14 ms·

Net Neutrality’s Holes in Europe May Offer Peek at Future in U.S

137 points by SREinSF 9y ago

PebblesHD 9y ago
I hadn’t considered the impacts such a ruling would have on zero ratings schemes, the two hadn’t even connected in my mind, but now that it’s been mentioned it would clearly fall afoul of any existing regulations. There used to be a similar plan from Optus in Australia to zero rate Facebook, and there’s currently one to do the same with Spotify, but today these accompany generous data plans in general, whereas originally it was offered on very low cap plans such as the 100mb/mo plan. Curious to see how this plays out internationally in countries like Aus where this already occurs unchallenged, and whether they will now go further following the ruling in the U.S.
indubitable 9y ago
The article mentions that, "France has four major mobile and internet operators and nine low-cost offshoots. Britain has more than 50." I'd appreciate if somebody could explain something here because that doesn't seem to make any economic sense. Let's assume that France/Britain have absolutely rigid and perfectly enforced net neutrality. That means internet service providers can compete only on price/speed as everything else is supposed to be otherwise identical. 13 different companies, let alone 50? How? Users would simply pick the company with the lowest price for their desired speed. And the cheapest service is going to tend to be the largest due to economies of scale. The end result is a natural trend towards monopolization when companies are allowed to only compete on price/speed. I mean you might decide to pass on a "low-cost" alternative in most industries as there is often an implied "low-quality" qualifier attached. But with strong net neutrality, this is not supposed to be the case. They state a speed, they state a price. Everything else is identical. So what gives? I find it disappointing that the NYT did not even bother to even consider this obvious question since it seems to cut to the core of this issue!
- mdekkers 9y ago
  In the UK, there are only two or three providers actually providing last mile, and the majority of the 50 mentioned simply re-brand the BT/OpenReach product. All you need to become and ISP is a browser and some clients. Some of the larger ones have their own backbone, to an extent, but the majority simply re-brand
  - philjohn 9y ago
    And it works, because OpenReach are heavily regulated by the government, in light of the fact that they have a monopoly when it comes to copper last mile infrastructure (ignoring KCOM for the sake of simplification, and they're only in Hull). You do have LLU where internet companies put their own DSLAMs in an OpenReach exchange, once again, this is because of heavy regulation. That has become less common of late as more people move away from ADSL to VDSL, where once again OpenReach have a monopoly in the streetside DSLAMs. The move to Fibre though is an interesting one, as we now have several options (Depending on where you live) such as GigaClear, Hyperoptic and some business only providers. There's also rural fibre in the case of B4RN and boutique wireless providers where OpenReach has failed to install a decent service. There's also Virgin Media, who provide last mile triple play over cable, but they don't have 100% coverage. Finally, the government has given out large block grants to local authorities to help pay for rollout of "Super" and "Ultra" fast broadband to places OpenReach initially deemed financially unviable. The thing about competition, is it only works when any part of the equation that is a monopoly, or near monopoly, is regulated as a utility.
    - mdekkers 9y ago
      Nice comment, thanks. GigaClear etc are new to me. I left the UK 5 years ago, but was heavily involved in the telco business. Agree with your statement (and benefits) of heavily and fairly regulated monopolies.
- rebolek 9y ago
  The important point here is mobile operators. This kind of practice usually does not happen with non-mobile ISPs.
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    There are about 60 ISPs (fixed line and mobile, some do both) in the UK. Mostly you're choosing the top pure of connection and the customer service. https://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps https://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps
- StephenAmar 9y ago
  Regarding France, you do end up with a ton of options. For instance, in Paris, you have multiple DSL providers, multiple fiber providers and typically one cable provider. The French Government laid out ton of dark fiber in the past decades across the entire country and ISPs are using it (http://www.telcite.fr/?lang=en http://www.telcite.fr/?lang=en for instance). Network performance may vary between ISPs (ex https://gigaom.com/2013/01/02/youtube-sucks-on-french-isp-free-french-regulators-want-to-know-why/ https://gigaom.com/2013/01/02/youtube-sucks-on-french-isp-fr...) Most French ISPs throw in TV and home phone for free, so depending on which ISPs you pick, you'll get different set of channels. You can also bundle mobile phone service etc.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Judging from the Wikipedia list of UK ISPs[1], providers use a variety of different technologies, have different coverage areas, lease lines to smaller ISPs, provide different bundles with other services that they provide, and so on. Maybe one service is known to optimize for throughput, while another offers slower speeds, but also lower latency for gaming, or something. There are a lot of services besides just the internet connection that ISPs could provide to their customers (or not provide, and market themselves as the more economical option). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in...
