33 ms·

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. Instead of making the FCC stop fast lanes, the FCC should either be breaking up infrastructure from retailers (ie allowing regulated priced access like openreach) or splitting up operators and fining ones that dont provide proper access.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
I think there is limited room for competition in many of these categories. For example, the infrastructure costs for telecoms make it very difficult for new competition (like a startup) to enter the market. The existing ones benefited from past funding and a lack of competition, but have captured market share. In some cases, there are other practical limitations, for example, splitting up wireless spectrum. Apart from Starlink I’m not sure there can be viable alternatives in this space
- dave4420 3y ago
  You force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure on a fair basis. It’s what happens in Europe (including the UK). It works.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      > In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it. Actually many places offer choice between cable and DSL variants. But once there is fiber in the ground it actually doesn't make much sense to go with anything else, so choices disappear (only for connection type, not ISP). With fiber it's much cheaper to provide high speed access (and there is a much clearer update path).
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    OR, (and I know this is near heresy) you force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure regardless of whether it is fair to that operator. This isn't a schoolyard playground. We don't have to play fair and treat these megacorporation with kid gloves. When the shoe is on the other foot, corporations don't play fair with us. "Fair" doesn't even come into the picture when they are in the conference room deciding their prices and terms. So why should the government treat them fairly when it comes to a regulatory solution?
    - dave4420 3y ago
      “Fair” as in “on the same terms that their own retail unit gets”, without any terms that would be anticompetitive. And no cross subsidisation. (I meant “fair to competitors”, but I think you thought I meant “fair to the infrastructure owner”.)
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
  I live in sweden and can pick from roughly 30 different ISPs where I live. I don't live in some big city, but in a smaller village. There is tons of room for competition if the laws are set up to push for it.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    Do you know how they are set up? What elements of their networks they share?
throwaway35777 3y ago
> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite... Speak for yourself, but I live on the west coast and my Internet connection is great. Edit: downvoters, what are the problems with U.S. internet?
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  What's your Internet speed up and down, provider, and monthly cost? Actual monthly cost, not temporary promotions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway35777 3y ago
    It's like $50/mo for 200/50 I think. Why, what are yours?
    - seattle_spring 3y ago
      The GP is comparing the US to the rest of the world, and they're correct: the US (including yours) lags behind other modern countries. Singapore, for reference, offers 500/500 symmetric connections for approximately the same price as you're paying. 2gbps symmetric is less than $200/mo. You're saying your Internet is fast enough for you, and that's fine and probably correct, but you're still getting slower speeds for higher prices than you should. You're also likely better situated than much of the rest of the country.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway35777 3y ago
        > but you're still getting slower speeds for higher prices than you should And what is your solution to that?
marcinzm 3y ago
Yes I'm sure it's all due to competition and not the EU's 2015 law that explicitly requires net neutrality (Net Neutrality Regulation 2015). > In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. They do that because speeding up/slowing down apps is illegal and they are using loopholes in the law to get around that.
- terse-broccoli 3y ago
  Yeah, but the loophole is also illegal. (so it’s not a loophole?)
- godelski 3y ago
  > Yes I'm sure it's all due to competition and not the EU's 2015 law that explicitly requires net neutrality (Net Neutrality Regulation 2015). Why do these have to be in contention? Regulations are a critical factor in ensuring competition in markets. Without regulations monopolies quickly come to power because your power and influence is not linearly (or sublinearly) correlated to your size (even excluding lobbying power). A free market is a ,,well'' regulated market. A laissez-faire market is only free in passing.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    One is an explicit policy stating expectations and the other is a speculative hypothesis that the same policy will naturally happen through some form of economic osmosis if only we leave things unmolested enough for an unspecified duration. I for one, would rather not rely on the assumption of magic. We know what we want and it's achievable directly. Let's not Rube Goldberg it.
  - itopaloglu83 3y ago
    A free market is not a lawless market but instead free within regulations. However, the amount of regulation should not make it impossible for competitors to join the market either. With the amount of subsidies in the US for ISPs, I think the services they render might be event called a public service, more than a utility.
jszymborski 3y ago
> and to a lesser extent Canada's Not to turn this into a pissing contest, but Canada's internet is far more shite and far more captured by an oligopoly. Independent ISPs are harder to find than competition up here in the North.
- parrot987 3y ago
