5 ms·

Hope I don't immediately get downvoted for this comment. Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only h

Hope I don't immediately get downvoted for this comment. Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers . That way we won't need an extra govt rule to protect neutrality and the market will solve this issue on its own? I live in a mid size indian city and we have about 8-10 providers ( not sure if they are just subcontractors or what).

disantlor 9y ago
that's a good and totally fair point, but which should come first?
- dominotw 9y ago
  Maybe net neutrality 'rule' that expires in X yrs ? Review why comcast is the only game in town.
Shank 9y ago
> Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers This is a USA-based response. The answer largely comes down to how much infrastructure is required to move a new provider in and how there's little incentive to do so. If you want to look at real world examples of how providers get choked out, look at the Google Fiber deployment in Nashville. Google pays contractors to move lines on poles so they can install their lines. The contractors are usually the same contractors that move lines for other companies, but they all require every other company to make adjustments to their own poles before Google can. There are thousands of poles and the incumbent providers have been intentionally dragging their feet to complete their end of the deal. What happened? Nashville passed "One Touch Make Ready." This let Google just do all of the moving in one go, but it was recently shot down due to a lawsuit from the incumbent ISPs. The current incumbent providers in many areas will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from moving in "the easy way," which means the only way to let a competitor move in is through building out expensive networks on their own dollar. Since the margins aren't that great, nobody is incentivized to actually go through with tearing up streets or building new systems for delivery.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dboreham 9y ago
We have only one or two providers because it is very costly to hang wire on poles all over town (or trench it under the street). Typically the only provider able to foot that bill is whatever company has been in the business of hanging wire around town for decades : either the phone company or the cable company. So in fact there are actually no new providers typically, just the old providers we had 30 years ago using their old wires for IP packets. If you have 10 providers most likely they are not actually providing the physical service, just the routing of your traffic from whoever does own the wire onto the backbone. The UK has this model for example : the phone company owns all the wires (to a first approximation) but other providers market service and deploy routers in switching services. The phone company changes a row in a database to hook your house's DSL traffic up to whoever's backbone router. The US does not have this model for Internet service : whoever owns the wire also owns the routing. Under the 1996 telco act there was such a model (ILECs and so on) but it isn't common today I assume because the law changed or the telcos were allowed to complete with the ILECs once Internet service demand became sufficiently high to justify their entering the market.
- dominotw 9y ago
  So ppl in US are stuck with comcast for eternity ? Also curious what's stopping them from charging $500/month for internet.
lovehashbrowns 9y ago
We can do both, you know? Net neutrality rules now, since we have practicality zero competition. We figure out what's happening with competition; typically it's awful legislation (that these ISPs lobbied for) that's at the local level, and high costs. The local legislation is being, slowly, pushed back. Google helped a bit in trying to get competition going. We can drop the net neutrality legislature when it's clear that there is competition across the country. But not now. We need it. These companies are too entrenched to be trusted in any way shape or form.
masklinn 9y ago
> Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers. Because when ISPs got moved from Title II to Title I in 2005, it ended line-sharing requirements, which means entry into the market is extremely difficult (since you need to build your own physical network from scratch) and incumbents are free to grow as they please and "lobby"[0] against essentially their only threat: local public efforts (municipal broadband). [0] nice wholesome word for plain corruption
- throwaway23497 9y ago
  Sorry, I don't remember this magical time pre-2005 where there were line-sharing requirements on cable networks and I could get more than one cable provider over the same line.
apple4ever 9y ago
Yes, that's exactly the solution. Its not more regulation, its actually less. Get rid of the barriers to entry.

disantlor 9y ago

that's a good and totally fair point, but which should come first?

dominotw 9y ago
Maybe net neutrality 'rule' that expires in X yrs ? Review why comcast is the only game in town.

Shank 9y ago

> Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers This is a USA-based response. The answer largely comes down to how much infrastructure is required to move a new provider in and how there's little incentive to do so. If you want to look at real world examples of how providers get choked out, look at the Google Fiber deployment in Nashville. Google pays contractors to move lines on poles so they can install their lines. The contractors are usually the same contractors that move lines for other companies, but they all require every other company to make adjustments to their own poles before Google can. There are thousands of poles and the incumbent providers have been intentionally dragging their feet to complete their end of the deal. What happened? Nashville passed "One Touch Make Ready." This let Google just do all of the moving in one go, but it was recently shot down due to a lawsuit from the incumbent ISPs. The current incumbent providers in many areas will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from moving in "the easy way," which means the only way to let a competitor move in is through building out expensive networks on their own dollar. Since the margins aren't that great, nobody is incentivized to actually go through with tearing up streets or building new systems for delivery.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dboreham 9y ago

We have only one or two providers because it is very costly to hang wire on poles all over town (or trench it under the street). Typically the only provider able to foot that bill is whatever company has been in the business of hanging wire around town for decades : either the phone company or the cable company. So in fact there are actually no new providers typically, just the old providers we had 30 years ago using their old wires for IP packets. If you have 10 providers most likely they are not actually providing the physical service, just the routing of your traffic from whoever does own the wire onto the backbone. The UK has this model for example : the phone company owns all the wires (to a first approximation) but other providers market service and deploy routers in switching services. The phone company changes a row in a database to hook your house's DSL traffic up to whoever's backbone router. The US does not have this model for Internet service : whoever owns the wire also owns the routing. Under the 1996 telco act there was such a model (ILECs and so on) but it isn't common today I assume because the law changed or the telcos were allowed to complete with the ILECs once Internet service demand became sufficiently high to justify their entering the market.

dominotw 9y ago
So ppl in US are stuck with comcast for eternity ? Also curious what's stopping them from charging $500/month for internet.

lovehashbrowns 9y ago

We can do both, you know? Net neutrality rules now, since we have practicality zero competition. We figure out what's happening with competition; typically it's awful legislation (that these ISPs lobbied for) that's at the local level, and high costs. The local legislation is being, slowly, pushed back. Google helped a bit in trying to get competition going. We can drop the net neutrality legislature when it's clear that there is competition across the country. But not now. We need it. These companies are too entrenched to be trusted in any way shape or form.

masklinn 9y ago

> Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers. Because when ISPs got moved from Title II to Title I in 2005, it ended line-sharing requirements, which means entry into the market is extremely difficult (since you need to build your own physical network from scratch) and incumbents are free to grow as they please and "lobby"[0] against essentially their only threat: local public efforts (municipal broadband). [0] nice wholesome word for plain corruption

throwaway23497 9y ago
Sorry, I don't remember this magical time pre-2005 where there were line-sharing requirements on cable networks and I could get more than one cable provider over the same line.

apple4ever 9y ago

Yes, that's exactly the solution. Its not more regulation, its actually less. Get rid of the barriers to entry.