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > Maybe one service is known to optimize for throughput, while another offers slower speeds, but also lower latency for gaming, or something. This isn't just reserved to UK ISPs, afaik the situation in Germany is kinda similar. Fun tidbit about the monetization of features: When ADSL just became "a thing" it introduced higher latency compared to ISDN. Quickly people figured out that certain ISPs could toggle something on called "fastpath", which would reduce the latency quite a bit if you called the support hotline and asked for it. Took a couple of months until one of the major ISPs (Telekom) started charging 5€ monthly extra for it on the lower speed ADSL tariffs, luckily that stopped being a thing with VDSL.
  - petepete 9y ago
    All major ISPs in the UK are resellers of the same fibre infrastructure, run by OpenReach[0], a subsidiary of BT (formerly the national telco, now one of the larger ISPs). OpenReach has to provide equal access to other ISPs by law, so the playing field between them is very even. The only major outlier is Virgin Media, who own the cable (as in cable TV) network covering some built-up bits of the county; their fibre network is entirely separate. [0]https://www.openreach.co.uk/ https://www.openreach.co.uk/
    - KaiserPro 9y ago
      Its not fibre. Its copper. Everything is copper. BT/openreach own all of the last mile infra, apart from a few cases in villages and Hull. Its only the last mile that they provide at any scale. the rest is arranged by the ISP
- seszett 9y ago
  For France, the four major operators compete primarily on antenna coverage for mobile, and for home internet they each provide different technologies, bundles of TV channels, telephone plans, and set-top boxes. They don't really compete on speed as nowadays almost every operator just provides the max that can be offered by the technology that connects the home. The low-cost operators usually provide about the same thing as their parent major operator, but with very reduced support, no brick-and-mortar offices you can go to when you have a problem, and less bundled services.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Damn this sounds so much like it was supposed to be in the US until internet regulations got axed in 2002. Anecdotally, my observations align (at least on our recent visits).
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  We don't have net neutrality, we have competition. That is the key point, net nuetrality is a moot point because if an ISP were to do something like charge for iplayer (BBC catchup service) which was mooted a few years ago, they'd all move to a different ISP. Because we have for the moment a roughly open market. There are parts that are controlled by a monopoly, but thats the people who provide the last mile infrastructure. They have strict regulations saying that they must charge a fixed price for rental of the infrastructure with no obligations other than to pay for the last mile. (they can choose to be a pure virtual operator, just skinning the service, or almost entirely run its own infra, save the last bit of copper) Also, the people that run the last mile monopoly are not the people providing backhaul. That is mostly an open market too. More open than the last mile copper at least. Linx/lonap are all coops, where you pay a membership fee, and the cost of powering your equipment, any interconnect arrangements are up to you and your peers. In short, we have a much more open market, but with no net nuetrality. what america needs is competition, and the seperation of last mile, ISPs and backhaul. None of which you are going to get in present times.
  - croon 9y ago
    Slight clarification: We have an open market explicitly because we have tight last-mile regulation. If we didn't we'd all have local monopolies. I don't know specifically where you are, but it's true in most of Europe.
    - philjohn 9y ago
      We do have one local monopoly, KCOM in Hull.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Some of Europe has tighter last mile regulation, but it’s not necessarily better. Take France, for example. France applies unbundling to copper telephone lines and fiber, but not cable. It subsidises fiber backhaul for DSL. Overall, it’s got similar fiber deployment to the US (about 10%) but overall much slower speeds (according to Akamai, 11 Mbps average in France versus 19 Mbps in the US). But there is lots of ISP competition in DSL, like there was in the US in the early 2000s. But most people don’t have access to faster cable alternatives, because subsidization of the DSL network killed competition. Is this better?
- distances 9y ago
  Economies of scale do not really happen for ISPs when there's strong regulation allowing for virtual operators. If you grow very large, you are expected to provide more user support, public relations, advertising, and other similar functions that just cost extra. Small virtual ISPs can operate close to the actual costs. It's basically a two-tier market: a few expensive name brands, and lots of low-cost, low-support brands.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Back when DSL was regulated that way, it was pretty much the reverse; the big name brands wrode on being the obvious default choice with horrible user support, while the independent resellers often had stellar support (less slick advertising, but probably higher advertising cost per user, because of economies of scale.)
    - distances 9y ago
      Well, "more user support" doesn't mean it's better, just that they need more of it. The big names have all the basic users who likely call much more even for basic things like Windows problems, while the small ones get to concentrate on relevant issues with more knowledgeable user base.
      - calgoo 9y ago
