5 ms·

It seems like everyone would be better served by addressing the root problem, which is that ISPs enjoy local monopolies. This would be a free-market solution th

by weberc2 10y ago

It seems like everyone would be better served by addressing the root problem, which is that ISPs enjoy local monopolies. This would be a free-market solution that ought to satisfy both free-market and privacy advocates would win. Of course, I don't know if there's a good solution for fixing monopolies that doesn't involve additional regulation...

rayiner 10y ago
We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. DC has three different broadband providers: Comcast, RCN, and Verizon. All three are in the process of rolling out gigabit service. That's possible because DC is pretty liberal about letting providers only build in the locations where they can make a profit (instead of demanding they cover the whole city in one go). 5G technologies in particular are going to make it extremely easy for startups to break into existing markets. I did a speedtest.net run the other day in Annapolis, and I got 150 mbps--what I get on my fiber connection at home. And that's just with LTE-A. Fiber might still be faster, but that doesn't matter. It's fast enough for plenty of people and would be meaningful competition for incumbents. Cities just have to get out of the way and let companies build those networks in an incremental and demand-driven way. (I'm not free market fundamentalist--I think it would also be fine to just have to government build the networks. But this stuff is expensive and somebody has to write those billion-dollar checks, and you need to make sure they have the incentive to do so.)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. Property rights of holders of real estate?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    If you're building in a place with electricity, the main relevant property right holder is the utility that owns the poles and conduits (and a regime exists for getting access to those, though it could be improved). Siting things like fiber cabinets isn't as big a deal because hold-out property owners have little leverage. If one won't let you build a node on their property, just build it across the street, and run the fiber along the poles and conduits that are already there. The real hurdles are cable franchise and zoning boards. When AT&T tried to build fiber in SF, it wasn't individual property owners that tried to stop it from building fiber cabinets--it was NIMBY's acting to get the city to stop development. When Verizon tried to build fiber in Baltimore, it wasn't property owners that stopped it; it was the city, which wouldn't give it a TV license.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Sure. Seize the rights of way via eminent domain at the state level and lease it back to the carriers.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Utilities (including carriers) are already required to lease out rights of way they own to other carriers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224.
- weberc2 10y ago
  LGTM
- s73ver 10y ago
  So DC doesn't have 3 different broadband options. Select parts of DC do. Go to the middle or upper class areas and you might be spoiled for choice, but how much choice is there in the lower income areas, where it probably matters more? Also, wireless can be nice, but it is in no way a competitor to wired internet.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Broadband deployment is all about math: you calculate the per subscriber cost, and see if how much you can charge for the service is high enough where, after subtracting costs, you make a return Wall Street is happy with. The math doesn't care about social justice. And you cannot "opt out" of this math through municipal regulation. Because most of the cost of build-out is passing the house, your per-subscriber cost is driven by your uptake ratio: actual subscribers divided by houses passed. If you force providers to build in a lot of neighborhoods where few people can afford the service, you drive down the uptake ratio and drive up the per subscriber cost, making the investment unattractive. Take a city like Baltimore: it has too many poor neighborhoods for competitors to commit to a city-wide build-out. It's also too poor for the government to be able to afford to build its own fiber network. The alternatives are some competition in wealthier areas (with hopefully knock-on effects everywhere else) or no choices at all. If broadband deployment to poor neighborhoods is an important issue, then raise taxes and pay for it. Trying to get private companies to pay for it just creates a special tax on broadband. You impose extra taxes on products you want less of, like cigarettes or alcohol, not products you want more of. As to wireless, it is absolutely a competitor to wired. Throughout Verizon's FiOS footprint, its uptake rate is under 40%. That means 60% of people who can get it choose to get cable instead, even though FiOS is vastly superior. (I don't know why--I think people like the TV packages better on cable.) 5G fixed wireless is absolutely as good as cable--hell, even LTE-A has better upload speeds than cable. Wireless doesn't have to be better than fiber to be a meaningful competitor; it just has to be good enough that it's a viable option for many people.
    - corford 10y ago
      >As to wireless, it is absolutely a competitor to wired. Is latency comparable? Whenever I use mobile data the latency sucks (might be my provider though rather than a technical limitation). Also, how reliable is it during torrential rain?
- givinguflac 10y ago
  When we have guaranteed permanent net neutrality and ban these BS data caps, I may agree with you.
s73ver 10y ago
Even if the free market choice could do it, I would still want regulation. Because there's no reason to allow them to act in this manner, so just bar them from doing so altogether.

