7 ms·

> We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices. Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission st

> We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices. Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission statements said that would work. Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. The problem is there has been zero sign that anyone is willing to go after monopolies, especially after the Great Recession even though it would probably help us get out of the next one easier with more breakups. The local ISP monopolies are really against net neutrality, Google isn't the monopoly we need to be worrying about yet. ISPs/broadband have local monopolies built on fake competition on purpose. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with. Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it. FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs. How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom. FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs. FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]: > The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals. Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-war-in-online-privacy-rules-1488413165 https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
  - zhjansbnas 9y ago
    I found it pretty easy to switch ISPs, but it would be pretty hard for me to quit Google. Nobody expects my IP address to be static, and that’s the only thing I lose when I switch. I get that some people can’t switch. The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer. Google and Facebook, by contrast, make money from selling attention, and their business depends on having good consumer sentiments. Turns out it’s a very lucrative business. ISPs want a taste of those tens of billions so they want a troll toll from Facebook and Google. They don’t care about some startups with no money. This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants, who can take advantage of their positive brand sentiment to fight against the telecoms who are trying to get a piece of the action. If you think it’s about freedom of information or something, check out Facebook’s stance on net neutrality in India. Silicon Valley lost this round because someone who isn’t in their ring won the election. For the sake of our profession’s prevailing wage, let’s hope it goes the other way next time.
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      Hello new user. > The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer. No the suckage comes from only one in many, many areas[1][2]. Data caps, charges on data caps, slow speeds, lack of competition after Google Fiber left many markets due to ISP thuggery. They also dislike the ISP privacy protections being removed and them now able to sell all your data. Say what you want about Google/Facebook but they innovated to get people to share their personal data, they didn't need to bribe congress to further their monopoly. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP(s) with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. > This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants Comcast was throttling Netflix in 2015, they will throttle smaller players without abandon. Netflix had to create fast.com to test speeds because even the speed tests on ISP sites were fixed to report higher than they were to hide the nerfing of Netflix. ISPs are much more of a threat to open internet than Google, Facebook or any company that has innovated on top of the internet in the market, not trying to control your entry point to the market by bribing Congress. Nobody HAS to go to Google or Facebook, they HAVE TO use their ISP. They are the threat to open internet not the other way around. This shifting to companies that earned their position in the open market is strongly anti-business in favor of companies that pay off lawmakers. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
- maxander 9y ago
  Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. Just like you can use alternative search engines and services (even FOSS self-hosted ones) if you don't like Google.
    - wtallis 9y ago
      > But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement. ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Cellular radio solutions exist on a spectrum where at one end they have broad coverage but horrible latency and throughput, and at the other end they can outperform DSL but only by deploying a dense enough wired backhaul network that you aren't saving much money over building out a pure wired network. If you want 50+ MBps with low latency, there are only three viable technologies: DOCSIS over coax, short-range xDSL, or fiber. Only one of those three is currently widely deployed in the US. The latter two are available only where it is most convenient and profitable for ISPs to deploy.
      - wongarsu 9y ago
        >Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
- earenndil 9y ago
  > A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Can't be a majority. 2/3 of all network traffic is netflix.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    This is false. Netflix is like 30-35%, Google is closer to 40-45%. And that's US-specific numbers. Netflix is much less successful internationally than Google AFAIK.
  - thg 9y ago
    Netflix is a entertainment service, not a inter-human communication service. Streaming movies isn't communicating with other fellow humans.
ekianjo 9y ago
> Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end. Agreed but you can still choose those, you can't really choose your local ISP now they want to inspect packets, control which ones they slow down and have access to all your private data to sell. They lobbied for that and Google/Apple made innovative products to get you to come onboard and willingly give that away. I prefer at least my monopolies to get their market share by providing products people want and love. The only major problem with capitalism is monopolies/big fish controlling everyone else. There indeed has been a real failure to break up monopolies, especially ISP monopolies that control access to the internet. You can still choose away from Google/Apple but there should eventually be breakups if competitors do not surface and Google keeps pulling stuff like AMP and Apple with ebook pricing manipulation and other areas. But net neutrality isn't about Google/Apple winning, they will win if NN is under FCC or FTC, it is about ISPs and them slowing competitors down because they have the levers.
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    You can choose your ISP about as much as you can choose your mobile OS. Sure, maybe you have one or two choices of ISP. But is it any different one level up the stack? Your mobile OS is either Android (Google) or iOS (Apple). What makes one monopoly different from the other?
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      ISP monopolies control all my access to the internet, that is the difference. They affect everything I do on my mobile (whether Android or iOS or other), desktop and all businesses built on top of it. ISPs control a layer that everything runs on and they have monopolies all across the US. Is that smart? ISP/Broadband mafia wants a cut of everything, with data caps and overages they are already taking a cut of digital purchases while I subsidize their ads they serve me. Android or iOS are just OSs and there have always been a small amount of those that are market leaders. It is nice to have 2 instead of one that we had on desktop essentially for a while. There are lots of other mobile OSs (Windows, WebOS, linux phones) though but those two are the top. They don't have a location lock or local monopoly on anyone, they won their users through innovation and products people wanted. The exact opposite could be said of ISPs today even though they were innovators in the 90s'/00s when there were many. I have zero choice of my ISP in my location I have Cox at 100Mbps which is decent and CenturyLink at 12Mbps which is not even comparable. Cox gigablast and CenturyLink fiber is two miles over but stopped installing new when Google Fiber left. Competition could easily get us to gigabit everywhere but their competition is fake and their efforts resides in their past local monopoly areas. I'd literally pay for my line to be ran to my house but they won't. They want to eek out every last revenue cent with degrading service (data caps, overage charges) while the cost goes up, no speed improvements. I'd gladly pay more for more product. Lots of ISPs delay is they want people to have to switch to their content/tv systems again instead of cord cutting, they are doing this by removing unlimited, adding data caps, and slowing service. They are either going to get people to switch or drive up the costs to offset losses due to cord cutting. People are cord cutting because it is a better product elsewhere and cost is too much. Broadband companies originally disrupted the telco dial-up internet companies. I sometimes think it will take satellite internet from like SpaceX or some new innovation and current ISPs will be dropped like a hot rock, like phone lines for cable internet back on the 90s/00s. Do you think it is smart to only have 1 provider in most of the US for broadband? Would you want that in your area?
qaq 9y ago
I think it's highly market specific. Moving to NoVa from MI I have now like 5 ISP options with very competitive pricing and variety of high speed option including Comcast Xfinity 2000 Mbps, Verizon FIOS etc.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  Your local anecdote is nice but the VAST MAJORITY of the US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. Removing NN will also increase revenues for ISPs that currently are already or on their way to monopolies, which will create even more fake ISP competition. Everyone saw what happened when Google Fiber was threatening, suddenly competition... [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
  - qaq 9y ago
    I used to think the same it is likely though that in large metro areas e.g. NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia ... etc. there is strong competition and wide availability of interesting options. Given the population numbers the VAST MAJORITY is more like 50/50
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      As seen in my links, 80% (30% with zero) of the country/population has 0-1 options for 25Mbps and 92% (55% with zero) of the country/population have 0-1 options for 100Mbps. Even areas in the big cities you mentioned most people only have 0-1 choices for 25Mbps-100Mbps. I won't even go into the small amount that has access to gigabit which everyone should be on. If you are ok with that, that is on you, we can do better and we need to, our ISPs are failing us and holding us back. ISPs said only net neutrality was holding them back from investing in increasing speeds, availability and rolling out gigabit, so I fully expect speeds and gigabit to be to available to everyone soon. /s