        Well, here in spain the difference was that once the virtual providers came in, i could actually get technical support versus the big providers where it was next to impossible. The installation time also went from 90+ days to 5+ days, and the big providers had to improve as well.
- GuB-42 9y ago
  Competition in France is driven by: - price and pricing structure - coverage, most important for mobile and in low density areas - mobile data - speed but not so much, ISPs often offer you the fastest speed available, even for low tiers - service level And because most landlines are triple-play, VoIP and TV service are also a deciding factor. Some ISP also provide bundles with additional service, like subscriptions, subsidized phones and other stuff. It is fine with net neutrality as long as there is no preferential treatment when it comes to internet service, though there may be issues with product tying laws. To counter monopolies, large ISPs are required to rent their infrastructure to other players at a reasonable price.
- ksk 9y ago
  >That means internet service providers can compete only on price/speed as everything else is supposed to be otherwise identical. 13 different companies, let alone 50? How? Users would simply pick the company with the lowest price for their desired speed. And the cheapest service is going to tend to be the largest due to economies of scale. The end result is a natural trend towards monopolization when companies are allowed to only compete on price/speed. They won't be identical, because every ISP will have different peering and transit arrangements. And depending on those arrangements the access speeds for netflix/hulu/youtube will differ. Traffic that's internal to the ISP's network will always be the cheapest. Which is why an ISP can subsidize streaming services if they are hosted internally. I have had this debate with some NN supporters, and they do not seem to appreciate this basic commercial angle.
PeterStuer 9y ago
Outside the wireless space, the local loop is a rather strong classical mono/duo/-poly. While there may be several re-sellers, and more players at the national level, in practice for most individual homes the choices are extremely limited. Network effects (in an economic sense) are in play at the ISP level so entering the mature market as an 'independent' isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Consumer Internet is furthermore already packaged in with a TV/PSTN/Mobile bundle offer. Keeping an open Internet has definitely been a struggle in Europe. One that is under constant attack. A strong Net Neutrality stance has been the only defense, but also over here it is failing as we speak.
- phlo 9y ago
  In Switzerland, some cities have started to break this up, and it's wonderful: Responsibility is split between the local utility and telcos. The utilities are responsible for the last mile (just as they are for power and water), and provide a fiber connection from the customer to one of several points of presence per city. Telcos rent space in these PoPs. They get to skip the expensive last mile and focus on Internet connectivity. In places where FTTH is available, a wonderful ecosystem of mini-ISPs has sprung up, serving different niches. Some focus on integrated multi-play (Internet/TV/Phone/etc.) setups, others offer affordable quick connections without the bullshit. Choice and competition are alive and well, despite (or because?) part of the infrastructure is publicly funded.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Outside the wireless space, the local loop is a rather strong classical mono/duo/-poly. In theory the US has had a local loop unbundling policy since 1996, the issues so far as I can see them are: 1. I don't know that it applies to Cable 2. it's very hard to reach the local loop when line-sharing was unmandated when DSL ISPs were moved to Title I in 2005 3. in 2004, the Supreme Court voided some of the leasing rules
dingoonline 9y ago
"But the offer alarmed Swedish media companies, which warned that the deal gave Facebook an advantage over competitors, and Telia an edge over other telecom operators." ISP's have a million and one other ways to be anti-competitive. Example, in New Zealand, one of the major ISP's runs 'Lightbox' a streaming competitor. If you sign up to any of their plans, you get free Lightbox. This incentives the customer to not use other streaming services. You can talk about zero-rating all day long but no amount of neutrality regulation will prevent something like the example above from happening. What happens if Comcast decides that Hulu Plus will be free with their broadband? It has the same effect as if Comcast decided to zero-rate Hulu on their network. For their to be real changes in the American ISP market, you need competition.
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  You don’t even need to ban bundling. Just require that customers be permitted to decline bundled services and receive the full-price discount.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    What's the full price when the product is only sold in the bundle?
    - arbie 9y ago
      "Bundled content has no cash value if declined."
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      A price in line with what it costs them to provide that service. If they price it lower than that it is illegal dumping.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I'm not sure that would be feasible; in a case like this, doing a reverse "hollywood accounting" would be easy. The bandwidth is "free", since it runs on their existing network. The content is "free", since it's included in their TV licensing. What can you impute just to the service? A bit of storage and a few hours of software development, divided by all their customers. That's probably about ten cents or so.
spodek 9y ago
Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal? I'd guess most people don't know or care. Still, millions wrote to object to the proposed repeal. Is it possible that only a couple hundred people are making this decision for 300 million over the objections of millions?
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal? I can only assume the entirety of the GOP given it's been part of the party platform since at least 2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2aebc568-f1d2-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2aebc568-f1d2-11e1-892d...
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    The GOP has been captured by corporate special interests and is also caught up in a mindless "repeal all the regulations" hysteria. This is total speculation, but I'm guessing that the rank-and-file of that party might have a different opinion if they understood and considered the specific issue in isolation.
- figurehe4d 9y ago
  Had a convo in my CS class about it today. Literally a room full of 19-20 something males, many who are avid gamers, or want to make tech it into a job... I was the only one who had anything to say about nn. People really don't know.
  - amelius 9y ago
    Perhaps that's because NN has more to do with underhand business tactics than with tech.
  - brandonmenc 9y ago
    This is the exact opposite of my experience. I've been bombarded with pro-NN propaganda from most of my friends, and none of them are engineers, or programmers, or live even remotely near SV.
kaplun 9y ago
In France, the main mobile operator Orange, offers you tethering only as an option to be additionally paid on top of your data plan. They basically monitor the connection to check if your mobile is forwarding packages and do mitm in order to display advertisement about the additional paid option.
- TheCowboy 9y ago
  AT&T USA also charges extra for tethering on top of a data plan. Apple's iPhone will even block you from tethering if you don't pay extra to AT&T.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    That already violates net neutrality.
    - ac29 9y ago
      Net neutrality rules never applied to wireless connections.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        The principle applies to all traffic. Current rules are far from perfect on their own and have loopholes already. Instead of repealing them, they should be extended, including outright banning anti-competitive data caps which is a pure rip off.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Yes they do.
      - Feniks 9y ago
        Were I live packet inspection is illegal, regardless if its wired or mobile.
  - celeritascelery 9y ago
    Same with Verizon
FidelCashflow 9y ago
My account (US, MN) with Virgin Mobile is already doing this with "free" streaming music. A hand full of apps (Pandora, iHeartRadio, Slacker, 8tracks and Milk Music) don't count towards the monthly data cap.
- maxyme 9y ago
  Yep T-Mobile does this as well. There is a way for any streaming music service to put in a request to be added to the list, but I'm not sure if smaller companies get accepted or not. Edit: There used to be, can't find the link anymore...
ccvannorman 9y ago
>“From a user perspective, I don’t think it’s a problem and I think most consumers don’t think it’s an issue,” said Magnus Haglunds, a Stockholm-based independent music producer who uses the Telia service. “There are those who may have to change from Apple Music to Spotify. But then they get free surfing on Spotify.” What kind of a sheep customer thinks, "Well I guess I'll just totally change the service I use because that's what my provider wants!" People like that need, if you'll excuse the gendered metaphor, a swift kick in the balls.
PeterStuer 9y ago
It is quite simple realy. If I pay x€ for y GB/Month, the ISP should not dictate what over the top services I spend that budget on, nor favor its own services (or those of 'partners') by selective exclusion of that traffic from limits that other are held to, or by hindering traffic from the non-partnered services in any way. Now for the 'complicated' part. In practice it is not difficult to create a situation where everything is degraded. You just under-provision on a choke point. If you then sell alternative routes, or allow edge caches beyond the choke point, you technically didn't 'hinder' any traffic, you just provided such a lousy service to begin with that any not otherwise enabled service provider doesn't stand a chance of offering a decent experience on your network. But just pointing to a technical situation where it is hard to write a general 'rule' that in any arbitrary case can unequivocally objectively and automatically say whether a certain criterion was fulfilled, and then saying that because it is hard or even impossible to specify the whole regulation should be scrapped, that is disingenuous. The spirit of the regulation can be perfectly fine, even though case-by-case judgement may be required to determine compliance. Those that will say 'but you can vote with your wallet', I can see where you come from, but the reasoning is flawed. In practice telecoms is not an open market, and many households have near 0 meaningful choice. Strong economic network effects are inherent, and lasting competition has only been present under very strict regulation.
- dilap 9y ago
  Yeah, healthy competition and choice of providers seems like the real solution to me. Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. NN just feels like a distraction, driven by incredibly manipulative and overhyped propaganda.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Hmm... competition/choice and NN are actually conflated. Without NN, incumbents can raise barriers (e.g. zero-rating, etc) such that upstarts have no way to compete.
    - dilap 9y ago
binarynate 9y ago
Call your senators! https://www.callmycongress.com/ https://www.callmycongress.com/

