7 ms·

I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connec

I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connect to (like Netflix, iTunes, YouTube) through them. Especially on higher plans, people buy a lot of bandwidth so that they can stream videos, that's how ISPs up-sell to them. If they start throttling, they'll be selling an empty bucket, and it's not going to be very easy. To me it seems like this might just revive competition between ISPs, by separating those who do the shady things and those who don't. I'm curious how this is going to play out, it may not be all bad.

knowuh 8y ago
You must live in one of the few places in the US where high-speed internet is available through multiple providers. That is definitely not the norm. Most people won't be able to simply switch to the least nasty provider.
- dsabanin 8y ago
  But that's my point, it will give a smaller-sized competition more chances to differentiate, since users might start looking for something better.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    What smaller competition will be capable of laying copper or fiber to its constituents? Even cities are, in many cases, rendered incapable of providing competition. And, for the record, wireless is not a viable competition for copper, let alone fiber. The available bandwidth by the most cutting-edge offerings is too low and latency is too high.
    - xj9 8y ago
      the hypothetical here is that Comca$t is going to artificially throttle Netflix and give you mandatory free (paid) access to their own streaming platform. all a WISP has to do to compete is offer more bandwidth than the throttle allows with no bandwidth shaping at a competitive price.
      - falcolas 8y ago
        If all that the internet was was streaming video, sure. It's not, though. The WISP also has to be resilient against Comcast removing the cap at a lower price (at least until the WISP folds). And against being bought out by Comcast. And against Comcast's lawyers and lobbyists (the wireless spectrum being a government controlled and finite resource).
        xj9 8y ago
        you make it sound like competing with comcast is impossible. it might be difficult, yes, but if you have less-than-shit policies in your state/muni lots of options tend to pop up. i live in Utah, and i have several ISP options pretty much anywhere along the Wasatch Front, including fiber and wireless. i can't speak for anywhere else, but its not like its impossible.
  - staplers 8y ago
    On what infrastructure? Pigeon carriers?
    - dsabanin 8y ago
      They could first start small – municipalities, LANs, HOA-based WANs, consolidating slowly. It's like you're saying that no ISP progress will ever be made if someone is not using existing AT&T networks.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    It's infeasible when there's enough political money from the nationwide ISPs to make installing a new network prohibitively expensive. Comcast, ATT, and Spectrum's ceiling of profit is the difference between the cost of delivering services and the potential cost of installing a competitive network. And it's far easier to increase the latter than innovate and decrease the former.
- ethbro 8y ago
  If the FCC really wanted to promote competition instead of profits, they could mandate nationwide access to utility poles & shared conduit. As well as making exclusive franchise agreements illegal.
  - Miredly 8y ago
    I still don't really understand how exclusive franchise agreements /aren't/ illegal, given antitrust laws.
    - vertexFarm 8y ago
      Through insane amounts of regulatory capture. You could hardly hope to get government under greater private control with an overwhelming military coup. We've gone far beyond reducing regulation to ensure that innovation is possible--we've restructured regulation to ensure that doing business is practical only for the major industry players who now write our legislation.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal for eg cable. They have been illegal for a quarter of a century. You'll find that nearly all examples commonly presented of the lack of competition, are not due to market lock-out, it's due to the high cost and time required to gain approval to build in a given town or city. The combined cost, with pre-existing competition entrenched, is a very large disincentive. Google Fiber didn't grind to a halt on their build-out because they couldn't legally access markets, it's because it's painfully expensive and very slow. There are three solutions to the problem: new technology that bypasses (low earth orbit satellite, wireless); lower the total cost to enter markets and compete; mandate shared access to existing infrastructure (and ideally simultaneously lower the other market entry costs).
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Normally when infrastructure is expensive to deploy and wasteful to duplicate like this we turn it into a utility (Water, Electric, Sewer, Roads, Telephone, etc...). We don't do that for Internet because...
- bradleybuda 8y ago
  More than half of US households have multiple wired broadband providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi... This does not include wireless broadband options. Could the competitive situation be better? Absolutely. But it is, in fact, the "norm" to have a choice.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    A scant majority is not "the norm" - you're using a term that has no statistical meaning. A duopoly labeled as choice is specious.