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.

drawkbox 9y ago
Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with. Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it. FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs. How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom. FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs. FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]: > The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals. Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-war-in-online-privacy-rules-1488413165 https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
- zhjansbnas 9y ago
  I found it pretty easy to switch ISPs, but it would be pretty hard for me to quit Google. Nobody expects my IP address to be static, and that’s the only thing I lose when I switch. I get that some people can’t switch. The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer. Google and Facebook, by contrast, make money from selling attention, and their business depends on having good consumer sentiments. Turns out it’s a very lucrative business. ISPs want a taste of those tens of billions so they want a troll toll from Facebook and Google. They don’t care about some startups with no money. This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants, who can take advantage of their positive brand sentiment to fight against the telecoms who are trying to get a piece of the action. If you think it’s about freedom of information or something, check out Facebook’s stance on net neutrality in India. Silicon Valley lost this round because someone who isn’t in their ring won the election. For the sake of our profession’s prevailing wage, let’s hope it goes the other way next time.
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    Hello new user. > The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer. No the suckage comes from only one in many, many areas[1][2]. Data caps, charges on data caps, slow speeds, lack of competition after Google Fiber left many markets due to ISP thuggery. They also dislike the ISP privacy protections being removed and them now able to sell all your data. Say what you want about Google/Facebook but they innovated to get people to share their personal data, they didn't need to bribe congress to further their monopoly. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP(s) with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. > This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants Comcast was throttling Netflix in 2015, they will throttle smaller players without abandon. Netflix had to create fast.com to test speeds because even the speed tests on ISP sites were fixed to report higher than they were to hide the nerfing of Netflix. ISPs are much more of a threat to open internet than Google, Facebook or any company that has innovated on top of the internet in the market, not trying to control your entry point to the market by bribing Congress. Nobody HAS to go to Google or Facebook, they HAVE TO use their ISP. They are the threat to open internet not the other way around. This shifting to companies that earned their position in the open market is strongly anti-business in favor of companies that pay off lawmakers. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
maxander 9y ago
Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. Just like you can use alternative search engines and services (even FOSS self-hosted ones) if you don't like Google.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement. ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Cellular radio solutions exist on a spectrum where at one end they have broad coverage but horrible latency and throughput, and at the other end they can outperform DSL but only by deploying a dense enough wired backhaul network that you aren't saving much money over building out a pure wired network. If you want 50+ MBps with low latency, there are only three viable technologies: DOCSIS over coax, short-range xDSL, or fiber. Only one of those three is currently widely deployed in the US. The latter two are available only where it is most convenient and profitable for ISPs to deploy.
    - wongarsu 9y ago
      >Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
earenndil 9y ago
> A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Can't be a majority. 2/3 of all network traffic is netflix.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  This is false. Netflix is like 30-35%, Google is closer to 40-45%. And that's US-specific numbers. Netflix is much less successful internationally than Google AFAIK.
- thg 9y ago
  Netflix is a entertainment service, not a inter-human communication service. Streaming movies isn't communicating with other fellow humans.