137 points by SREinSF 9y ago

I hadn’t considered the impacts such a ruling would have on zero ratings schemes, the two hadn’t even connected in my mind, but now that it’s been mentioned it would clearly fall afoul of any existing regulations. There used to be a similar plan from Optus in Australia to zero rate Facebook, and there’s currently one to do the same with Spotify, but today these accompany generous data plans in general, whereas originally it was offered on very low cap plans such as the 100mb/mo plan. Curious to see how this plays out internationally in countries like Aus where this already occurs unchallenged, and whether they will now go further following the ruling in the U.S.

indubitable 9y ago

The article mentions that, "France has four major mobile and internet operators and nine low-cost offshoots. Britain has more than 50." I'd appreciate if somebody could explain something here because that doesn't seem to make any economic sense. Let's assume that France/Britain have absolutely rigid and perfectly enforced net neutrality. That means internet service providers can compete only on price/speed as everything else is supposed to be otherwise identical. 13 different companies, let alone 50? How? Users would simply pick the company with the lowest price for their desired speed. And the cheapest service is going to tend to be the largest due to economies of scale. The end result is a natural trend towards monopolization when companies are allowed to only compete on price/speed. I mean you might decide to pass on a "low-cost" alternative in most industries as there is often an implied "low-quality" qualifier attached. But with strong net neutrality, this is not supposed to be the case. They state a speed, they state a price. Everything else is identical. So what gives? I find it disappointing that the NYT did not even bother to even consider this obvious question since it seems to cut to the core of this issue!

