4 ms·

This is mostly a fight between Google/Netflix and traditional telecoms. Google wants to be able to connect everyone with subsidized resources from municipalitie

This is mostly a fight between Google/Netflix and traditional telecoms. Google wants to be able to connect everyone with subsidized resources from municipalities, telecoms want individuals to pay for the privilege.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
I think most people don’t really care about the “why” and instead just want faster and more affordable broadband.
908B64B197 6y ago
> with subsidized resources from municipalities Is it subsidized? Adding Fiber lazily when repaving roads and re-doing sewers is easier for a city. Their crew is already on the ground! And all they have to do is sell it at a price where the city doesn't lose money. No profit to squeeze. There's a lot more houses where decent internet is possible, if you accept that 0$ profit.
- coliveira 6y ago
  All of this requires initial investment. Probably new loans that will have to be repaid. In the end Google will just get to use the infrastructure free and clean. It is the Uber of internet access.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    > Probably new loans that will have to be repaid Cities can borrow at rock-bottom prices. Not only that, but municipal broadband will lead to higher property values, so it indirectly profits the city.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Even still, people buy houses without looking at internet options then are surprised post-close when all they can get is 25mbps satellite internet. Property values aren't materially affected by internet access.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Not true. Citations are results of the first page of the below search. https://www.google.com/search?q=property+values+internet+access https://www.google.com/search?q=property+values+internet+acc...
        judge2020 6y ago
        You're right, but that first result (in the google info card) is marketing material that links to another article about a study. The second article actually has scholarly sources for claims it makes: https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/rural-outreach-initiative/news-resources/impact-of-broadband https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/rural-outrea... Basically, it generally amounts to a very low change in property value, although studies are conflicting on whether having fast internet matters much, compared to having average internet: > disconnecting an average property from a high-speed first-generation broadband connection (offering Internet speed up to 8 Mbit/s) would depreciate its value by 2.8%. In contrast, upgrading such a property to a faster connection (offering speeds up to 24 Mbit/s) would increase its value by no more than 1%. > Our estimates suggest that there are declining returns to speed availability, with access to at least some type of Internet being more valuable than having only a very high-speed connection accessible. > Results show that single-family homes with access to a 25 Mbps broadband connection have a price that is about $5,977, or 3%, more than similar homes in neighborhoods with 1 Mbps. The rural premium is lower at $5,099
      - 908B64B197 6y ago
        The thing is: they don't have to increase that much for the investment to pay off.
      - spamizbad 6y ago
        I’m not sure how much longer that’s true. A family friend is a realtor and she commented about how now she’ll get asked questions like “I looked up the address and I can’t get Comcast, what are my internet choices?” — probably because of WFH. I had to give her the lowdown on area ISPs and where to look.
  - woah 6y ago
    It's a tiny, lightweight plastic cable. How can the municipal government handle transporting hundreds of gallons of water to and from your house every day using massive physical infrastructure, but a tiny lightweight cable suddenly needs huge loans?
trhway 6y ago
>subsidized resources from municipalities, telecoms want individuals to pay for the privilege. greatest municipal subsidy is monopoly, and thus telecoms in many places have it both ways - i.e. the monopoly (or almost one) to extract payments from individuals. In this case the Google/Netflix seems to be more preferable, and they really want high bandwidth for you vs. telecoms to whom upgrading network is pure expense to be avoided whenever possible.
jcranmer 6y ago
If you've followed Ars Technica in the past, you would have learned that the major telecoms have begged for billions from the government to expand their infrastructure, pocketed the money, and failed to do any expansion whatsoever. And then raise prices on consumers despite delivering them no extra benefits whatsoever. There's a reason why the telecoms industry graces the bottom of consumer satisfaction lists.
- vkou 6y ago
  Actually, I think it graces the bottom of those lists because interacting with telco customer support is like pulling teeth.
  - russh 6y ago
    Let me tell you it is just as rough on the other end of the phone. "Yeah, I just got this email from somebody I don't know but it had an attachment I want to read. My anti-virus will not let me open it even after I disabled it. What is wrong with your email server? I even sent it to my laptop and Excel won't let me open it as well, what is wrong with your email server? Oh never mind it finally opened but it looks blank and now Outlook is acting weird, what is wrong with your email server?"
  - coliveira 6y ago
    Interacting with Google-style companies is the same, the only difference is tat you just never have a human contact.
    - vkou 6y ago
      As a normie, I've never in my life had to interact with a tech company's CS. Shit either just works, or I give up and switch to a competitor. I have, however, wasted days of my life listening to elevator music interrupted by annoying, incredibly loud upsells, going through the same dumb, patronizing troubleshooting steps with customer support, multiple times for the same incident.
walrus01 6y ago
> This is mostly a fight between Google/Netflix google/netflix really doesn't care how the residential customers' IP traffic, in aggregate, gets to the nearest major city's IX point. They're equally happy to peer with things like centurylink's GPON network. Gigantic content sources will peer and offer caching appliances (netflix) to any ISP with a sufficient volume of downstream eyeball traffic. You're trying to write it as if google/netflix and similar have some nefarious plan to interfere in various cities' last mile fiber networks, which is not the case at all.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

I think most people don’t really care about the “why” and instead just want faster and more affordable broadband.