  This is similar to what I see too. I've actually gotten a borderless phone plan from AT&T just so I don't have to deal with the Canadian oligopoly.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Canada isn't so bad off when it comes to wired service. Several ISPs are owned by the government: Sasktel, Bruce Telecom, Tbaytel, CityWest. And many more are co-operatives owned by the customers. The mobile space is more challenging. A number of those co-ops and government ISPs were running mobile service back in the mid 2000s, but they never found the customer base and most of them eventually shut it down, Tbaytel and Sasktel being the exceptions. That said, many of those ISPs have more recently turned to reselling Big 3 service, so you can still at least minimize how much the Big 3 take, giving the small guy at least some of the cut. Maybe some day they can take that small cut and build out their own network again? But, you get what you choose to become a customer of, I suppose.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Several ISPs are owned by the government: Sasktel, Bruce Telecom, Tbaytel, CityWest That's cold comfort to the overwhelming majority of people who aren't served by such ISPs. Population of... Saskatchewan (Sasktel): 1.1M Bruce County (Bruce Telecom): 66.5k Thunder Bay District (Tbaytel): 146k Prince Rupert, British Columbia (CityWest): 13k That makes up a total of 1.3M, against Canada's population of 37.0M. Moreover, looking at Sasktel's website[1], their prices don't look too competitive. They're asking for $105/month for 1G (promotional offer, regular price $150), which is actually worse than what corporate ISPs offer, eg. $110/month for 1.5G (promotional offer, regular price $130)[2]. [1] https://www.sasktel.com/store/browse/Personal/Internet/Internet-plans/_/N-satbeg https://www.sasktel.com/store/browse/Personal/Internet/Inter... [2] https://www.rogers.com/internet/packages https://www.rogers.com/internet/packages
wkat4242 3y ago
> In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. That's also in breach of EU net neutrality laws. A Dutch ISP lost a lawsuit over this for providing free Spotify traffic. I don't remember which one, I think it was T Mobile (now called Odildo or something lol)
- f1shy 3y ago
  Odildo? Cant be truth in a country where almost all people speak english!
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It's actually Odido but everyone I know calls it Odildo :P it was really a stupid name choice
    - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
      I suspect it's a brand name they tested across multiple languages, etc
      - beeboobaa3 3y ago
        Most countries are somewhat familiar with english slang, such as the word dildo.
        arp242 3y ago
        It's not slang, it's just a word. And the Dutch for dildo is ... dildo (I would have expected shared roots in French or some such, but apparently it's a loanword from English since the 70s).
    - blackbeans 3y ago
      I must be weird, but I like the name. It's a palindrome and I dig their symmetrical logo. And of course, it is clever marketing. Even here we are talking about it.
yftsui 3y ago
Giving “free data pass” to limited set of apps is even more harmful IMO, the monopolies can afford pay the network infrastructure but small app developers will not be able to.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  This. If ISPs want to QoS traffic into different lanes... fine. But those lanes should: - Be general categories of use - Only be created by regulation - Be freely accessible to any app - Not involve any app-ISP payment
  - itopaloglu83 3y ago
    Or, or, hear me out. The companies that need such high speed networks, should pay the infrastructure companies and get their own communication lines built, instead of buying QoS access on publicly funded projects.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      I don't think any company should be able to buy QoS access. They should simply qualify for it on the basis of their use case. E.g. "video streaming" or "real-time telecom"
      - itopaloglu83 3y ago
        I agree. What do you think about fair use policies? Things like having 250GB/Month kind of limits. The internet infrastructure was built with certain utilization and speed in mind. Instead of owning up to the fact that it’s not as good as it used to be, these companies are selling quality of service products. Otherwise it’s too much of a publicity hit if they admit it.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        I'm in favor of things that ultimately benefit the consumer. "Unlimited" plans have always irked the hell out of me, because they rarely are. I think capped totals (ideally without overage charges and with slow-lane bandwidth until reset) are perfectly fine. But I'm 100% against named exclusions that don't count against a cap -- that's unfairly preferring an existing incumbent, and doesn't benefit the consumer in the larger/competition sense.
spullara 3y ago
Best internet in the country is offered by a monopoly in Chattanooga. Up to 25 Gbit up/down.
- glitchc 3y ago
  That's amazing. I just upgraded my home network to 10G to take advantage of my 1.5G internet connection.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Why are you calling their municipal fiber internet a monopoly? Not only is it a utility, here is a list of 10 other broadband providers including att fiber, xfinity and verizon 300mb 5g: https://broadbandnow.com/Tennessee/Chattanooga https://broadbandnow.com/Tennessee/Chattanooga Pretty ridiculous and disingenuous to call it "monopoly".
  - spullara 3y ago
    Does someone else have access to that infrastructure that can offer the service? Utilities are granted monopolies.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      > Utilities are granted monopolies. You can say that as many times as you want, but you don't have any evidence or even an explanation. If there were ten power lines and ten water pipes to your house would say each of those twenty companies had a monopoly? Repeating something isn't evidence of anything.
- godelski 3y ago
  Monopoly? That's a bit bold of a claim. The provider you're talking about is the utility company. You might not know why the utility company provides the internet either. It's because before that they couldn't get the other companies (AT&T, Comcast, Hughe, Verizon) to offer good speeds and reasonable rates. The utility also doesn't take a profit. Mind you, those other companies still operate and no one is holding them back. They just decided that the profit margins weren't worth it, though they did lobby against NoogaNet. It's not a monopoly. It's a city coming together and saying Fuck you, give us good internet or we're going to build our own internet w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶j̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶o̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ And overnight all those companies increased their speeds. They found what they were happy with and NoogaNet still decided "fuck it, we're going to just be better." I really REALLY wish more people/cities would take this "fuck you, we'll do it ourselves" attitude. Waiting on others to fix our problems clearly isn't working.
lolinder 3y ago
