5 ms·

Startup Offers New Business Plan For Broadband

9 points by cwan 16y ago

adelevie 16y ago
So companies like Netflix will subsidize net access for the poor for charity, or can they somehow make money from this?
- wmf 16y ago
  If Google is willing to pay for the development of multiple Web browsers, why not this? I would expect that you'll see a lot of ads when browsing on this system, though.
zcid 16y ago
FTA: Second, the proposal runs headlong into the Net Neutrality debate. Sachson said BoxTop will do away with need for Net Neutrality legislation. But if Internet companies pay for simple access, it might only be a short step away from advanced tiers of service with greater levels of performance–exactly what Net Neutrality wants to prevent. This is what I see happening. If business models like this become popular, they will only accelerate the demise of net neutrality.
kragen 16y ago
I don't think that this would "do away with need for Net Neutrality legislation." This is exactly the kind of thing that net neutrality legislation is intended to prohibit — turning the open internet into a premium service only accessible to the rich. They say that "just 35.8% of U.S. households with annual incomes under $25,000 actually have broadband." That's 9.5% of total US households, which, interpolating, would be all the households with an annual income under US$10600; and many of those (if they have housing at all) presumably have dial-up internet access, and can also go to the public library across town when they need faster access. (An interesting side note is that this means that at least a third of US households under the poverty line already have broadband, and probably closer to half.) So, these guys are hoping to sign up all of those folks, plus a slice off the bottom of the folks just above the poverty line, by falsely claiming to give them internet access when what they're really selling them is a TCP/IP version of basic cable TV, with a limited selection of corporate partners who pay for the privilege and perhaps meet some kind of content standards as well. If they were successful, then ISPs that currently serve the least demanding customers would lose those customers, causing them to drop in profitability or raise their prices, driving more of their least demanding customers into the arms of BoxTop. This used to be a standard argument about why telephone service had to be a monopoly, and it doesn't hold up in that strong form, but it does tell us that BoxTop's success would mean that real internet access would cost more, taking it out of the reach of some people who can currently afford it. It just doesn't say how much more. So the real outcome, if BoxTop were successful, would be making internet access less affordable to the poor. I predict that it's not going to work, because not only are people under the poverty line not going to sign up for Netflix, they're not going to use an ISP that doesn't let them click on the links their friends are posting on Facebook, and they're not going to use an ISP that doesn't let them run BitTorrent. I admit I only know a few people under the poverty line in the US, and they may not be a random sample, so I could easily be wrong about this.
- gojomo 16y ago
  What if the publisher-subsidized service offers free access to everything at some baseline slow rate – say 128kbps – and then partner sites at a higher rate? That could bring 90s-level internet access to everyone. If lack of affordable net access is a real problem, shouldn't this company and its potential customers be allowed to try this mechanism?
  - kragen 16y ago
    I think I've shown above that lack of affordable net access is not a real problem in the US — it's apparently already more widespread than adequate housing, adequate nutrition, and adequate health care — but BoxTop, if successful, could make it a real problem. So, should they be allowed to try this mechanism? That's the whole net neutrality debate. The net-neutrality position says, "No," or in its milder form, "They should be allowed to sell crippled TCP/IP services but not advertise them as internet access." You're probably familiar with the arguments for net neutrality already, so I won't repeat them again.
    - kragen 16y ago
      Even though this lowers my average comment score, I think it's worthwhile linking to this just-issued FCC report, "Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2009": http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1208/DOC-303405A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1208... It seems to contradict the BoxTop statistic of 90.5%; it shows only 60 residential fixed connections per 100 households faster than 200kbps in at least one direction in 2009 (p.11). I find it deeply disturbing that in 87 pages of statistics about access speeds, there is not one single mention of whether these connections include publicly-routable IPv4 addresses, static IP addresses, or IPv6. (Unless I missed something?)

9 points by cwan 16y ago

adelevie 16y ago

So companies like Netflix will subsidize net access for the poor for charity, or can they somehow make money from this?

wmf 16y ago
If Google is willing to pay for the development of multiple Web browsers, why not this? I would expect that you'll see a lot of ads when browsing on this system, though.

zcid 16y ago

FTA: Second, the proposal runs headlong into the Net Neutrality debate. Sachson said BoxTop will do away with need for Net Neutrality legislation. But if Internet companies pay for simple access, it might only be a short step away from advanced tiers of service with greater levels of performance–exactly what Net Neutrality wants to prevent. This is what I see happening. If business models like this become popular, they will only accelerate the demise of net neutrality.

kragen 16y ago

I don't think that this would "do away with need for Net Neutrality legislation." This is exactly the kind of thing that net neutrality legislation is intended to prohibit — turning the open internet into a premium service only accessible to the rich. They say that "just 35.8% of U.S. households with annual incomes under $25,000 actually have broadband." That's 9.5% of total US households, which, interpolating, would be all the households with an annual income under US$10600; and many of those (if they have housing at all) presumably have dial-up internet access, and can also go to the public library across town when they need faster access. (An interesting side note is that this means that at least a third of US households under the poverty line already have broadband, and probably closer to half.) So, these guys are hoping to sign up all of those folks, plus a slice off the bottom of the folks just above the poverty line, by falsely claiming to give them internet access when what they're really selling them is a TCP/IP version of basic cable TV, with a limited selection of corporate partners who pay for the privilege and perhaps meet some kind of content standards as well. If they were successful, then ISPs that currently serve the least demanding customers would lose those customers, causing them to drop in profitability or raise their prices, driving more of their least demanding customers into the arms of BoxTop. This used to be a standard argument about why telephone service had to be a monopoly, and it doesn't hold up in that strong form, but it does tell us that BoxTop's success would mean that real internet access would cost more, taking it out of the reach of some people who can currently afford it. It just doesn't say how much more. So the real outcome, if BoxTop were successful, would be making internet access less affordable to the poor. I predict that it's not going to work, because not only are people under the poverty line not going to sign up for Netflix, they're not going to use an ISP that doesn't let them click on the links their friends are posting on Facebook, and they're not going to use an ISP that doesn't let them run BitTorrent. I admit I only know a few people under the poverty line in the US, and they may not be a random sample, so I could easily be wrong about this.

gojomo 16y ago
What if the publisher-subsidized service offers free access to everything at some baseline slow rate – say 128kbps – and then partner sites at a higher rate? That could bring 90s-level internet access to everyone. If lack of affordable net access is a real problem, shouldn't this company and its potential customers be allowed to try this mechanism?
- kragen 16y ago
  I think I've shown above that lack of affordable net access is not a real problem in the US — it's apparently already more widespread than adequate housing, adequate nutrition, and adequate health care — but BoxTop, if successful, could make it a real problem. So, should they be allowed to try this mechanism? That's the whole net neutrality debate. The net-neutrality position says, "No," or in its milder form, "They should be allowed to sell crippled TCP/IP services but not advertise them as internet access." You're probably familiar with the arguments for net neutrality already, so I won't repeat them again.
  - kragen 16y ago
    Even though this lowers my average comment score, I think it's worthwhile linking to this just-issued FCC report, "Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2009": http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1208/DOC-303405A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1208... It seems to contradict the BoxTop statistic of 90.5%; it shows only 60 residential fixed connections per 100 households faster than 200kbps in at least one direction in 2009 (p.11). I find it deeply disturbing that in 87 pages of statistics about access speeds, there is not one single mention of whether these connections include publicly-routable IPv4 addresses, static IP addresses, or IPv6. (Unless I missed something?)