  - chaostheory 8y ago
    The study limited to 100 MBPS. It should have included more tiers like 200, 300, 500, and 1000 to provide a better picture. Once you go past 100 MBPS, there tends to be only one widely available choice per region. This choice is either Comcast or Verizon.
  - dpark 8y ago
    That means nearly half have a single (or no) option. Further, for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider. In Mountain View I had only shitty DSL or shitty cable. Both sucked and cable was very expensive. (This may be different now. My experience was 8 or so years ago.) I happen to be lucky to have actual high speed Comcast now, with an option for FTTH from Centurylink, plus DSL. Most people’s options are not so good.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      >for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider Very true. In one city where I have a house, the choice is 4 megabit DSL for $60/month, or 300 megabit cable for $101. Both are considered "broadband" by the FCC because the DSL is "up to" 8 megabits. But they are not equivalent services. There's also a wireless ISP, but it's $95/month for 5 megabits.
- qaq 8y ago
  Yep after moving from MI to NoVA the contrast is night and day my house has both Verizon FIOS and Comcast 2 Gigabit options available and a bunch of smaller providers.
- dsabanin 8y ago
  That's the status quo with net neutrality, it's repeal may or may not have an effect on it. It's going to be interesting to watch.
niftich 8y ago
Here's some possible scenarios that illustrate what could play out: - They could zero-rate their own offerings, making them available at a very low price and not counting them against data usage. - They could offer no-cost access to some of their own offerings with a compatible, captive piece of equipment (e.g. handset, modem, cable box). - They could charge third-parties more per unit of data for interconnect, creating financial pressure on them that makes third-parties consider no longer interconnecting with that provider. This will make customers choose between having that particular ISP or having access to that particular content provider. Some portion will choose to stay with the ISP, likely cancelling any ongoing subscriptions to the content provider.
- jethro_tell 8y ago
  They can also make partnerships to zero rate or accelerate partners, netflix pays a little more than hulu and now it costs to watch hulu but not netflix. So now you're picking winners based on who already has money.
TuringNYC 8y ago
>> I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connect to (like Netflix, iTunes, YouTube) through them. It will be more subtle than that. They will have some seemingly high limit with all sorts of exceptions in fine print. It will be like your typical Verizon plan where you sign up for a $50/mo plan and magically get a bill for $112/mo and all sorts of exceptions, nuances, and backstabbing legalese.
- djrogers 8y ago
  > It will be like your typical Verizon plan where you sign up for a $50/mo plan and magically get a bill for $112/mo and all sorts of exceptions, nuances, and backstabbing legalese. Do you have more than just a flippant accusation about this? I ask because I have a verizon plan that somehow includes no backstabbing or exceptions, and I consisitently pay what I'd expect to.
hiram112 8y ago
I can't even buy internet in my city (with 2-3 competing ISPs) without having to bundle cable. It's cheaper to get the internet / cable bundle because they want to up-sell on-demand videos, HD, recorder box rentals, etc. which is only possible with a cable TV bundle. Comcast and friends are not going to let the cord-cutters get away with $30/month 100Mb down sans media, as is possible in the rest of the world, it seems. The only way I will believe that we haven't been fleeced by the FCC / end of net neutrality is if there are more choices in the end: If I can get a $30 / month 100Mb standard internet connection without any media content, while those who binge watch Netflix, Prime, Youtube, sports, etc. have to pay more for the massive bandwidth and distribution costs of all that consumable media, I'd be willing to concede that maybe the FCC was right. But I'm guessing that this won't happen: I'll still be paying high prices even though I don't want all the media content, and those who do will end up paying even more.
mundo 8y ago
I don't want gigabit access to youtube and netflix. I want gigabit access to the services that don't exist yet because you can't build them until lots of people have gigabit access. If the only ISPs in America are the ones who only offer gigabit access to youtube and netflix, then I better start learning Korean[0], because those hypothetical services will not be built in America. 0: "It is important to note that 100 Mbit/s services are the average standard in urban South Korean homes and the country is rapidly rolling out 1Gbit/s connections or 1,000 Mbit/s, at $20 per month" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_South_Korea

knowuh 8y ago

You must live in one of the few places in the US where high-speed internet is available through multiple providers. That is definitely not the norm. Most people won't be able to simply switch to the least nasty provider.