mdekkers 9y ago
In the UK, there are only two or three providers actually providing last mile, and the majority of the 50 mentioned simply re-brand the BT/OpenReach product. All you need to become and ISP is a browser and some clients. Some of the larger ones have their own backbone, to an extent, but the majority simply re-brand
- philjohn 9y ago
  And it works, because OpenReach are heavily regulated by the government, in light of the fact that they have a monopoly when it comes to copper last mile infrastructure (ignoring KCOM for the sake of simplification, and they're only in Hull). You do have LLU where internet companies put their own DSLAMs in an OpenReach exchange, once again, this is because of heavy regulation. That has become less common of late as more people move away from ADSL to VDSL, where once again OpenReach have a monopoly in the streetside DSLAMs. The move to Fibre though is an interesting one, as we now have several options (Depending on where you live) such as GigaClear, Hyperoptic and some business only providers. There's also rural fibre in the case of B4RN and boutique wireless providers where OpenReach has failed to install a decent service. There's also Virgin Media, who provide last mile triple play over cable, but they don't have 100% coverage. Finally, the government has given out large block grants to local authorities to help pay for rollout of "Super" and "Ultra" fast broadband to places OpenReach initially deemed financially unviable. The thing about competition, is it only works when any part of the equation that is a monopoly, or near monopoly, is regulated as a utility.
  - mdekkers 9y ago
    Nice comment, thanks. GigaClear etc are new to me. I left the UK 5 years ago, but was heavily involved in the telco business. Agree with your statement (and benefits) of heavily and fairly regulated monopolies.
rebolek 9y ago
The important point here is mobile operators. This kind of practice usually does not happen with non-mobile ISPs.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  There are about 60 ISPs (fixed line and mobile, some do both) in the UK. Mostly you're choosing the top pure of connection and the customer service. https://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps https://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps
StephenAmar 9y ago
Regarding France, you do end up with a ton of options. For instance, in Paris, you have multiple DSL providers, multiple fiber providers and typically one cable provider. The French Government laid out ton of dark fiber in the past decades across the entire country and ISPs are using it (http://www.telcite.fr/?lang=en http://www.telcite.fr/?lang=en for instance). Network performance may vary between ISPs (ex https://gigaom.com/2013/01/02/youtube-sucks-on-french-isp-free-french-regulators-want-to-know-why/ https://gigaom.com/2013/01/02/youtube-sucks-on-french-isp-fr...) Most French ISPs throw in TV and home phone for free, so depending on which ISPs you pick, you'll get different set of channels. You can also bundle mobile phone service etc.
khedoros1 9y ago
Judging from the Wikipedia list of UK ISPs[1], providers use a variety of different technologies, have different coverage areas, lease lines to smaller ISPs, provide different bundles with other services that they provide, and so on. Maybe one service is known to optimize for throughput, while another offers slower speeds, but also lower latency for gaming, or something. There are a lot of services besides just the internet connection that ISPs could provide to their customers (or not provide, and market themselves as the more economical option). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in...
- freeflight 9y ago
  > Maybe one service is known to optimize for throughput, while another offers slower speeds, but also lower latency for gaming, or something. This isn't just reserved to UK ISPs, afaik the situation in Germany is kinda similar. Fun tidbit about the monetization of features: When ADSL just became "a thing" it introduced higher latency compared to ISDN. Quickly people figured out that certain ISPs could toggle something on called "fastpath", which would reduce the latency quite a bit if you called the support hotline and asked for it. Took a couple of months until one of the major ISPs (Telekom) started charging 5€ monthly extra for it on the lower speed ADSL tariffs, luckily that stopped being a thing with VDSL.
- petepete 9y ago
  All major ISPs in the UK are resellers of the same fibre infrastructure, run by OpenReach[0], a subsidiary of BT (formerly the national telco, now one of the larger ISPs). OpenReach has to provide equal access to other ISPs by law, so the playing field between them is very even. The only major outlier is Virgin Media, who own the cable (as in cable TV) network covering some built-up bits of the county; their fibre network is entirely separate. [0]https://www.openreach.co.uk/ https://www.openreach.co.uk/
  - KaiserPro 9y ago
    Its not fibre. Its copper. Everything is copper. BT/openreach own all of the last mile infra, apart from a few cases in villages and Hull. Its only the last mile that they provide at any scale. the rest is arranged by the ISP
seszett 9y ago
For France, the four major operators compete primarily on antenna coverage for mobile, and for home internet they each provide different technologies, bundles of TV channels, telephone plans, and set-top boxes. They don't really compete on speed as nowadays almost every operator just provides the max that can be offered by the technology that connects the home. The low-cost operators usually provide about the same thing as their parent major operator, but with very reduced support, no brick-and-mortar offices you can go to when you have a problem, and less bundled services.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Damn this sounds so much like it was supposed to be in the US until internet regulations got axed in 2002. Anecdotally, my observations align (at least on our recent visits).
KaiserPro 9y ago
We don't have net neutrality, we have competition. That is the key point, net nuetrality is a moot point because if an ISP were to do something like charge for iplayer (BBC catchup service) which was mooted a few years ago, they'd all move to a different ISP. Because we have for the moment a roughly open market. There are parts that are controlled by a monopoly, but thats the people who provide the last mile infrastructure. They have strict regulations saying that they must charge a fixed price for rental of the infrastructure with no obligations other than to pay for the last mile. (they can choose to be a pure virtual operator, just skinning the service, or almost entirely run its own infra, save the last bit of copper) Also, the people that run the last mile monopoly are not the people providing backhaul. That is mostly an open market too. More open than the last mile copper at least. Linx/lonap are all coops, where you pay a membership fee, and the cost of powering your equipment, any interconnect arrangements are up to you and your peers. In short, we have a much more open market, but with no net nuetrality. what america needs is competition, and the seperation of last mile, ISPs and backhaul. None of which you are going to get in present times.
- croon 9y ago
  Slight clarification: We have an open market explicitly because we have tight last-mile regulation. If we didn't we'd all have local monopolies. I don't know specifically where you are, but it's true in most of Europe.
  - philjohn 9y ago
    We do have one local monopoly, KCOM in Hull.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Some of Europe has tighter last mile regulation, but it’s not necessarily better. Take France, for example. France applies unbundling to copper telephone lines and fiber, but not cable. It subsidises fiber backhaul for DSL. Overall, it’s got similar fiber deployment to the US (about 10%) but overall much slower speeds (according to Akamai, 11 Mbps average in France versus 19 Mbps in the US). But there is lots of ISP competition in DSL, like there was in the US in the early 2000s. But most people don’t have access to faster cable alternatives, because subsidization of the DSL network killed competition. Is this better?
distances 9y ago
Economies of scale do not really happen for ISPs when there's strong regulation allowing for virtual operators. If you grow very large, you are expected to provide more user support, public relations, advertising, and other similar functions that just cost extra. Small virtual ISPs can operate close to the actual costs. It's basically a two-tier market: a few expensive name brands, and lots of low-cost, low-support brands.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Back when DSL was regulated that way, it was pretty much the reverse; the big name brands wrode on being the obvious default choice with horrible user support, while the independent resellers often had stellar support (less slick advertising, but probably higher advertising cost per user, because of economies of scale.)
  - distances 9y ago
    Well, "more user support" doesn't mean it's better, just that they need more of it. The big names have all the basic users who likely call much more even for basic things like Windows problems, while the small ones get to concentrate on relevant issues with more knowledgeable user base.
    - calgoo 9y ago
      Well, here in spain the difference was that once the virtual providers came in, i could actually get technical support versus the big providers where it was next to impossible. The installation time also went from 90+ days to 5+ days, and the big providers had to improve as well.
GuB-42 9y ago
Competition in France is driven by: - price and pricing structure - coverage, most important for mobile and in low density areas - mobile data - speed but not so much, ISPs often offer you the fastest speed available, even for low tiers - service level And because most landlines are triple-play, VoIP and TV service are also a deciding factor. Some ISP also provide bundles with additional service, like subscriptions, subsidized phones and other stuff. It is fine with net neutrality as long as there is no preferential treatment when it comes to internet service, though there may be issues with product tying laws. To counter monopolies, large ISPs are required to rent their infrastructure to other players at a reasonable price.
ksk 9y ago
>That means internet service providers can compete only on price/speed as everything else is supposed to be otherwise identical. 13 different companies, let alone 50? How? Users would simply pick the company with the lowest price for their desired speed. And the cheapest service is going to tend to be the largest due to economies of scale. The end result is a natural trend towards monopolization when companies are allowed to only compete on price/speed. They won't be identical, because every ISP will have different peering and transit arrangements. And depending on those arrangements the access speeds for netflix/hulu/youtube will differ. Traffic that's internal to the ISP's network will always be the cheapest. Which is why an ISP can subsidize streaming services if they are hosted internally. I have had this debate with some NN supporters, and they do not seem to appreciate this basic commercial angle.