This was my thought. My municipality has been working towards laying a city-owned fiber network that ISPs compete on, and if that goes through I would have no problem with some of them running the kind of programs described in TFA. If consumers want it they'll choose those ISPs, if they don't they'll choose ones that offer flat rates for all traffic. The problem with unregulated broadband isn't the lack of regulation in the abstract, it's the lack of regulation over a sector that has 2(±1) choices per household and no easy path for new entrants.
EPWN3D 3y ago
I was definitely someone who wrote the FCC (futilely) in support of net neutrality in 2017, and I figured the inevitable outcome of the FCC decision back then would be skyrocketing broadband costs, fast lanes, etc. Except none of it happened. It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and people by and large don't seem bothered by data caps when they're subject to them, and they have access to reasonably priced, uncapped plans. All that said, I certainly won't say no to reinstating net neutrality, since I don't think you can argue it'll make anything worse. In fact it might make competition easier. But it's not the existential pillar to online existence that we seemed to think it was.
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  Yeah, the discourse around the Net Neutrality thing was intense. I was one the few people who argued it wouldn't change much, and I remember being struck by the state of near-internet-apocalypse people were predicting at the time. Helps that I was seeing the whole thing from the outside as a non-US-resident.
  - doublepg23 3y ago
    I have to take the L on going with the flow there. It's impossible to build a case that repeal of net neutrality was apocalyptic.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      That the potential of a future FCC reinstating it precluded ISPs' baser instincts? Their goal was to avoid excess, so maybe they could argue that net neutrality wasn't a good idea anyway, so they could gradually introduce new revenue streams from apps/platforms.
      - PoignardAzur 3y ago
        That repeal lasted five years, with virtually none of the visible effects people predicted. By contrast, when the Trump administration started tearing down environmental regulations, mining companies jumped on the occasion within months. If ISPs are playing the long game, they're being incredibly patient about it.
ThatMedicIsASpy 3y ago
All the free access has been removed in Germany a while ago because of net neutrality. The free access also came with a limit like bitrate and video resolution.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
The FCC did that with DSL. The incumbent telcos retaliated by not maintaining their copper plant and killing their own line of business as an ISP.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The mistake there was in leaving the private monopoly intact whatsoever. If you want to have ISP-level competition, one of the better ways to do it is to have the government install cable trenches along the roads which the government then owns and provides cheap access for anyone to lay cable. Once the trenches exist, wiring a neighborhood with fiber is then far less expensive and makes it feasible to have multiple competitors.
passwordoops 3y ago
The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) {insert industry} is shite is because of the monopolies that exist.
- spxneo 3y ago
  ppls comments on this thread towards Canada really struck a nerve with their cluelessness about Canada. People from other countries always act like it's some shining example of the Western world, but that's not the real deal at all. Canada is basically just three big resource companies propped up by a massive housing bubble that traps newcomers in debt slavery in a form of reverse colonialism where they trick immigrants to become serfs paying rent so people who bought homes in the 80s (after working for like 6 months) can keep flipping it to the next wave of immigrants and blame them with the media owned by the very oligarchs that are supposed to regulate the real estate industry (lol!). They don't even bother using or valuing the skills and experience these immigrants bring - you've got surgeons from the UK working as cashiers, immigrants without income so all they can do is start businesses or become traders, all to line the pockets of the ultra-rich oligarchs who get everything for cheap and flip at insane markups. They have every Prime Minister wrapped around their little finger, letting them monopolize everything and then screwing over everyone that comes to this miserable piece of land. Take this one famous billionaire in Vancouver - I'm not gonna name names, but this dude practically owns all the salmon in BC, along with Aboriginal monopolies that were handed out just because of what has been described in anthropology textbooks as "white guilt". Then there's another billionaire from Ottawa who has a monopoly on the legal drug market - guy ended up getting choked out with a wire, and the RCMP just called it an "accident." Oh, and let's not forget the billionaire who somehow scored the exclusive rights to run the only online casino in BC. The list goes on and on. There's no such thing as a free market in Canada - it's just a banana republic country club for the rich old Canadians at the top. Actually, I'm not even sure if the casino guy was born in Canada, but he definitely looks like he could be. So yeah, to a lesser extent makes no sense here as somebody that has decades of experience with that country. At least America still recognizes the value of some free market and competition with or without a housing bubble.
godelski 3y ago
I lived in Tennessee when Google Fiber was announced there. At the time Chattanooga (and a few small towns) already had fiber internet that were offered by the utilities companies. It was an absolute shitshow. Actually, a shitshow would have been cleaner. Immediately AT&T rolls out gigabit internet, but not everywhere. I was in one of the small towns with gig and the previous renter had AT&T. AT&T literally cut the lines into the apartment instead of disconnecting them, causing me to have a $50 install fee (the technician was clearly also annoyed). Then Google, AT&T, and Comcast got into a big fight and it got political. Politicians would talk about how Google coming in was preventing competition (I shit you not) and attacking the little guys. Then a judge ruled that Google couldn't operate on telephone polls because Google would "cause danger to employees" and "be a union violation" (not the unions saying these things, it was AT&T. Obviously this made people think the unions were blocking things and continued to get mad at unions)[0]. So basically one of a Comcast and AT&T technician had to be there while Google would place in fiber and you know how it goes. It was a literal circus and the whole while it was politicized