dsabanin 8y ago
But that's my point, it will give a smaller-sized competition more chances to differentiate, since users might start looking for something better.
- falcolas 8y ago
  What smaller competition will be capable of laying copper or fiber to its constituents? Even cities are, in many cases, rendered incapable of providing competition. And, for the record, wireless is not a viable competition for copper, let alone fiber. The available bandwidth by the most cutting-edge offerings is too low and latency is too high.
  - xj9 8y ago
    the hypothetical here is that Comca$t is going to artificially throttle Netflix and give you mandatory free (paid) access to their own streaming platform. all a WISP has to do to compete is offer more bandwidth than the throttle allows with no bandwidth shaping at a competitive price.
    - falcolas 8y ago
      If all that the internet was was streaming video, sure. It's not, though. The WISP also has to be resilient against Comcast removing the cap at a lower price (at least until the WISP folds). And against being bought out by Comcast. And against Comcast's lawyers and lobbyists (the wireless spectrum being a government controlled and finite resource).
      - xj9 8y ago
        you make it sound like competing with comcast is impossible. it might be difficult, yes, but if you have less-than-shit policies in your state/muni lots of options tend to pop up. i live in Utah, and i have several ISP options pretty much anywhere along the Wasatch Front, including fiber and wireless. i can't speak for anywhere else, but its not like its impossible.
- staplers 8y ago
  On what infrastructure? Pigeon carriers?
  - dsabanin 8y ago
    They could first start small – municipalities, LANs, HOA-based WANs, consolidating slowly. It's like you're saying that no ISP progress will ever be made if someone is not using existing AT&T networks.
- ethbro 8y ago
  It's infeasible when there's enough political money from the nationwide ISPs to make installing a new network prohibitively expensive. Comcast, ATT, and Spectrum's ceiling of profit is the difference between the cost of delivering services and the potential cost of installing a competitive network. And it's far easier to increase the latter than innovate and decrease the former.
ethbro 8y ago
If the FCC really wanted to promote competition instead of profits, they could mandate nationwide access to utility poles & shared conduit. As well as making exclusive franchise agreements illegal.
- Miredly 8y ago
  I still don't really understand how exclusive franchise agreements /aren't/ illegal, given antitrust laws.
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    Through insane amounts of regulatory capture. You could hardly hope to get government under greater private control with an overwhelming military coup. We've gone far beyond reducing regulation to ensure that innovation is possible--we've restructured regulation to ensure that doing business is practical only for the major industry players who now write our legislation.
- adventured 8y ago
  Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal for eg cable. They have been illegal for a quarter of a century. You'll find that nearly all examples commonly presented of the lack of competition, are not due to market lock-out, it's due to the high cost and time required to gain approval to build in a given town or city. The combined cost, with pre-existing competition entrenched, is a very large disincentive. Google Fiber didn't grind to a halt on their build-out because they couldn't legally access markets, it's because it's painfully expensive and very slow. There are three solutions to the problem: new technology that bypasses (low earth orbit satellite, wireless); lower the total cost to enter markets and compete; mandate shared access to existing infrastructure (and ideally simultaneously lower the other market entry costs).
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Normally when infrastructure is expensive to deploy and wasteful to duplicate like this we turn it into a utility (Water, Electric, Sewer, Roads, Telephone, etc...). We don't do that for Internet because...
bradleybuda 8y ago
More than half of US households have multiple wired broadband providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi... This does not include wireless broadband options. Could the competitive situation be better? Absolutely. But it is, in fact, the "norm" to have a choice.
- cmurf 8y ago
  A scant majority is not "the norm" - you're using a term that has no statistical meaning. A duopoly labeled as choice is specious.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  The study limited to 100 MBPS. It should have included more tiers like 200, 300, 500, and 1000 to provide a better picture. Once you go past 100 MBPS, there tends to be only one widely available choice per region. This choice is either Comcast or Verizon.
- dpark 8y ago
  That means nearly half have a single (or no) option. Further, for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider. In Mountain View I had only shitty DSL or shitty cable. Both sucked and cable was very expensive. (This may be different now. My experience was 8 or so years ago.) I happen to be lucky to have actual high speed Comcast now, with an option for FTTH from Centurylink, plus DSL. Most people’s options are not so good.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    >for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider Very true. In one city where I have a house, the choice is 4 megabit DSL for $60/month, or 300 megabit cable for $101. Both are considered "broadband" by the FCC because the DSL is "up to" 8 megabits. But they are not equivalent services. There's also a wireless ISP, but it's $95/month for 5 megabits.
qaq 8y ago
Yep after moving from MI to NoVA the contrast is night and day my house has both Verizon FIOS and Comcast 2 Gigabit options available and a bunch of smaller providers.
dsabanin 8y ago
That's the status quo with net neutrality, it's repeal may or may not have an effect on it. It's going to be interesting to watch.