PeterStuer 9y ago

Outside the wireless space, the local loop is a rather strong classical mono/duo/-poly. While there may be several re-sellers, and more players at the national level, in practice for most individual homes the choices are extremely limited. Network effects (in an economic sense) are in play at the ISP level so entering the mature market as an 'independent' isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Consumer Internet is furthermore already packaged in with a TV/PSTN/Mobile bundle offer. Keeping an open Internet has definitely been a struggle in Europe. One that is under constant attack. A strong Net Neutrality stance has been the only defense, but also over here it is failing as we speak.

phlo 9y ago
In Switzerland, some cities have started to break this up, and it's wonderful: Responsibility is split between the local utility and telcos. The utilities are responsible for the last mile (just as they are for power and water), and provide a fiber connection from the customer to one of several points of presence per city. Telcos rent space in these PoPs. They get to skip the expensive last mile and focus on Internet connectivity. In places where FTTH is available, a wonderful ecosystem of mini-ISPs has sprung up, serving different niches. Some focus on integrated multi-play (Internet/TV/Phone/etc.) setups, others offer affordable quick connections without the bullshit. Choice and competition are alive and well, despite (or because?) part of the infrastructure is publicly funded.
masklinn 9y ago
> Outside the wireless space, the local loop is a rather strong classical mono/duo/-poly. In theory the US has had a local loop unbundling policy since 1996, the issues so far as I can see them are: 1. I don't know that it applies to Cable 2. it's very hard to reach the local loop when line-sharing was unmandated when DSL ISPs were moved to Title I in 2005 3. in 2004, the Supreme Court voided some of the leasing rules

dingoonline 9y ago

"But the offer alarmed Swedish media companies, which warned that the deal gave Facebook an advantage over competitors, and Telia an edge over other telecom operators." ISP's have a million and one other ways to be anti-competitive. Example, in New Zealand, one of the major ISP's runs 'Lightbox' a streaming competitor. If you sign up to any of their plans, you get free Lightbox. This incentives the customer to not use other streaming services. You can talk about zero-rating all day long but no amount of neutrality regulation will prevent something like the example above from happening. What happens if Comcast decides that Hulu Plus will be free with their broadband? It has the same effect as if Comcast decided to zero-rate Hulu on their network. For their to be real changes in the American ISP market, you need competition.

votepaunchy 9y ago
You don’t even need to ban bundling. Just require that customers be permitted to decline bundled services and receive the full-price discount.
- icebraining 9y ago
  What's the full price when the product is only sold in the bundle?
  - arbie 9y ago
    "Bundled content has no cash value if declined."
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    A price in line with what it costs them to provide that service. If they price it lower than that it is illegal dumping.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I'm not sure that would be feasible; in a case like this, doing a reverse "hollywood accounting" would be easy. The bandwidth is "free", since it runs on their existing network. The content is "free", since it's included in their TV licensing. What can you impute just to the service? A bit of storage and a few hours of software development, divided by all their customers. That's probably about ten cents or so.

spodek 9y ago

Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal? I'd guess most people don't know or care. Still, millions wrote to object to the proposed repeal. Is it possible that only a couple hundred people are making this decision for 300 million over the objections of millions?

