4 ms·

Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is. Still I agree brea

by brmgb 8y ago

Search engine and ride-sharing don't seem to be natural monopolies however. Communication infrastructure in most part of the USA clearly is. Still I agree breaking up Comcast is not the solution. You will just end up with smaller more localized monopolies. That's pretty much what happened with Bell after all. The solution would be either nationalizing the infrastructure and leasing it to operators or forcing existing operators to rent their infrastructure to their competitors for a set price. The later is actually working quite well in France. Short of that you will never get competition. It's simply not profitable.

rayiner 8y ago
It's working terribly in France. France has some of the slowest broadband in the OECD: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Just 18% of French households have connections faster than 15 mbps, versus 48% of American households.
- brmgb 8y ago
  That's mostly because France never used copper cable as a TV distribution system and is going straight to fiber. Deployment is admittedly slower than it should be especially in the countryside where it will never be profitable due to low density. Meanwhile, people are stuck with ADSL and VDSL which give connections closer to 10mbps than 15. Cost wise however, you can't even compare the USA and France. In France, a full speed FTTH subscription with no data cap cost 25 euros and you can pay 20 more to get a cell phone plan with unlimited call and unlimited data. If you are ready to switch provider yearly, you can bring that down to 25 euros all included.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    According to the December 2017 OECD data, France and the U.S. are basically tied in terms of fiber deployment (12-13% of total broadband connections): https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroadband-2017-12.xls https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroad.... Which is pretty remarkable because in the U.S., fiber is a relatively smaller upgrade, because fast cable alternatives are available in almost every fiber market. (Just 1/3 of people who can get FiOS actually subscribe, for example. Google fiber has struggled to break 40% too.) And how quickly is France's number going to grow given that France's second largest ISP recently cancelled its plans to deploy fiber? https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-abandons-effort-to-lay-its-own-fibre-technology-across-france-idUSL8N1OD2O5 https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba.... Also note that the French deployment is being heavily subsidized by the government (to the tune of $24 billion). Except for a small amount during the post-2008 economic stimulus, broadband deployment in the U.S. is not subsidized. Whereas the French government is paying a direct subsidy to build fiber in rural areas, in the U.S. rural deployment is financed by a cross subsidy (taxing ISPs in urban areas to subsidize ISPs in rural ones).
    - sovnade 8y ago
      Wasn't Verizon given billions in subsidies for FTTH (which they installed on the east and west coast, the most profitable areas) and then sold off vast areas they didn't touch to companies like Frontier?
      - rayiner 8y ago
        They certainly weren’t given cash like the french government is doing. The most you can say is that Bell Atlantic, Verizon’s predecessor, was allowed to accelerate depreciation of their copper network more quickly than under the previous tax rules.[1] Whether that amounted to a subsidy depends on how quickly the value of the copper plant decreased after fiber was built. The accelerated depreciation was based on the quite reasonable assumption that the value of the copper network depreciated more quickly after fiber was built. I’ve never seen a calculation refuting that premise. [1] When you build an income-producing capital asset like copper wire in the ground, you can’t deduct the cost from your revenues immediately for tax purposes, like you can with say employee salaries. Instead, you gradually deduct the capital cost over the income-producing life of the asset. If the government allowes you to depreciate an asset faster than the value of the asset actually drops, that nets you some tax benefit due to the time value of money. On the other hand, if the accelerated depreciation reflects the fact that certain types of assets depreciate quicker, then it will result in the correct amount of taxes being paid. For example IT equipment in data centers can generally be written off immediately—unlike wires in the the ground it’s pretty much worthless after a few years.
    - brmgb 8y ago
      > And how quickly is France's number going to grow given that France's second largest ISP recently cancelled its plans to deploy fiber? https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba... https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba.... Most likely unaffected. You rightfully pointed that the state is paying for much of it. A significant part of the deployment is actually done directly by the state (via the equivalent of counties) which owns the infrastructure. > Also note that the French deployment is being heavily subsidized by the government (to the tune of $24 billion). Except for a small amount during the post-2008 economic stimulus, broadband deployment in the U.S. is not subsidized. Whereas the French government is paying a direct subsidy to build fiber in rural areas, in the U.S. rural deployment is financed by a cross subsidy (taxing ISPs in urban areas to subsidize ISPs in rural ones). I don't really see what this has to do with my initial point: mandatory leasing of ISP private infrastructure to their competitors successfully create competition. It is not subsidies to ISP by the way. Most of this money goes to counties so they can build their own infrastructure which they then lease to ISP. It makes a lot of sense because while this infrastructure wouldn't be profitable if privately built they have a significant positive economic impact on the region where they are deployed.
  - JVIDEL 8y ago
    Truly unlimited data?
    - brmgb 8y ago
      For 4G data, your bandwith get capped ridiculously low after 60GB. For broadband, it's seems really unlimited yes. As it's often supposed to be for residential use only, I guess they will start asking you questions if your usage becomes very noticeable. I personally don't know anyone who ever had an issue.
18pfsmt 8y ago
How about we stop trying to come up with "solutions" that just cause more distortions, and exercise a bit of patience? The 'cost vs. benefit' analysis should reveal similar ROI as "the wall."

