5 ms·

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 s

by 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?
- croon 9y ago
  > But most people don’t have access to faster cable alternatives, because subsidization of the DSL network killed competition. > Is this better? That's a red herring. By your own admission this isn't caused by LLUB but by misguided subsidization. It's a deliberate choice of poor example in a pool of much better options.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It’s a direct byproduct of LLU. LLU eliminates market price signals over the most expensive part of the infrastructure.[1] That requires governments to exercise tremendous discipline in setting the wholesale price. It’s politically popular to set the price too low, but that kills investment. France tried to compensate for that through subsidies. But those, predictably, killed the unsubsidized competition. [1] You obviously can’t let the monopoly that owns the loop freely set the wholesale price of the loop.
    - croon 9y ago
      > Government rate setting is such a bad idea, that our oligopolies might be better. (The US has faster internet than all the big European countries: the UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy.) And it's slower than Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and many others. You can't blanket claim that LLU and rate setting is bad simply by ignoring examples where they work much better than the alternative. Edit: You might also want to include consumer prices with that comparison. I installed fiber (from the street outside) in my house in Sweden and had a pick of 18 ISPs, of which I chose 100/100 Mbit/s for $38/month.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        (Sorry for the intervening edit.) Here's Akamai's list of countries with the fastest broadband: 1 South Korea 28.6 2 Norway 23.5 3 Sweden 22.5 4 Hong Kong 21.9 5 Switzerland 21.7 6 Finland 20.5 7 Singapore 20.3 8 Japan 20.2 9 Denmark 20.1 10 United States 18.7 Our presence on this list is remarkable. If you were listing countries with the best of some other kind of infrastructure, say subways, we wouldn't even be sniffing the top 10. Nobody would look at the fact that Sweden or Denmark managed to have good subways and say "well, obviously we can do that too!" And we already know we would do a bad job implementing LLU: it was in the 1996 telecom act, and the FCC set rates too low and killed DSL in the process. Also, it's not clear what LLU has achieved in a place like say Denmark: https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/publikation/bilag_-_analysis_of_market_structures_in_the_danish_broadband_markets_-_august_2014_-_wik.pdf https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/publi.... 60% of Danish subscribers are with TDC, the privitized former incumbent. TDC must offer DSL access over LLU, but the two companies that do that are Telenor (the Norwegian incumbent) and Telia (the Swedish incumbent). Those three account for 80% of all subscribers. Is this better than our system? > I installed fiber (from the street outside) in my house in Sweden and had a pick of 18 ISPs, of which I chose 100/100 Mbit/s for $38/month. Where I live, I only have two choices for fiber, but 100/100 is $40/month, gigabit is $70-80, and two-gigabit is $150/month. Also: did you or a previous homeowner pay a one-time fee to build the fiber to your house? In the U.S., the ISP usually eats the up-front cost and recovers it in the monthly charge. Finally, U.S. prices include implicit cross subsidies (to build fiber or cable in poorer neighborhoods) that Swedish prices do not.

by croon 9y ago

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?

croon 9y ago
> But most people don’t have access to faster cable alternatives, because subsidization of the DSL network killed competition. > Is this better? That's a red herring. By your own admission this isn't caused by LLUB but by misguided subsidization. It's a deliberate choice of poor example in a pool of much better options.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It’s a direct byproduct of LLU. LLU eliminates market price signals over the most expensive part of the infrastructure.[1] That requires governments to exercise tremendous discipline in setting the wholesale price. It’s politically popular to set the price too low, but that kills investment. France tried to compensate for that through subsidies. But those, predictably, killed the unsubsidized competition. [1] You obviously can’t let the monopoly that owns the loop freely set the wholesale price of the loop.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Government rate setting is such a bad idea, that our oligopolies might be better. (The US has faster internet than all the big European countries: the UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy.) And it's slower than Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and many others. You can't blanket claim that LLU and rate setting is bad simply by ignoring examples where they work much better than the alternative. Edit: You might also want to include consumer prices with that comparison. I installed fiber (from the street outside) in my house in Sweden and had a pick of 18 ISPs, of which I chose 100/100 Mbit/s for $38/month.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      (Sorry for the intervening edit.) Here's Akamai's list of countries with the fastest broadband: 1 South Korea 28.6 2 Norway 23.5 3 Sweden 22.5 4 Hong Kong 21.9 5 Switzerland 21.7 6 Finland 20.5 7 Singapore 20.3 8 Japan 20.2 9 Denmark 20.1 10 United States 18.7 Our presence on this list is remarkable. If you were listing countries with the best of some other kind of infrastructure, say subways, we wouldn't even be sniffing the top 10. Nobody would look at the fact that Sweden or Denmark managed to have good subways and say "well, obviously we can do that too!" And we already know we would do a bad job implementing LLU: it was in the 1996 telecom act, and the FCC set rates too low and killed DSL in the process. Also, it's not clear what LLU has achieved in a place like say Denmark: https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/publikation/bilag_-_analysis_of_market_structures_in_the_danish_broadband_markets_-_august_2014_-_wik.pdf https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/publi.... 60% of Danish subscribers are with TDC, the privitized former incumbent. TDC must offer DSL access over LLU, but the two companies that do that are Telenor (the Norwegian incumbent) and Telia (the Swedish incumbent). Those three account for 80% of all subscribers. Is this better than our system? > I installed fiber (from the street outside) in my house in Sweden and had a pick of 18 ISPs, of which I chose 100/100 Mbit/s for $38/month. Where I live, I only have two choices for fiber, but 100/100 is $40/month, gigabit is $70-80, and two-gigabit is $150/month. Also: did you or a previous homeowner pay a one-time fee to build the fiber to your house? In the U.S., the ISP usually eats the up-front cost and recovers it in the monthly charge. Finally, U.S. prices include implicit cross subsidies (to build fiber or cable in poorer neighborhoods) that Swedish prices do not.