ekianjo 9y ago

> Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end.

drawkbox 9y ago
> Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end. Agreed but you can still choose those, you can't really choose your local ISP now they want to inspect packets, control which ones they slow down and have access to all your private data to sell. They lobbied for that and Google/Apple made innovative products to get you to come onboard and willingly give that away. I prefer at least my monopolies to get their market share by providing products people want and love. The only major problem with capitalism is monopolies/big fish controlling everyone else. There indeed has been a real failure to break up monopolies, especially ISP monopolies that control access to the internet. You can still choose away from Google/Apple but there should eventually be breakups if competitors do not surface and Google keeps pulling stuff like AMP and Apple with ebook pricing manipulation and other areas. But net neutrality isn't about Google/Apple winning, they will win if NN is under FCC or FTC, it is about ISPs and them slowing competitors down because they have the levers.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  You can choose your ISP about as much as you can choose your mobile OS. Sure, maybe you have one or two choices of ISP. But is it any different one level up the stack? Your mobile OS is either Android (Google) or iOS (Apple). What makes one monopoly different from the other?
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    ISP monopolies control all my access to the internet, that is the difference. They affect everything I do on my mobile (whether Android or iOS or other), desktop and all businesses built on top of it. ISPs control a layer that everything runs on and they have monopolies all across the US. Is that smart? ISP/Broadband mafia wants a cut of everything, with data caps and overages they are already taking a cut of digital purchases while I subsidize their ads they serve me. Android or iOS are just OSs and there have always been a small amount of those that are market leaders. It is nice to have 2 instead of one that we had on desktop essentially for a while. There are lots of other mobile OSs (Windows, WebOS, linux phones) though but those two are the top. They don't have a location lock or local monopoly on anyone, they won their users through innovation and products people wanted. The exact opposite could be said of ISPs today even though they were innovators in the 90s'/00s when there were many. I have zero choice of my ISP in my location I have Cox at 100Mbps which is decent and CenturyLink at 12Mbps which is not even comparable. Cox gigablast and CenturyLink fiber is two miles over but stopped installing new when Google Fiber left. Competition could easily get us to gigabit everywhere but their competition is fake and their efforts resides in their past local monopoly areas. I'd literally pay for my line to be ran to my house but they won't. They want to eek out every last revenue cent with degrading service (data caps, overage charges) while the cost goes up, no speed improvements. I'd gladly pay more for more product. Lots of ISPs delay is they want people to have to switch to their content/tv systems again instead of cord cutting, they are doing this by removing unlimited, adding data caps, and slowing service. They are either going to get people to switch or drive up the costs to offset losses due to cord cutting. People are cord cutting because it is a better product elsewhere and cost is too much. Broadband companies originally disrupted the telco dial-up internet companies. I sometimes think it will take satellite internet from like SpaceX or some new innovation and current ISPs will be dropped like a hot rock, like phone lines for cable internet back on the 90s/00s. Do you think it is smart to only have 1 provider in most of the US for broadband? Would you want that in your area?

qaq 9y ago

I think it's highly market specific. Moving to NoVa from MI I have now like 5 ISP options with very competitive pricing and variety of high speed option including Comcast Xfinity 2000 Mbps, Verizon FIOS etc.

drawkbox 9y ago
Your local anecdote is nice but the VAST MAJORITY of the US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. Removing NN will also increase revenues for ISPs that currently are already or on their way to monopolies, which will create even more fake ISP competition. Everyone saw what happened when Google Fiber was threatening, suddenly competition... [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
- qaq 9y ago
  I used to think the same it is likely though that in large metro areas e.g. NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia ... etc. there is strong competition and wide availability of interesting options. Given the population numbers the VAST MAJORITY is more like 50/50
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    As seen in my links, 80% (30% with zero) of the country/population has 0-1 options for 25Mbps and 92% (55% with zero) of the country/population have 0-1 options for 100Mbps. Even areas in the big cities you mentioned most people only have 0-1 choices for 25Mbps-100Mbps. I won't even go into the small amount that has access to gigabit which everyone should be on. If you are ok with that, that is on you, we can do better and we need to, our ISPs are failing us and holding us back. ISPs said only net neutrality was holding them back from investing in increasing speeds, availability and rolling out gigabit, so I fully expect speeds and gigabit to be to available to everyone soon. /s