niftich 8y ago

Here's some possible scenarios that illustrate what could play out: - They could zero-rate their own offerings, making them available at a very low price and not counting them against data usage. - They could offer no-cost access to some of their own offerings with a compatible, captive piece of equipment (e.g. handset, modem, cable box). - They could charge third-parties more per unit of data for interconnect, creating financial pressure on them that makes third-parties consider no longer interconnecting with that provider. This will make customers choose between having that particular ISP or having access to that particular content provider. Some portion will choose to stay with the ISP, likely cancelling any ongoing subscriptions to the content provider.

jethro_tell 8y ago
They can also make partnerships to zero rate or accelerate partners, netflix pays a little more than hulu and now it costs to watch hulu but not netflix. So now you're picking winners based on who already has money.

TuringNYC 8y ago

>> I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connect to (like Netflix, iTunes, YouTube) through them. It will be more subtle than that. They will have some seemingly high limit with all sorts of exceptions in fine print. It will be like your typical Verizon plan where you sign up for a $50/mo plan and magically get a bill for $112/mo and all sorts of exceptions, nuances, and backstabbing legalese.

djrogers 8y ago
> It will be like your typical Verizon plan where you sign up for a $50/mo plan and magically get a bill for $112/mo and all sorts of exceptions, nuances, and backstabbing legalese. Do you have more than just a flippant accusation about this? I ask because I have a verizon plan that somehow includes no backstabbing or exceptions, and I consisitently pay what I'd expect to.

hiram112 8y ago

I can't even buy internet in my city (with 2-3 competing ISPs) without having to bundle cable. It's cheaper to get the internet / cable bundle because they want to up-sell on-demand videos, HD, recorder box rentals, etc. which is only possible with a cable TV bundle. Comcast and friends are not going to let the cord-cutters get away with $30/month 100Mb down sans media, as is possible in the rest of the world, it seems. The only way I will believe that we haven't been fleeced by the FCC / end of net neutrality is if there are more choices in the end: If I can get a $30 / month 100Mb standard internet connection without any media content, while those who binge watch Netflix, Prime, Youtube, sports, etc. have to pay more for the massive bandwidth and distribution costs of all that consumable media, I'd be willing to concede that maybe the FCC was right. But I'm guessing that this won't happen: I'll still be paying high prices even though I don't want all the media content, and those who do will end up paying even more.

mundo 8y ago

I don't want gigabit access to youtube and netflix. I want gigabit access to the services that don't exist yet because you can't build them until lots of people have gigabit access. If the only ISPs in America are the ones who only offer gigabit access to youtube and netflix, then I better start learning Korean[0], because those hypothetical services will not be built in America. 0: "It is important to note that 100 Mbit/s services are the average standard in urban South Korean homes and the country is rapidly rolling out 1Gbit/s connections or 1,000 Mbit/s, at $20 per month" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_South_Korea