5 ms·

> Cities don't have any leverage I don't buy that. Cities have people with voting rights. Average income is higher in the US than in Asia, and coverage in As

> Cities don't have any leverage I don't buy that. Cities have people with voting rights. Average income is higher in the US than in Asia, and coverage in Asia is pretty good. You can regulate to encourage a non-monopolistic system, particularly when businesses like Comcast are gouging to the sole benefit of investors who have already made theirs back. Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe [0] [1]. Would ISPs really be put in dire straits if they were required to be a bit more competitive? I doubt it. It is very far fetched, particularly under this administration, that such regulation would happen. We can still discuss it now because we see a potential loss of quality in internet content. If that comes to pass, we can refer back to our earlier ideas and have another plan in mind. These days, I think we all see the need for less silos, not more. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436

nickpsecurity 9y ago
City law doesn't override private property law in most cases. The companies, their assets, their lines, and their plans are all private in that sense. National and state law currently favor the ISP's bribing them. A city might try passing laws and might succeed but it's risking a fight with state and national levels. Those levels that control things like highway funding and where jobs are created with tax revenue. I'd like to see more try just to see what happens. Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.
- studentrob 9y ago
  > Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo. That's cool, thanks for sharing. Hope to see more pushback against current ISPs and their monopolistic tendencies. If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. Anyway, I think we all agree that these monopolies are producing bad businesses and we ought to disrupt them before they do more harm in rolling back net neutrality.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    "If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. " Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
    - studentrob 9y ago
      > A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off. You keep saying that but it doesn't work when the topic is an actual electable one. When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line. The only reason politicians might bow to corporate pressure is they don't have harder pressure from the people on their backs. No popular vote, no job.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        "When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line." Hows that worked out in all the states where people griped about Internet speeds, cost, and availability but politicians passed laws for incumbents anyway? It didn't. You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult. I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
        studentrob 9y ago
        > You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult. That's how voting works. Will it happen this election cycle? Maybe not. On the plus side, we've got plenty of discussion on the books saying what might happen to the internet if we allow net neutrality to lapse. In 10 years from now, when the general public goes looking for what happened to the good old internet, there will be a depth of articles and commentary, as well as people who've been following the issue over that period. It's not worthless to voice your knowledge, even when it appears people will go against you. Consider the FBI record story from yesterday, > Two years later I regained my seat on the board as the riders finally figured out that the strong helmet rule was a good thing. It then started spreading around the world and has since become standard in racing organizations almost everywhere, saving hundreds of lives and preventing thousands of serious head injuries. I’m proud of that. [1] Due to his early effort, people knew where to turn when their theories did not pan out. There was a plan B ready to go, and everyone jumped on board. Not ideal in the formal mathematical-proof sense, but, that's how humans and evolution works. We try stuff, see what works and what doesn't, and adjust if necessary. > I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too. I agree there are a lot of speed bumps. That shouldn't stop us from trying. As technologists, we have an opportunity to share the importance of this topic with our family, friends, and representatives. Perhaps we're wrong. No harm done. In the event we're right, people may consider your words more carefully in the future. [1] http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/les/crypto.htm http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/les/crypto.htm
rayiner 9y ago
> Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe. He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212569. I've been paying $70/month for 150 symmetric in D.C. Doesn't look like my options would be better in London: https://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband-packages https://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband-pa.... It seems like I'd pay somewhat less for half the speed down (and just ~20 mbps up because the last mile is DSL). Situation doesn't seem much better in Germany: https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/2sgi7z/whats_the_state_of_fiber_internet_in_berlin https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/2sgi7z/whats_the_st....
- studentrob 9y ago
  > He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Yup. Doesn't mean competition can't happen another way. > Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S. Why limit the comparison to Europe? Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? No country is identical anyway, so we know apples to apples isn't really happening. And, to see it done somewhere successfully is to know it's possible. Good quality and competition can be found in parts Asia, Europe, and the US. I'm confident we can figure out how to increase competition among ISPs in the US so we do not have walled gardens shoved down our throats. I don't know that I have the right solutions in mind but I would like to discuss possibilities and see lawmakers attempt various negotiations with data providers.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Why limit the comparison to Europe? The question isn't "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network?" It's "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network, in a country where people prioritize many other things more highly?" It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. People in the U.S. don't see broadband that way. To the extent ordinary people care about it at all, they see the issue in terms of the pressing social justice issues the U.S. faces: rural/urban, low-income/high-income, etc. They care (quite reasonably) a lot more about whether low-income folks in Baltimore have access to broadband (and computers to use it!) than whether knowledge workers in Menlo Park have gigabit. That's why we have well-developed programs for, e.g. subsidizing rural telephone deployment, but really nothing for fiber: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-.... This is particularly relevant in the context of municipally-supported systems displacing private ones. Take Amtrak. A private system aimed at shuttling knowledge workers from DC to New York might actually be pretty good. Instead, we have a public system where the only sensical route is burdened by having to subsidize trains around the country nobody uses. Here in Annapolis (a D.C. satellite city), Verizon is upgrading our fiber to gigabit and I can get 50-150 mbps downloads on my iPhone. Having experienced the D.C. subway spend a good chunk of the last year literally on fire, there is no way I'd vote to turn internet service over to the government. If I lived in Tokyo I'd feel differently, but I'm stuck with the government I've got. > Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