by brmgb 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

It's working terribly in France. France has some of the slowest broadband in the OECD: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Just 18% of French households have connections faster than 15 mbps, versus 48% of American households.

brmgb 8y ago
That's mostly because France never used copper cable as a TV distribution system and is going straight to fiber. Deployment is admittedly slower than it should be especially in the countryside where it will never be profitable due to low density. Meanwhile, people are stuck with ADSL and VDSL which give connections closer to 10mbps than 15. Cost wise however, you can't even compare the USA and France. In France, a full speed FTTH subscription with no data cap cost 25 euros and you can pay 20 more to get a cell phone plan with unlimited call and unlimited data. If you are ready to switch provider yearly, you can bring that down to 25 euros all included.
- rayiner 8y ago
  According to the December 2017 OECD data, France and the U.S. are basically tied in terms of fiber deployment (12-13% of total broadband connections): https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroadband-2017-12.xls https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroad.... Which is pretty remarkable because in the U.S., fiber is a relatively smaller upgrade, because fast cable alternatives are available in almost every fiber market. (Just 1/3 of people who can get FiOS actually subscribe, for example. Google fiber has struggled to break 40% too.) And how quickly is France's number going to grow given that France's second largest ISP recently cancelled its plans to deploy fiber? https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-abandons-effort-to-lay-its-own-fibre-technology-across-france-idUSL8N1OD2O5 https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba.... Also note that the French deployment is being heavily subsidized by the government (to the tune of $24 billion). Except for a small amount during the post-2008 economic stimulus, broadband deployment in the U.S. is not subsidized. Whereas the French government is paying a direct subsidy to build fiber in rural areas, in the U.S. rural deployment is financed by a cross subsidy (taxing ISPs in urban areas to subsidize ISPs in rural ones).
  - sovnade 8y ago
    Wasn't Verizon given billions in subsidies for FTTH (which they installed on the east and west coast, the most profitable areas) and then sold off vast areas they didn't touch to companies like Frontier?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      They certainly weren’t given cash like the french government is doing. The most you can say is that Bell Atlantic, Verizon’s predecessor, was allowed to accelerate depreciation of their copper network more quickly than under the previous tax rules.[1] Whether that amounted to a subsidy depends on how quickly the value of the copper plant decreased after fiber was built. The accelerated depreciation was based on the quite reasonable assumption that the value of the copper network depreciated more quickly after fiber was built. I’ve never seen a calculation refuting that premise. [1] When you build an income-producing capital asset like copper wire in the ground, you can’t deduct the cost from your revenues immediately for tax purposes, like you can with say employee salaries. Instead, you gradually deduct the capital cost over the income-producing life of the asset. If the government allowes you to depreciate an asset faster than the value of the asset actually drops, that nets you some tax benefit due to the time value of money. On the other hand, if the accelerated depreciation reflects the fact that certain types of assets depreciate quicker, then it will result in the correct amount of taxes being paid. For example IT equipment in data centers can generally be written off immediately—unlike wires in the the ground it’s pretty much worthless after a few years.
  - brmgb 8y ago
    > And how quickly is France's number going to grow given that France's second largest ISP recently cancelled its plans to deploy fiber? https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba... https://www.reuters.com/article/altice-sfr-france/altice-aba.... Most likely unaffected. You rightfully pointed that the state is paying for much of it. A significant part of the deployment is actually done directly by the state (via the equivalent of counties) which owns the infrastructure. > Also note that the French deployment is being heavily subsidized by the government (to the tune of $24 billion). Except for a small amount during the post-2008 economic stimulus, broadband deployment in the U.S. is not subsidized. Whereas the French government is paying a direct subsidy to build fiber in rural areas, in the U.S. rural deployment is financed by a cross subsidy (taxing ISPs in urban areas to subsidize ISPs in rural ones). I don't really see what this has to do with my initial point: mandatory leasing of ISP private infrastructure to their competitors successfully create competition. It is not subsidies to ISP by the way. Most of this money goes to counties so they can build their own infrastructure which they then lease to ISP. It makes a lot of sense because while this infrastructure wouldn't be profitable if privately built they have a significant positive economic impact on the region where they are deployed.
- JVIDEL 8y ago
  Truly unlimited data?
  - brmgb 8y ago
    For 4G data, your bandwith get capped ridiculously low after 60GB. For broadband, it's seems really unlimited yes. As it's often supposed to be for residential use only, I guess they will start asking you questions if your usage becomes very noticeable. I personally don't know anyone who ever had an issue.

18pfsmt 8y ago

How about we stop trying to come up with "solutions" that just cause more distortions, and exercise a bit of patience? The 'cost vs. benefit' analysis should reveal similar ROI as "the wall."