3 ms·

I think that free competition alone is responsible for having cheaper and better internet access: in Romania I pay 10$/month for a 1gb, unlimited traffic, inter

I think that free competition alone is responsible for having cheaper and better internet access: in Romania I pay 10$/month for a 1gb, unlimited traffic, internet connection. I think we have this for about 3-5 years. In a country with very few companies that are bigger than 1% of what Google or AOL or AT&T are. In a country where an entrepreneur doesn't even dream of having access to the big investor money needed to start an optical fiber ISP. What you're paying in US is 10x-100x more expensive than that. One can only imagine the margins your ISPs make and the profit opportunities other entrepreneurs have in this space. If it's not about the incumbent's overwhelming power, what can it be? Lack of entrepreneurial spirit in US? Lack of technological knowledge?(you invented this whole internet thing ffs) Lack of desire for easy profits? I doubt.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> in Romania I pay 10$/month for a 1gb, unlimited traffic, internet connection. I think we have this for about 3-5 years. 1GB is fairly new in Romania, but already by 2007 fiber had been rolled out in the major cities (wise use of EU funds?) and at least 300Mbps or 500Mbps connections for 10€/month have long been routine. (Incidentally, even though gigabit is becoming common, not many people realize they have to upgrade their routers – wifi in cafes is almost never gigabit, even if the ISP’s link supports it, just because the cafe owners will simply grab a cheap router from the shop and that is unlikely to be gigabit.) Even before wide availability of fiber, cable and DSL connections offered pretty high speeds for that medium. In Cluj your ISP would even give you the username and password for a private server where you could share films and music with other people in the same city, so of course download speeds would be extremely fast. Good times.
kodablah 8y ago
You're making the same mistake as GP by guessing which harms the argument in favor of NN. There are many reasons not to be in a market. The profits are not "easy". Providers charge what they can in markets, so not every dollar cost, especially when used in comparison with a completely different country, is a result of competition. For example, many European countries likely have cheaper and better mobile coverage than the US compared as a whole. By your invalid logic, higher prices and substandard quality in the US is due solely to lack of competition which is false. Same with many other markets and industries you can compare. These kinds of different-environment correlation mistakes based on some misplaced common sense do not help. More specifically to the Google case, these assumption mistakes that are then used to buttress NN arguments reduce the strength of the argument, especially while there are many evidence based examples in favor of NN one could use instead.
rayiner 8y ago
> One can only imagine the margins your ISPs make and the profit opportunities other entrepreneurs have in this space. You don’t have to imagine! It’s part of the audited financial reports: https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/2017VerizonAnnualReport.pdf https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/2017Verizo.... Verizon’s wireline division (including fiber) had an operating profit margin of 1.2% last year (see page 24). Wall Street has consistently pressured the company to abandon its fiber network: http://stopthecap.com/2012/01/09/wall-street-encourages-verizon-to-get-completely-out-of-landlinefios-business/ http://stopthecap.com/2012/01/09/wall-street-encourages-veri... > If it's not about the incumbent's overwhelming power, what can it be? Building fiber is really expensive in developed countries. Look at it this way. According to Google, a round-trip ticket on the Bucharest Metro is about $1.25. On the DC Metro, it’s $4-12 depending on time of day/distance. ($5 each way during commuting hours from the suburbs is typical). The DC Metro must be hugely profitable, right? Well no, actually it loses a lot of money!
- intended 8y ago
  The key metric for telecoms is ARPU - average revenue per user. Net profit is a pointless number. Ebitda margins are something like 36% for verizon from a recent google search. From my time making telecom comparables - you want to be America. American ARPU numbers aresignificantly higher that the world average. America had something like $40 in 2006, to $35 in 2016. IN contrast, Germany has 14$ today, and Asia something around a $1 - $3. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/An-industry-at-risk.pdf https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/An-industry-at-ri... Dont have access to any industry finance/research papers. America telecom is moribund, To argue otherwise is to mislead. Google failed to change the market. Despite dumping huge amounts of money into it, something no other firm can afford to do. Where it entered, incumbents magically were able to offer better services which they had avoided providing. THis HBR report reads like MBA speak, more a lesson on spin than actual fact. Remember when these firms hid zip code information in auctions so that they wouldnt cross bid? I read the history of American telecom with bemusement, the lessons highlighting the necessity to build good regulatory frameworks so that the economy can work efficiently. Finally - Building fibre is difficult, even in developing countries. The fact that you have regulation stopping people from tearing up the road, or just having wires crossing over houses willy nilly is the happy cost of being a civilized nation.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago

> in Romania I pay 10$/month for a 1gb, unlimited traffic, internet connection. I think we have this for about 3-5 years. 1GB is fairly new in Romania, but already by 2007 fiber had been rolled out in the major cities (wise use of EU funds?) and at least 300Mbps or 500Mbps connections for 10€/month have long been routine. (Incidentally, even though gigabit is becoming common, not many people realize they have to upgrade their routers – wifi in cafes is almost never gigabit, even if the ISP’s link supports it, just because the cafe owners will simply grab a cheap router from the shop and that is unlikely to be gigabit.) Even before wide availability of fiber, cable and DSL connections offered pretty high speeds for that medium. In Cluj your ISP would even give you the username and password for a private server where you could share films and music with other people in the same city, so of course download speeds would be extremely fast. Good times.

kodablah 8y ago

You're making the same mistake as GP by guessing which harms the argument in favor of NN. There are many reasons not to be in a market. The profits are not "easy". Providers charge what they can in markets, so not every dollar cost, especially when used in comparison with a completely different country, is a result of competition. For example, many European countries likely have cheaper and better mobile coverage than the US compared as a whole. By your invalid logic, higher prices and substandard quality in the US is due solely to lack of competition which is false. Same with many other markets and industries you can compare. These kinds of different-environment correlation mistakes based on some misplaced common sense do not help. More specifically to the Google case, these assumption mistakes that are then used to buttress NN arguments reduce the strength of the argument, especially while there are many evidence based examples in favor of NN one could use instead.

rayiner 8y ago

> One can only imagine the margins your ISPs make and the profit opportunities other entrepreneurs have in this space. You don’t have to imagine! It’s part of the audited financial reports: https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/2017VerizonAnnualReport.pdf https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/2017Verizo.... Verizon’s wireline division (including fiber) had an operating profit margin of 1.2% last year (see page 24). Wall Street has consistently pressured the company to abandon its fiber network: http://stopthecap.com/2012/01/09/wall-street-encourages-verizon-to-get-completely-out-of-landlinefios-business/ http://stopthecap.com/2012/01/09/wall-street-encourages-veri... > If it's not about the incumbent's overwhelming power, what can it be? Building fiber is really expensive in developed countries. Look at it this way. According to Google, a round-trip ticket on the Bucharest Metro is about $1.25. On the DC Metro, it’s $4-12 depending on time of day/distance. ($5 each way during commuting hours from the suburbs is typical). The DC Metro must be hugely profitable, right? Well no, actually it loses a lot of money!

intended 8y ago
The key metric for telecoms is ARPU - average revenue per user. Net profit is a pointless number. Ebitda margins are something like 36% for verizon from a recent google search. From my time making telecom comparables - you want to be America. American ARPU numbers aresignificantly higher that the world average. America had something like $40 in 2006, to $35 in 2016. IN contrast, Germany has 14$ today, and Asia something around a $1 - $3. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/An-industry-at-risk.pdf https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/An-industry-at-ri... Dont have access to any industry finance/research papers. America telecom is moribund, To argue otherwise is to mislead. Google failed to change the market. Despite dumping huge amounts of money into it, something no other firm can afford to do. Where it entered, incumbents magically were able to offer better services which they had avoided providing. THis HBR report reads like MBA speak, more a lesson on spin than actual fact. Remember when these firms hid zip code information in auctions so that they wouldnt cross bid? I read the history of American telecom with bemusement, the lessons highlighting the necessity to build good regulatory frameworks so that the economy can work efficiently. Finally - Building fibre is difficult, even in developing countries. The fact that you have regulation stopping people from tearing up the road, or just having wires crossing over houses willy nilly is the happy cost of being a civilized nation.