. The idea is that eventually the national network is also privatized but constrained into being a dumb pipe by regulation. This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband, but there are many benefits to accepting that internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly.
- flukus 10y ago
  > This model has some problems - for ex. it has prevented some genuine innovation in providing broadband Until the conservatives got into power it was going to advance broadband considerably. Now it's just a multibillion dollar gift to their political mates. 20 years from now when we still have slow internet I'm still going to be telling everyone it's the Liberal parties fault.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    You see how that's a structural problem with having the government own and build the wires? It makes investment into the network a political decision. Some people don't want fiber installed because the ONT is too big and ugly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_ont_on_side_of_house_or_indoors https://www.reddit.com/r/Fios/comments/440t1v/no_more_ugly_o.... People tried to hold up FTTN rollout in SF because the thought the fiber cabinets were ugly: https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2011/4.... When you nationalize the broadband, you give these folks the power to vote on whether to use their tax dollars to invest in broadband. That might work in a country like Japan or South Korea where people see technological development as the path to prosperity. I suspect it won't work in a country like Australia or the US.

bogomipz 10y ago

>"In my opinion this is the problem of monopoly. US ISP don't have to compete among themselves to offer a better service as I learned recently." This is true, in some cases there will be a duopoly where Verizon FIOS might exist but that's it. The really unforgivable part about all this is that these local monopolies uses public right aways to lay their cable that allows them to deliver service at all. This is because local governments must approve their charter to operate there. These local governments are bought and sold by these monopolies/duopolies the same way Washington is bought and sold by them.