masklinn 9y ago
> Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal? I can only assume the entirety of the GOP given it's been part of the party platform since at least 2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2aebc568-f1d2-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2aebc568-f1d2-11e1-892d...
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  The GOP has been captured by corporate special interests and is also caught up in a mindless "repeal all the regulations" hysteria. This is total speculation, but I'm guessing that the rank-and-file of that party might have a different opinion if they understood and considered the specific issue in isolation.
figurehe4d 9y ago
Had a convo in my CS class about it today. Literally a room full of 19-20 something males, many who are avid gamers, or want to make tech it into a job... I was the only one who had anything to say about nn. People really don't know.
- amelius 9y ago
  Perhaps that's because NN has more to do with underhand business tactics than with tech.
- brandonmenc 9y ago
  This is the exact opposite of my experience. I've been bombarded with pro-NN propaganda from most of my friends, and none of them are engineers, or programmers, or live even remotely near SV.

kaplun 9y ago

In France, the main mobile operator Orange, offers you tethering only as an option to be additionally paid on top of your data plan. They basically monitor the connection to check if your mobile is forwarding packages and do mitm in order to display advertisement about the additional paid option.

TheCowboy 9y ago
AT&T USA also charges extra for tethering on top of a data plan. Apple's iPhone will even block you from tethering if you don't pay extra to AT&T.
- shmerl 9y ago
  That already violates net neutrality.
  - ac29 9y ago
    Net neutrality rules never applied to wireless connections.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      The principle applies to all traffic. Current rules are far from perfect on their own and have loopholes already. Instead of repealing them, they should be extended, including outright banning anti-competitive data caps which is a pure rip off.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Yes they do.
    - Feniks 9y ago
      Were I live packet inspection is illegal, regardless if its wired or mobile.
- celeritascelery 9y ago
  Same with Verizon

FidelCashflow 9y ago

My account (US, MN) with Virgin Mobile is already doing this with "free" streaming music. A hand full of apps (Pandora, iHeartRadio, Slacker, 8tracks and Milk Music) don't count towards the monthly data cap.

maxyme 9y ago
Yep T-Mobile does this as well. There is a way for any streaming music service to put in a request to be added to the list, but I'm not sure if smaller companies get accepted or not. Edit: There used to be, can't find the link anymore...

ccvannorman 9y ago

>“From a user perspective, I don’t think it’s a problem and I think most consumers don’t think it’s an issue,” said Magnus Haglunds, a Stockholm-based independent music producer who uses the Telia service. “There are those who may have to change from Apple Music to Spotify. But then they get free surfing on Spotify.” What kind of a sheep customer thinks, "Well I guess I'll just totally change the service I use because that's what my provider wants!" People like that need, if you'll excuse the gendered metaphor, a swift kick in the balls.

PeterStuer 9y ago

It is quite simple realy. If I pay x€ for y GB/Month, the ISP should not dictate what over the top services I spend that budget on, nor favor its own services (or those of 'partners') by selective exclusion of that traffic from limits that other are held to, or by hindering traffic from the non-partnered services in any way. Now for the 'complicated' part. In practice it is not difficult to create a situation where everything is degraded. You just under-provision on a choke point. If you then sell alternative routes, or allow edge caches beyond the choke point, you technically didn't 'hinder' any traffic, you just provided such a lousy service to begin with that any not otherwise enabled service provider doesn't stand a chance of offering a decent experience on your network. But just pointing to a technical situation where it is hard to write a general 'rule' that in any arbitrary case can unequivocally objectively and automatically say whether a certain criterion was fulfilled, and then saying that because it is hard or even impossible to specify the whole regulation should be scrapped, that is disingenuous. The spirit of the regulation can be perfectly fine, even though case-by-case judgement may be required to determine compliance. Those that will say 'but you can vote with your wallet', I can see where you come from, but the reasoning is flawed. In practice telecoms is not an open market, and many households have near 0 meaningful choice. Strong economic network effects are inherent, and lasting competition has only been present under very strict regulation.

dilap 9y ago
Yeah, healthy competition and choice of providers seems like the real solution to me. Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. NN just feels like a distraction, driven by incredibly manipulative and overhyped propaganda.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Hmm... competition/choice and NN are actually conflated. Without NN, incumbents can raise barriers (e.g. zero-rating, etc) such that upstarts have no way to compete.
  - dilap 9y ago

binarynate 9y ago

Call your senators! https://www.callmycongress.com/ https://www.callmycongress.com/