and misinformation was spreading like wildfire. Big Tech screwing over the little guys. Big Tech coming after the public utilities (never happened). Unions making everything impossible. Something about Big Tech and liberals/trans/gays taking over at some point. Like the on the ground conversations that would happen were mindbogglingly dumb. It actually was hard to figure out what was actually going on because every person and news article would have a unique story to tell. But the weirdest thing to me is about how nearly everyone I knew was a self-proclaimed Libertarian who hated government yet was licking their boots ad propping them up because they didn't want those gay/liberal/furry/godless/<insert random insult> techies rolling in decreasing competition and destroying the free market. That's when I truly started to believe that there's no such thing as a Libertarian (or any other cleanly encapsulated idea, but Libertarians are in your face), it's just a label. Because I watched anti-government free market devotees bend over backwards to protect monopolies and not even have a clue of the cognitive dissonance. It also made me really pay attention to how this happens more often than we care to think (including how we ourselves do it). [0] https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rules-against-metro-blocks-google-fiber-backed-utility-line-policy-at-t-poles/889313001/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rule...
- freedomben 3y ago
Xelbair 3y ago
>In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. there were such offers. about 10 years ago, but they are illegal EU-wide.
wredue 3y ago
Canadas ISP situation was far better when Crown corporations were providing better, cheaper services. In standard fashion, conservative government successfully convinced half the population that it’d be better if the crowns were sold. Spoiler: it has gotten way way worse. Not better.
holmesworcester 3y ago
Actually, the empirical record on this shows that we see more net neutrality violations by ISPs in marketplaces with high competition.[1] This is counter-intuitive but here's how it works: In a competitive marketplace ISPs have tighter margins and look for every opportunity for cost savings, so if throttling a high-bandwidth application only affects a small percentage of customers, and only a tiny tech-savvy minority of those affected will accurately attribute the effect to ISP throttling, it will incur only the tiniest competitive pressure on the ISP, so the ISP will do it to increase profits. We actually saw more net neutrality violations in competitive EU markets than in the US, until EU-level net neutrality rules passed. Another way to look at the limits of competitive pressure is from a startup's point of view: if your startup is offering a new videoconferencing service, how will competition help you when a rogue ISP breaks your service for 10% of your customers by throttling your service but putting Zoom in a fastlane? Your customers will not think "oh, I'd better switch to a better ISP," when ~10% of call participants are unintelligible. They will think, "oh, this new service sucks, I'm going to stick to Zoom." Competitive pressure on ISPs does not protect nascent startups with small userbases from ISPs. And yet, everything we care about on the Internet started as a nascent startup with a small userbase. Competition is great for keeping prices down and the US needs more of it. But to protect the long tail of startups and all the new ways people use the Internet from ISPs you need net neutrality laws. 1. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700055 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700055. Key finding: Relying on consumer switching behavior to provide more comprehensive competitive discipline was insufficient for a variety of reasons, including the presence of switching costs.
- jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
  Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins?
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    If the FCC does not do something, they will. As to why it has not happened yet: it is easier to corrupt a new infrastructure from the beginning than change one that is already entrenched.
alephnerd 3y ago
> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist Hot take - Reliance Jio+Bharti Airtel, China Mobile+Telecom+Unicom, and NTT+KDDI are basically duo/triopolies yet were able to roll our 5G nationwide in just 2-4 years in India, China, and Japan while keeping competitive pricing, and make the US market look free in comparison. The issue seems to be the relative lethargy of the FCC and regulators, along with issues around deprecating older infra. This doesn't mean we should go all Reagan, but if this is streamlined at the executive level, it would really simplify everything.
lostlogin 3y ago
> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. New Zealand went from having a single provider for service and infrastructure, to having actual options. The breakup of the monopoly was imposed by regulation [1]. Following this there was a lot of taxpayer investment in fibre and while it’s been a flawed rollout, it’s made a hell of a difference. I’m on symmetric gigabit and have 2gb/s, 4gb/s and 8gb/s options if I pay more. [1] under history section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
Broadband funding just funded some competition here. Before: One ISP. Spectrum $120/mo 1Gb down & 40Mb up. After: New choices of 8 fiber ISP. Opts inc $35 250Mb/250Mb, $50 1Gb/1Gb, $70 2.5Gb/2.5Gb, $120 10Gb/10Gb. ISPs spend billions on politicians to make sure (the most possible) Americans don't have choices. They get their money's worth. ref: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/28/infuriating-telecom-lobbyists-spending-big-money-keep-gigi-sohn-fcc https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/28/infuriating-tel...
thomastjeffery 3y ago
I live in a city with a competitive municipal network and Google fiber. If you live in a house down the street from me, you can get 1gbit for $70. Yet somehow, I'm paying $100 for 190mbit. The price and ISP (not the speed) are literally written into my apartment's lease agreement. This is an apartment managed by the same developer who owns every other apartment I can afford, so it's not as if I have any bargaining power here, either. My parents, who live in a remote area, but happen to be next to a major fiber line, pay even more than I do for less than 20mbit FTTH! I think we have made a grave mistake obsessing over the word, "monopoly". It doesn't take a monopoly for anti-competitive behavior to absolutely ruin a market. Even if healthy competition thrives in a market, some participants will find a way to abuse some customers. We shouldn't be so lazy that we point a finger at what's working, and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
