3 ms·

We used to have that - Bell Telephone. It never improved; there was zero need to innovate. Consumers had to fight like hell for the right just to buy their ow

by efitz 4y ago

We used to have that - Bell Telephone. It never improved; there was zero need to innovate. Consumers had to fight like hell for the right just to buy their own phones. Telephones were OWNED by Ma Bell and leased to consumers; their argument was “how can we guarantee stability of the network if anybody can connect anything they want to it?” [ed] Government broke them up in the early 80’s; overnight we saw innovation like slimline touch tone phones and non-acoustic modems. You do NOT want to return to that. And the only reason that you like monopolies on utilities is because it’s been like that for generations; we honestly don’t know what innovations would happen if utilities and roads were privatized and not enforced by government monopolies.

simplotek 4y ago
> You do NOT want to return to that. I'm not sure your assessment is reasonable. You're putting up a strawman by claiming that the only way to have shared infrastructure is to have an abusive monopoly that stifles innovation and screws consumers over. This is false. It's quite possible to have a single infrastructure provider that does it's job, such as a consortium of telcos shipping in to deploy and run shared infrastructure. There are plenty of examples of those types of initiatives in other areas, such as shared ATM networks, which provide a far better service than "everyone for themselves" deployments.
- californical 4y ago
  But just imagine. All of the incumbent providers use shared 1gb fiber. That’s what you get. You can pick your provider, but it’s all the same fiber infrastructure. Some scrappy company comes in saying they can offer 10gb fiber for the same price or less, but it takes an infrastructure upgrade. The consortium of incumbents shoot down the idea because it will “cause problems” or whatever. So they’re never forced to spend money to upgrade the shared tech, and your service never improves.
- jasonkester 4y ago
  It's quite possible to have a single infrastructure provider that does it's job I don’t doubt it. But do you have any examples of this having ever happened? Every case I’m aware of has gone much like the person your replying to describes. For example, I moved to England and spent the better part of ten years trying to get British Telecom to install a working telephone and internet connection at a house in the center of a large town. They’d send a truck out a few times a year to fix the same line fault, which consisted of having a guy climb a pole, unplug somebody else’s house from the “good” connection, and plug them into one of the bad ones. Presumably that neighbor would get the truck to come back at some point, starting the cycle again. There are no other providers. Or rather, the other providers all subcontract from BT, so you eventually get the same truck to come out. But now you’ve added another layer of pain to the equation. If there were a second option, they would get all the business. But there is not, so you’re stuck with what you’re given.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > But do you have any examples of this having ever happened? Yes, there are whole Wikipedia lists of this having ever happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbank_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbank_network This is no rocket science. I mean, even utilities grids in open markets work like this, for stuff like power and even gas. Nowadays even railway networks in Europe are decoupled from operators. Why do people still cling to old monopoly tales?
    - bsenftner 4y ago
      Because there is a huge infrastructure dependent on old money continuing. They own the financial, the judicial, the media, and the educational institutions, and they insure no other viable alternatives to the mainstream economy they control is even taught as a viable alternative.
    - twoodfin 4y ago
      Demand for power and gas—or banking services—doesn’t scale by orders of magnitude every few years.
      - def_true_false 4y ago
        The FTTH networks in Scandinavia are more than 20 years old now. The UK fiber plans were abandoned what, 30 years ago? Demand for bandwidth grows faster, yes, but it's not like you can't lay a larger pipe to begin with...
_puk 4y ago
“how can we guarantee stability of the network if anybody can connect anything they want to it?” Sounds hauntingly familiar.. "How can we guarantee the security of the phone if owners can just side load anything onto it." https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/23/22546771/apple-side-loading-security-risk-report-regulatory-pressure https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/23/22546771/apple-side-loadi...
nerdbert 4y ago
Singapore does a decent job of it. ISPs provide service over shared fiber infra - https://www.netlinktrust.com/ https://www.netlinktrust.com/ They don't have to be at the cutting edge of future innovation. If customers in the USA or somewhere else, who are paying much more for their broadband, start benefiting from some new technology that requires changes to the shared infrastructure, then Singapore can implement it at that time.

by efitz 4y ago

simplotek 4y ago

> You do NOT want to return to that. I'm not sure your assessment is reasonable. You're putting up a strawman by claiming that the only way to have shared infrastructure is to have an abusive monopoly that stifles innovation and screws consumers over. This is false. It's quite possible to have a single infrastructure provider that does it's job, such as a consortium of telcos shipping in to deploy and run shared infrastructure. There are plenty of examples of those types of initiatives in other areas, such as shared ATM networks, which provide a far better service than "everyone for themselves" deployments.

californical 4y ago
But just imagine. All of the incumbent providers use shared 1gb fiber. That’s what you get. You can pick your provider, but it’s all the same fiber infrastructure. Some scrappy company comes in saying they can offer 10gb fiber for the same price or less, but it takes an infrastructure upgrade. The consortium of incumbents shoot down the idea because it will “cause problems” or whatever. So they’re never forced to spend money to upgrade the shared tech, and your service never improves.
jasonkester 4y ago
It's quite possible to have a single infrastructure provider that does it's job I don’t doubt it. But do you have any examples of this having ever happened? Every case I’m aware of has gone much like the person your replying to describes. For example, I moved to England and spent the better part of ten years trying to get British Telecom to install a working telephone and internet connection at a house in the center of a large town. They’d send a truck out a few times a year to fix the same line fault, which consisted of having a guy climb a pole, unplug somebody else’s house from the “good” connection, and plug them into one of the bad ones. Presumably that neighbor would get the truck to come back at some point, starting the cycle again. There are no other providers. Or rather, the other providers all subcontract from BT, so you eventually get the same truck to come out. But now you’ve added another layer of pain to the equation. If there were a second option, they would get all the business. But there is not, so you’re stuck with what you’re given.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > But do you have any examples of this having ever happened? Yes, there are whole Wikipedia lists of this having ever happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbank_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbank_network This is no rocket science. I mean, even utilities grids in open markets work like this, for stuff like power and even gas. Nowadays even railway networks in Europe are decoupled from operators. Why do people still cling to old monopoly tales?
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    Because there is a huge infrastructure dependent on old money continuing. They own the financial, the judicial, the media, and the educational institutions, and they insure no other viable alternatives to the mainstream economy they control is even taught as a viable alternative.
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    Demand for power and gas—or banking services—doesn’t scale by orders of magnitude every few years.
    - def_true_false 4y ago
      The FTTH networks in Scandinavia are more than 20 years old now. The UK fiber plans were abandoned what, 30 years ago? Demand for bandwidth grows faster, yes, but it's not like you can't lay a larger pipe to begin with...

_puk 4y ago

“how can we guarantee stability of the network if anybody can connect anything they want to it?” Sounds hauntingly familiar.. "How can we guarantee the security of the phone if owners can just side load anything onto it." https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/23/22546771/apple-side-loading-security-risk-report-regulatory-pressure https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/23/22546771/apple-side-loadi...

nerdbert 4y ago

Singapore does a decent job of it. ISPs provide service over shared fiber infra - https://www.netlinktrust.com/ https://www.netlinktrust.com/ They don't have to be at the cutting edge of future innovation. If customers in the USA or somewhere else, who are paying much more for their broadband, start benefiting from some new technology that requires changes to the shared infrastructure, then Singapore can implement it at that time.