by weberc2 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. DC has three different broadband providers: Comcast, RCN, and Verizon. All three are in the process of rolling out gigabit service. That's possible because DC is pretty liberal about letting providers only build in the locations where they can make a profit (instead of demanding they cover the whole city in one go). 5G technologies in particular are going to make it extremely easy for startups to break into existing markets. I did a speedtest.net run the other day in Annapolis, and I got 150 mbps--what I get on my fiber connection at home. And that's just with LTE-A. Fiber might still be faster, but that doesn't matter. It's fast enough for plenty of people and would be meaningful competition for incumbents. Cities just have to get out of the way and let companies build those networks in an incremental and demand-driven way. (I'm not free market fundamentalist--I think it would also be fine to just have to government build the networks. But this stuff is expensive and somebody has to write those billion-dollar checks, and you need to make sure they have the incentive to do so.)

dragonwriter 10y ago
> We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. Property rights of holders of real estate?
- rayiner 10y ago
  If you're building in a place with electricity, the main relevant property right holder is the utility that owns the poles and conduits (and a regime exists for getting access to those, though it could be improved). Siting things like fiber cabinets isn't as big a deal because hold-out property owners have little leverage. If one won't let you build a node on their property, just build it across the street, and run the fiber along the poles and conduits that are already there. The real hurdles are cable franchise and zoning boards. When AT&T tried to build fiber in SF, it wasn't individual property owners that tried to stop it from building fiber cabinets--it was NIMBY's acting to get the city to stop development. When Verizon tried to build fiber in Baltimore, it wasn't property owners that stopped it; it was the city, which wouldn't give it a TV license.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Sure. Seize the rights of way via eminent domain at the state level and lease it back to the carriers.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Utilities (including carriers) are already required to lease out rights of way they own to other carriers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224.
weberc2 10y ago
LGTM
s73ver 10y ago
So DC doesn't have 3 different broadband options. Select parts of DC do. Go to the middle or upper class areas and you might be spoiled for choice, but how much choice is there in the lower income areas, where it probably matters more? Also, wireless can be nice, but it is in no way a competitor to wired internet.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Broadband deployment is all about math: you calculate the per subscriber cost, and see if how much you can charge for the service is high enough where, after subtracting costs, you make a return Wall Street is happy with. The math doesn't care about social justice. And you cannot "opt out" of this math through municipal regulation. Because most of the cost of build-out is passing the house, your per-subscriber cost is driven by your uptake ratio: actual subscribers divided by houses passed. If you force providers to build in a lot of neighborhoods where few people can afford the service, you drive down the uptake ratio and drive up the per subscriber cost, making the investment unattractive. Take a city like Baltimore: it has too many poor neighborhoods for competitors to commit to a city-wide build-out. It's also too poor for the government to be able to afford to build its own fiber network. The alternatives are some competition in wealthier areas (with hopefully knock-on effects everywhere else) or no choices at all. If broadband deployment to poor neighborhoods is an important issue, then raise taxes and pay for it. Trying to get private companies to pay for it just creates a special tax on broadband. You impose extra taxes on products you want less of, like cigarettes or alcohol, not products you want more of. As to wireless, it is absolutely a competitor to wired. Throughout Verizon's FiOS footprint, its uptake rate is under 40%. That means 60% of people who can get it choose to get cable instead, even though FiOS is vastly superior. (I don't know why--I think people like the TV packages better on cable.) 5G fixed wireless is absolutely as good as cable--hell, even LTE-A has better upload speeds than cable. Wireless doesn't have to be better than fiber to be a meaningful competitor; it just has to be good enough that it's a viable option for many people.
  - corford 10y ago
    >As to wireless, it is absolutely a competitor to wired. Is latency comparable? Whenever I use mobile data the latency sucks (might be my provider though rather than a technical limitation). Also, how reliable is it during torrential rain?
givinguflac 10y ago
When we have guaranteed permanent net neutrality and ban these BS data caps, I may agree with you.

s73ver 10y ago

Even if the free market choice could do it, I would still want regulation. Because there's no reason to allow them to act in this manner, so just bar them from doing so altogether.