wzyboy 3y ago
I immigrated from China to Canada and I'm not sure if monopoly is the root cause. In China, ISP is state-controlled and 100% monopoly, yet the plans are dirt cheap compared to those in Canada. I just looked up the price in my hometown in China: 1000 Mbps fibre internet + 3 mobile phone lines (105 GB data) + IPTV = 249 CNY tax included (30 USD / 42 CAD / 28 EUR) The 1000 Mbps fibre Internet plan alone (no phones no TVs) I have in Canada is $65 + tax. And it's a discounted plan. The price on the ISP website is $100. Also in China phone plans have fast lanes as well. SNS and video streaming data are treated separately (cheap or even free).
- gswdh 3y ago
  Communist and capitalist monopolies are two completely different things.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I lived in China for 9 years and always found the internet, even for going just to Chinese sites, to be really slow. Like sure you have 5G, but the overall internet trunks are just saturated and not built out enough. Maybe it has gotten better since I left Beijing in 2016? It was definitely cheap and affordable. But I always felt a huge speed bump (along with easy access to foreign web sites) when I went to Thailand or Indonesia for vacation.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    > always found the internet, even for going just to Chinese sites, to be really slow A lot of that is because of the GFW. MITM/TLS decryption/DPI has a massive performance overhead (and why the first question any agent based security product is ask is whether it is "in the path of traffic"). It's basically a giant version of Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) The performance hit is a major reason why a lot of edge computing development has happened in the Chinese ecosystem (you can't guarantee stuff works with latency, so how do you solve that) This is an older investigation (2017) by ThousandEyes about this - https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/benchmarking-network-performance-china https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/benchmarking-network-perfo... Note that the infra has changed drastically since 2017.
mardifoufs 3y ago
If that's true, then why does the US have higher average and median broadband speeds than pretty much every European country[0]? The narrative that is seen online isn't necessarily representative of the reality, Americans just like to complain more. In my experience, bundled data whatsapp/YouTube or whatever else is much more common in Europe too and no one really complains because again, Americans are just that much more vocal. [0] for mobile, they are also in the top 15. For fixed broadband, they are 5th. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  Here’s some better research https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/Wireless_market_operator_competitiveness_2023_PUBLIC.pdf https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/Wireless_market_operat...
Larrikin 3y ago
I haven't checked lately, but Comcast tried that data cap crap and was completely pushed back on in every economically important state they tried it in or there was actually an option someone could switch too. I was shocked in Chicago when I got an overage fee, but I promptly switched to RCN even before Illinois shut it down.
deanishe 3y ago
The worst part is, imo, US taxpayers paid for all that infrastructure. These ISPs absolutely should be forced to open their infrastructure to other providers, like in Europe, and for the same reasons.
- palata 3y ago
  > The worst part is, imo, US taxpayers paid for all that infrastructure. Isn't that exactly how it always worked? Whatever public service works well is privatised (for some reason I don't get), and whatever is a source of cost stays public. Such that the taxpayer keeps paying, and some people get rich by screwing them.
  - palata 3y ago
    Not sure why I got downvoted for that. It seems only rational that private actors may want to privatise and buy any public service that is profitable. Because private actors seek profit. Now many times I don't think it is a good idea (why in the world would one privatise public transports? "Public" is in the title...), but that is another question.
scarface_74 3y ago
There is no “monopoly” on cellular service. There are three national carriers and a few regional carriers that have their own network. How exactly do more carriers competing locally even work? You slice the spectrum they are allowed and have worse service? Do you remember when t-mobiles spectrum allocation was so bad that you couldn’t get a signal inside of a building?
nostromo 3y ago
I'd agree with this comment if it was 2010. But today the US has good internet speeds -- in general much better than Europe despite it's bigger geographic size and less-dense population. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/internet-speeds-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/internet-...
- fulafel 3y ago
  Despite the category mismatch (continent vs country) .. Europe and USA have very similar population densities (~35 p/km2) [0] [1] [2] [3] Also, many sparsely populated European countries have relatively good internet speeds (eg Iceland, Sweden). [0] https://database.earth/population/europe/density https://database.earth/population/europe/density [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-popula... [2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-po... [3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=U...
jabroni_salad 3y ago
T-mobile offers it in the US still: https://www.t-mobile.com/tv-streaming/binge-on https://www.t-mobile.com/tv-streaming/binge-on In this mode, video streams will be limited to 480p but will not count against your bandwidth cap.
- remram 3y ago
  And by "video" we mean "Netflix". There goes neutrality and fair competition.
rjzzleep 3y ago
> the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite Why to a lesser extent? In my experience Canada's was way worse than the US, which I honestly didn't think would be possible.
rayiner 3y ago
The OpenReach model doesn’t make much sense for wireless, where the market can support three competing providers (plus a ton of MVNOs) and overbuilding is necessary to provide sufficient capacity anyway. (E.g. AT&T couldn’t serve everyone with just its own cell towers.) I think the more salient issue is the market simply doesn’t care about this stuff. As long as you can get on Facebook and instagram they are not mo rd by what’s going on behind the scenes.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago

