3 ms·

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

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.

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.