908B64B197 6y ago

> with subsidized resources from municipalities Is it subsidized? Adding Fiber lazily when repaving roads and re-doing sewers is easier for a city. Their crew is already on the ground! And all they have to do is sell it at a price where the city doesn't lose money. No profit to squeeze. There's a lot more houses where decent internet is possible, if you accept that 0$ profit.

coliveira 6y ago
All of this requires initial investment. Probably new loans that will have to be repaid. In the end Google will just get to use the infrastructure free and clean. It is the Uber of internet access.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  > Probably new loans that will have to be repaid Cities can borrow at rock-bottom prices. Not only that, but municipal broadband will lead to higher property values, so it indirectly profits the city.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Even still, people buy houses without looking at internet options then are surprised post-close when all they can get is 25mbps satellite internet. Property values aren't materially affected by internet access.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Not true. Citations are results of the first page of the below search. https://www.google.com/search?q=property+values+internet+access https://www.google.com/search?q=property+values+internet+acc...
      - judge2020 6y ago
        You're right, but that first result (in the google info card) is marketing material that links to another article about a study. The second article actually has scholarly sources for claims it makes: https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/rural-outreach-initiative/news-resources/impact-of-broadband https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/rural-outrea... Basically, it generally amounts to a very low change in property value, although studies are conflicting on whether having fast internet matters much, compared to having average internet: > disconnecting an average property from a high-speed first-generation broadband connection (offering Internet speed up to 8 Mbit/s) would depreciate its value by 2.8%. In contrast, upgrading such a property to a faster connection (offering speeds up to 24 Mbit/s) would increase its value by no more than 1%. > Our estimates suggest that there are declining returns to speed availability, with access to at least some type of Internet being more valuable than having only a very high-speed connection accessible. > Results show that single-family homes with access to a 25 Mbps broadband connection have a price that is about $5,977, or 3%, more than similar homes in neighborhoods with 1 Mbps. The rural premium is lower at $5,099
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      The thing is: they don't have to increase that much for the investment to pay off.
    - spamizbad 6y ago
      I’m not sure how much longer that’s true. A family friend is a realtor and she commented about how now she’ll get asked questions like “I looked up the address and I can’t get Comcast, what are my internet choices?” — probably because of WFH. I had to give her the lowdown on area ISPs and where to look.
- woah 6y ago
  It's a tiny, lightweight plastic cable. How can the municipal government handle transporting hundreds of gallons of water to and from your house every day using massive physical infrastructure, but a tiny lightweight cable suddenly needs huge loans?

trhway 6y ago

>subsidized resources from municipalities, telecoms want individuals to pay for the privilege. greatest municipal subsidy is monopoly, and thus telecoms in many places have it both ways - i.e. the monopoly (or almost one) to extract payments from individuals. In this case the Google/Netflix seems to be more preferable, and they really want high bandwidth for you vs. telecoms to whom upgrading network is pure expense to be avoided whenever possible.

jcranmer 6y ago

If you've followed Ars Technica in the past, you would have learned that the major telecoms have begged for billions from the government to expand their infrastructure, pocketed the money, and failed to do any expansion whatsoever. And then raise prices on consumers despite delivering them no extra benefits whatsoever. There's a reason why the telecoms industry graces the bottom of consumer satisfaction lists.

vkou 6y ago
Actually, I think it graces the bottom of those lists because interacting with telco customer support is like pulling teeth.
- russh 6y ago
  Let me tell you it is just as rough on the other end of the phone. "Yeah, I just got this email from somebody I don't know but it had an attachment I want to read. My anti-virus will not let me open it even after I disabled it. What is wrong with your email server? I even sent it to my laptop and Excel won't let me open it as well, what is wrong with your email server? Oh never mind it finally opened but it looks blank and now Outlook is acting weird, what is wrong with your email server?"
- coliveira 6y ago
  Interacting with Google-style companies is the same, the only difference is tat you just never have a human contact.
  - vkou 6y ago
    As a normie, I've never in my life had to interact with a tech company's CS. Shit either just works, or I give up and switch to a competitor. I have, however, wasted days of my life listening to elevator music interrupted by annoying, incredibly loud upsells, going through the same dumb, patronizing troubleshooting steps with customer support, multiple times for the same incident.

walrus01 6y ago

> This is mostly a fight between Google/Netflix google/netflix really doesn't care how the residential customers' IP traffic, in aggregate, gets to the nearest major city's IX point. They're equally happy to peer with things like centurylink's GPON network. Gigantic content sources will peer and offer caching appliances (netflix) to any ISP with a sufficient volume of downstream eyeball traffic. You're trying to write it as if google/netflix and similar have some nefarious plan to interfere in various cities' last mile fiber networks, which is not the case at all.