I think there is limited room for competition in many of these categories. For example, the infrastructure costs for telecoms make it very difficult for new competition (like a startup) to enter the market. The existing ones benefited from past funding and a lack of competition, but have captured market share. In some cases, there are other practical limitations, for example, splitting up wireless spectrum. Apart from Starlink I’m not sure there can be viable alternatives in this space

dave4420 3y ago
You force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure on a fair basis. It’s what happens in Europe (including the UK). It works.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    > In Europe they only do this for the last mile as far as I know, and this actually also prevents innovation since again there isn’t competition that can meaningfully introduce alternatives (let’s say cable versus fiber versus whatever). But I agree that approach is still an important tool (certainly better than nothing) and the US should adopt it. Actually many places offer choice between cable and DSL variants. But once there is fiber in the ground it actually doesn't make much sense to go with anything else, so choices disappear (only for connection type, not ISP). With fiber it's much cheaper to provide high speed access (and there is a much clearer update path).
- ryandrake 3y ago
  OR, (and I know this is near heresy) you force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure regardless of whether it is fair to that operator. This isn't a schoolyard playground. We don't have to play fair and treat these megacorporation with kid gloves. When the shoe is on the other foot, corporations don't play fair with us. "Fair" doesn't even come into the picture when they are in the conference room deciding their prices and terms. So why should the government treat them fairly when it comes to a regulatory solution?
  - dave4420 3y ago
    “Fair” as in “on the same terms that their own retail unit gets”, without any terms that would be anticompetitive. And no cross subsidisation. (I meant “fair to competitors”, but I think you thought I meant “fair to the infrastructure owner”.)
tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
I live in sweden and can pick from roughly 30 different ISPs where I live. I don't live in some big city, but in a smaller village. There is tons of room for competition if the laws are set up to push for it.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  Do you know how they are set up? What elements of their networks they share?

