5 ms·

I am hoping (perhaps wishfully) that 5G wireless technology will make much of this conversation moot. The reason why broadband companies are even theoretically

I am hoping (perhaps wishfully) that 5G wireless technology will make much of this conversation moot. The reason why broadband companies are even theoretically able to get away with throttling certain sites is because there is so little consumer choice in broadband; few in this country have a choice at all. Assuming 5G delivers on its promise of broadband quality internet (far from assured), most US consumers will immediately have far more options. Competition between service providers will be a much better check than regulation.

viraptor 9y ago
Assuming that opposition to net neutrality is based on technical limitations rather than a money grab - you're right about 5G. But really... if people can be offered tired access, why wouldn't they?
- azernik 9y ago
  Parent wasn't saying it was based on technical limitations - they were talking about the market leverage that broadband providers have in monopoly markets. By that view, 5G is important for how it changes the market rather than how it changes the technology.
  - viraptor 9y ago
    I get that it changes the monopoly. But if the rules allow tired access, there's nothing guaranteeing that mobile providers won't do the same.
    - problems 9y ago
      In Canada our regulator recently discussed this and one of the largest monopoly ISPs went to bat in favor of net neutrality. I suspect this is in large part due to the great increase in competition from the leased lines being enforced. If all the other companies aren't doing fast lanes and are doling out more bandwidth, well, you better compete, because that's something people will notice pretty quick.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      There will be no guarantee. But there will be multiple service providers for people to choose from. Competition between service providers will push consumers to the better service. For example, suppose Verizon obeyed net neutrality whereas AT&T did not, favoring instead their own content. Consumers would naturally choose Verizon because their connections were not being throttled. If enough consumers move, it will force AT&T to respect net neutrality as well.
tw04 9y ago
Why would you ever think that 5g would come without criminally low data caps?
- speedplane 9y ago
  Because if there are multiple companies offering 5G (and they are not colluding), they will compete for customers. Verizon will offer a higher data cap than T-Mobile. T-Mobile will then respond with a higher data cap than Verizon, and so on.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    I call bullshit on this one. In Germany all 3 major providers offer LTE (O2, though, only since ~2-3 years), and still the most common cap are 3-4 GB, some discounter/business tariffs excepted. Telekom and Vodafone offer a high quality network but high pricing at both and outright scammy sales practices at Vodafone makes me say "no thanks". O2s network is rotten, and it regularly breaks dowm when it's congested (bei it due to political rallies or soccer games) but at least they're cheap and improving. Competition does obviously not work, and Germany is still stuck with slow internet over copper wires and universally shitty mobile providers as a result.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    It isn't a competition problem, it's a laws of physics problem. If you want to carry more traffic you either need more wireless spectrum or more towers. But "more towers" quickly devolves to the point that you would need a "tower" on every block, at which point you have nearly all the expense of a wired network and might as well run the cable inside the buildings.
    - Retric 9y ago
      We are talking about 35.46 gigabits per second. With 20x over subscription that works out to 20MBPS for 35,000 homes per tower. Or roughly a 200 x 200 home 'block' if everyone was your customer. Alternatively, is your suburb is 0.5 homes per acre and 20% of people are your customers that's one tower per ~136 square miles. Note: These numbers are not accurate for several reasons including directional antenna on towers etc but they give a ballpark.

viraptor 9y ago

Assuming that opposition to net neutrality is based on technical limitations rather than a money grab - you're right about 5G. But really... if people can be offered tired access, why wouldn't they?

azernik 9y ago
Parent wasn't saying it was based on technical limitations - they were talking about the market leverage that broadband providers have in monopoly markets. By that view, 5G is important for how it changes the market rather than how it changes the technology.
- viraptor 9y ago
  I get that it changes the monopoly. But if the rules allow tired access, there's nothing guaranteeing that mobile providers won't do the same.
  - problems 9y ago
    In Canada our regulator recently discussed this and one of the largest monopoly ISPs went to bat in favor of net neutrality. I suspect this is in large part due to the great increase in competition from the leased lines being enforced. If all the other companies aren't doing fast lanes and are doling out more bandwidth, well, you better compete, because that's something people will notice pretty quick.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    There will be no guarantee. But there will be multiple service providers for people to choose from. Competition between service providers will push consumers to the better service. For example, suppose Verizon obeyed net neutrality whereas AT&T did not, favoring instead their own content. Consumers would naturally choose Verizon because their connections were not being throttled. If enough consumers move, it will force AT&T to respect net neutrality as well.

tw04 9y ago

Why would you ever think that 5g would come without criminally low data caps?

speedplane 9y ago
Because if there are multiple companies offering 5G (and they are not colluding), they will compete for customers. Verizon will offer a higher data cap than T-Mobile. T-Mobile will then respond with a higher data cap than Verizon, and so on.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  I call bullshit on this one. In Germany all 3 major providers offer LTE (O2, though, only since ~2-3 years), and still the most common cap are 3-4 GB, some discounter/business tariffs excepted. Telekom and Vodafone offer a high quality network but high pricing at both and outright scammy sales practices at Vodafone makes me say "no thanks". O2s network is rotten, and it regularly breaks dowm when it's congested (bei it due to political rallies or soccer games) but at least they're cheap and improving. Competition does obviously not work, and Germany is still stuck with slow internet over copper wires and universally shitty mobile providers as a result.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  It isn't a competition problem, it's a laws of physics problem. If you want to carry more traffic you either need more wireless spectrum or more towers. But "more towers" quickly devolves to the point that you would need a "tower" on every block, at which point you have nearly all the expense of a wired network and might as well run the cable inside the buildings.
  - Retric 9y ago
    We are talking about 35.46 gigabits per second. With 20x over subscription that works out to 20MBPS for 35,000 homes per tower. Or roughly a 200 x 200 home 'block' if everyone was your customer. Alternatively, is your suburb is 0.5 homes per acre and 20% of people are your customers that's one tower per ~136 square miles. Note: These numbers are not accurate for several reasons including directional antenna on towers etc but they give a ballpark.