City law doesn't override private property law in most cases. The companies, their assets, their lines, and their plans are all private in that sense. National and state law currently favor the ISP's bribing them. A city might try passing laws and might succeed but it's risking a fight with state and national levels. Those levels that control things like highway funding and where jobs are created with tax revenue. I'd like to see more try just to see what happens. Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.

studentrob 9y ago
> Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo. That's cool, thanks for sharing. Hope to see more pushback against current ISPs and their monopolistic tendencies. If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. Anyway, I think we all agree that these monopolies are producing bad businesses and we ought to disrupt them before they do more harm in rolling back net neutrality.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  "If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. " Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
  - studentrob 9y ago
    > A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off. You keep saying that but it doesn't work when the topic is an actual electable one. When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line. The only reason politicians might bow to corporate pressure is they don't have harder pressure from the people on their backs. No popular vote, no job.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      "When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line." Hows that worked out in all the states where people griped about Internet speeds, cost, and availability but politicians passed laws for incumbents anyway? It didn't. You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult. I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
      - studentrob 9y ago
        > You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult. That's how voting works. Will it happen this election cycle? Maybe not. On the plus side, we've got plenty of discussion on the books saying what might happen to the internet if we allow net neutrality to lapse. In 10 years from now, when the general public goes looking for what happened to the good old internet, there will be a depth of articles and commentary, as well as people who've been following the issue over that period. It's not worthless to voice your knowledge, even when it appears people will go against you. Consider the FBI record story from yesterday, > Two years later I regained my seat on the board as the riders finally figured out that the strong helmet rule was a good thing. It then started spreading around the world and has since become standard in racing organizations almost everywhere, saving hundreds of lives and preventing thousands of serious head injuries. I’m proud of that. [1] Due to his early effort, people knew where to turn when their theories did not pan out. There was a plan B ready to go, and everyone jumped on board. Not ideal in the formal mathematical-proof sense, but, that's how humans and evolution works. We try stuff, see what works and what doesn't, and adjust if necessary. > I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too. I agree there are a lot of speed bumps. That shouldn't stop us from trying. As technologists, we have an opportunity to share the importance of this topic with our family, friends, and representatives. Perhaps we're wrong. No harm done. In the event we're right, people may consider your words more carefully in the future. [1] http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/les/crypto.htm http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/les/crypto.htm

rayiner 9y ago

> Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe. He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212569. I've been paying $70/month for 150 symmetric in D.C. Doesn't look like my options would be better in London: https://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband-packages https://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband-pa.... It seems like I'd pay somewhat less for half the speed down (and just ~20 mbps up because the last mile is DSL). Situation doesn't seem much better in Germany: https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/2sgi7z/whats_the_state_of_fiber_internet_in_berlin https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/2sgi7z/whats_the_st....

studentrob 9y ago
> He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Yup. Doesn't mean competition can't happen another way. > Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S. Why limit the comparison to Europe? Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? No country is identical anyway, so we know apples to apples isn't really happening. And, to see it done somewhere successfully is to know it's possible. Good quality and competition can be found in parts Asia, Europe, and the US. I'm confident we can figure out how to increase competition among ISPs in the US so we do not have walled gardens shoved down our throats. I don't know that I have the right solutions in mind but I would like to discuss possibilities and see lawmakers attempt various negotiations with data providers.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Why limit the comparison to Europe? The question isn't "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network?" It's "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network, in a country where people prioritize many other things more highly?" It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. People in the U.S. don't see broadband that way. To the extent ordinary people care about it at all, they see the issue in terms of the pressing social justice issues the U.S. faces: rural/urban, low-income/high-income, etc. They care (quite reasonably) a lot more about whether low-income folks in Baltimore have access to broadband (and computers to use it!) than whether knowledge workers in Menlo Park have gigabit. That's why we have well-developed programs for, e.g. subsidizing rural telephone deployment, but really nothing for fiber: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-.... This is particularly relevant in the context of municipally-supported systems displacing private ones. Take Amtrak. A private system aimed at shuttling knowledge workers from DC to New York might actually be pretty good. Instead, we have a public system where the only sensical route is burdened by having to subsidize trains around the country nobody uses. Here in Annapolis (a D.C. satellite city), Verizon is upgrading our fiber to gigabit and I can get 50-150 mbps downloads on my iPhone. Having experienced the D.C. subway spend a good chunk of the last year literally on fire, there is no way I'd vote to turn internet service over to the government. If I lived in Tokyo I'd feel differently, but I'm stuck with the government I've got. > Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.