throwaway35777 3y ago

> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite... Speak for yourself, but I live on the west coast and my Internet connection is great. Edit: downvoters, what are the problems with U.S. internet?

seattle_spring 3y ago
What's your Internet speed up and down, provider, and monthly cost? Actual monthly cost, not temporary promotions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway35777 3y ago
  It's like $50/mo for 200/50 I think. Why, what are yours?
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    The GP is comparing the US to the rest of the world, and they're correct: the US (including yours) lags behind other modern countries. Singapore, for reference, offers 500/500 symmetric connections for approximately the same price as you're paying. 2gbps symmetric is less than $200/mo. You're saying your Internet is fast enough for you, and that's fine and probably correct, but you're still getting slower speeds for higher prices than you should. You're also likely better situated than much of the rest of the country.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway35777 3y ago
      > but you're still getting slower speeds for higher prices than you should And what is your solution to that?

marcinzm 3y ago

Yes I'm sure it's all due to competition and not the EU's 2015 law that explicitly requires net neutrality (Net Neutrality Regulation 2015). > In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. They do that because speeding up/slowing down apps is illegal and they are using loopholes in the law to get around that.

terse-broccoli 3y ago
Yeah, but the loophole is also illegal. (so it’s not a loophole?)
godelski 3y ago
> Yes I'm sure it's all due to competition and not the EU's 2015 law that explicitly requires net neutrality (Net Neutrality Regulation 2015). Why do these have to be in contention? Regulations are a critical factor in ensuring competition in markets. Without regulations monopolies quickly come to power because your power and influence is not linearly (or sublinearly) correlated to your size (even excluding lobbying power). A free market is a ,,well'' regulated market. A laissez-faire market is only free in passing.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  One is an explicit policy stating expectations and the other is a speculative hypothesis that the same policy will naturally happen through some form of economic osmosis if only we leave things unmolested enough for an unspecified duration. I for one, would rather not rely on the assumption of magic. We know what we want and it's achievable directly. Let's not Rube Goldberg it.
- itopaloglu83 3y ago
  A free market is not a lawless market but instead free within regulations. However, the amount of regulation should not make it impossible for competitors to join the market either. With the amount of subsidies in the US for ISPs, I think the services they render might be event called a public service, more than a utility.

jszymborski 3y ago

> and to a lesser extent Canada's Not to turn this into a pissing contest, but Canada's internet is far more shite and far more captured by an oligopoly. Independent ISPs are harder to find than competition up here in the North.

