4 ms·

ISPs: Looks like we're not serving high speed broadband to a lot of people! We've got work to do. FCC: Yes you do! Mr. Government, would you mind giving us 40

ISPs: Looks like we're not serving high speed broadband to a lot of people! We've got work to do. FCC: Yes you do! Mr. Government, would you mind giving us 40 billion dollars to improve internet infrastructure, this is a massive undertaking and we really REALLY want to help get broadband to under-served regions. Government: Sure, here's the money! Don't spend it all in one place! FCC: ISPs: Sounds like this happened 20 years ago and now they're going to try and do it again with this as an excuse to get more money

xhrpost 7y ago
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiYFg_3IJ:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiY...
- tzs 7y ago
  There have been some questions raised here before as to the accuracy of that book. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The book isn’t inaccurate, in the sense the data is wrong. It’s that the book draws conclusions from that data on questionable premises, and then people take the headline number and misrepresent what it means. The article linked above actually makes the theory behind the book quite clear: > By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. The premise is that pre-1992 regulated rates are the proper baseline that reflect the “correct price” of service. The theory then goes that ISPs conned the government into deregulating rates by promising fiber which they never built, which allowed them to raise prices beyond what the regulated rates should have been. In other words: “an iPhone XR should only cost about $250, reflecting a 10% profit margin, so anything Apple gets beyond that is an overcharge.” The premise is ignorant, but there is no reason to believe the underlying data is wrong. However, whether the conclusion is right or not, the underlying theory is, by its own terms, a theory of overcharge. (Prices being roughly 10% higher than they should have been over a 22 year period.) It’s not a documenting of some money transfer from government to providers.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      Apple wasn't previously a government regulated monopoly and iPhones aren't a vital service in a developed country. Government regulated monopolies are different though. Regulations forcing a specific price, or even a specific "profit" margin aren't unheard of. Thus, the premise isn't entirely unreasonable! There are details to be quibbled over, but the history of AT&T is where that premise comes from in the first place! (In particular, the 1982 DoJ mandated breakup and resulting fallout from that.)
SN76477 7y ago
Im in the wrong business...
- kpU8efre7r 7y ago
  If your job doesn't consist of stiffing taxpayers then what are you even doing with your life?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Accujack 7y ago
20 Years ago? It happened (by my count) at least twice after the Bell system breakup with Telephone companies accepting government money to bring the internet to rural areas. After that, I think the broadband companies (many have since merged or otherwise changed) have done this at least twice. You can ignore any arguments by broadband providers or telco companies (or wireless companies) that they should be protected from competition and given money to build out rural broadband. They're more corrupt than almost any other US companies, and they've stolen billions of USD. The Internet (at least the backbone) needs to be a public utility, owned by everyone and neutral to everyone, period. Unfortunately this won't happen until the corruption in the US government is rooted out.

xhrpost 7y ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiYFg_3IJ:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiY...

tzs 7y ago
There have been some questions raised here before as to the accuracy of that book. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766
- rayiner 7y ago
  The book isn’t inaccurate, in the sense the data is wrong. It’s that the book draws conclusions from that data on questionable premises, and then people take the headline number and misrepresent what it means. The article linked above actually makes the theory behind the book quite clear: > By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. The premise is that pre-1992 regulated rates are the proper baseline that reflect the “correct price” of service. The theory then goes that ISPs conned the government into deregulating rates by promising fiber which they never built, which allowed them to raise prices beyond what the regulated rates should have been. In other words: “an iPhone XR should only cost about $250, reflecting a 10% profit margin, so anything Apple gets beyond that is an overcharge.” The premise is ignorant, but there is no reason to believe the underlying data is wrong. However, whether the conclusion is right or not, the underlying theory is, by its own terms, a theory of overcharge. (Prices being roughly 10% higher than they should have been over a 22 year period.) It’s not a documenting of some money transfer from government to providers.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    Apple wasn't previously a government regulated monopoly and iPhones aren't a vital service in a developed country. Government regulated monopolies are different though. Regulations forcing a specific price, or even a specific "profit" margin aren't unheard of. Thus, the premise isn't entirely unreasonable! There are details to be quibbled over, but the history of AT&T is where that premise comes from in the first place! (In particular, the 1982 DoJ mandated breakup and resulting fallout from that.)

SN76477 7y ago

Im in the wrong business...

kpU8efre7r 7y ago
If your job doesn't consist of stiffing taxpayers then what are you even doing with your life?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Accujack 7y ago

20 Years ago? It happened (by my count) at least twice after the Bell system breakup with Telephone companies accepting government money to bring the internet to rural areas. After that, I think the broadband companies (many have since merged or otherwise changed) have done this at least twice. You can ignore any arguments by broadband providers or telco companies (or wireless companies) that they should be protected from competition and given money to build out rural broadband. They're more corrupt than almost any other US companies, and they've stolen billions of USD. The Internet (at least the backbone) needs to be a public utility, owned by everyone and neutral to everyone, period. Unfortunately this won't happen until the corruption in the US government is rooted out.