parrot987 3y ago
This is similar to what I see too. I've actually gotten a borderless phone plan from AT&T just so I don't have to deal with the Canadian oligopoly.
randomdata 3y ago
Canada isn't so bad off when it comes to wired service. Several ISPs are owned by the government: Sasktel, Bruce Telecom, Tbaytel, CityWest. And many more are co-operatives owned by the customers. The mobile space is more challenging. A number of those co-ops and government ISPs were running mobile service back in the mid 2000s, but they never found the customer base and most of them eventually shut it down, Tbaytel and Sasktel being the exceptions. That said, many of those ISPs have more recently turned to reselling Big 3 service, so you can still at least minimize how much the Big 3 take, giving the small guy at least some of the cut. Maybe some day they can take that small cut and build out their own network again? But, you get what you choose to become a customer of, I suppose.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Several ISPs are owned by the government: Sasktel, Bruce Telecom, Tbaytel, CityWest That's cold comfort to the overwhelming majority of people who aren't served by such ISPs. Population of... Saskatchewan (Sasktel): 1.1M Bruce County (Bruce Telecom): 66.5k Thunder Bay District (Tbaytel): 146k Prince Rupert, British Columbia (CityWest): 13k That makes up a total of 1.3M, against Canada's population of 37.0M. Moreover, looking at Sasktel's website[1], their prices don't look too competitive. They're asking for $105/month for 1G (promotional offer, regular price $150), which is actually worse than what corporate ISPs offer, eg. $110/month for 1.5G (promotional offer, regular price $130)[2]. [1] https://www.sasktel.com/store/browse/Personal/Internet/Internet-plans/_/N-satbeg https://www.sasktel.com/store/browse/Personal/Internet/Inter... [2] https://www.rogers.com/internet/packages https://www.rogers.com/internet/packages

wkat4242 3y ago

> In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. That's also in breach of EU net neutrality laws. A Dutch ISP lost a lawsuit over this for providing free Spotify traffic. I don't remember which one, I think it was T Mobile (now called Odildo or something lol)

f1shy 3y ago
Odildo? Cant be truth in a country where almost all people speak english!
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It's actually Odido but everyone I know calls it Odildo :P it was really a stupid name choice
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    I suspect it's a brand name they tested across multiple languages, etc
    - beeboobaa3 3y ago
      Most countries are somewhat familiar with english slang, such as the word dildo.
      - arp242 3y ago
        It's not slang, it's just a word. And the Dutch for dildo is ... dildo (I would have expected shared roots in French or some such, but apparently it's a loanword from English since the 70s).
  - blackbeans 3y ago
    I must be weird, but I like the name. It's a palindrome and I dig their symmetrical logo. And of course, it is clever marketing. Even here we are talking about it.

yftsui 3y ago

Giving “free data pass” to limited set of apps is even more harmful IMO, the monopolies can afford pay the network infrastructure but small app developers will not be able to.

ethbr1 3y ago
This. If ISPs want to QoS traffic into different lanes... fine. But those lanes should: - Be general categories of use - Only be created by regulation - Be freely accessible to any app - Not involve any app-ISP payment
- itopaloglu83 3y ago
  Or, or, hear me out. The companies that need such high speed networks, should pay the infrastructure companies and get their own communication lines built, instead of buying QoS access on publicly funded projects.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I don't think any company should be able to buy QoS access. They should simply qualify for it on the basis of their use case. E.g. "video streaming" or "real-time telecom"
    - itopaloglu83 3y ago
      I agree. What do you think about fair use policies? Things like having 250GB/Month kind of limits. The internet infrastructure was built with certain utilization and speed in mind. Instead of owning up to the fact that it’s not as good as it used to be, these companies are selling quality of service products. Otherwise it’s too much of a publicity hit if they admit it.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        I'm in favor of things that ultimately benefit the consumer. "Unlimited" plans have always irked the hell out of me, because they rarely are. I think capped totals (ideally without overage charges and with slow-lane bandwidth until reset) are perfectly fine. But I'm 100% against named exclusions that don't count against a cap -- that's unfairly preferring an existing incumbent, and doesn't benefit the consumer in the larger/competition sense.

spullara 3y ago

Best internet in the country is offered by a monopoly in Chattanooga. Up to 25 Gbit up/down.

glitchc 3y ago
That's amazing. I just upgraded my home network to 10G to take advantage of my 1.5G internet connection.
CyberDildonics 3y ago
Why are you calling their municipal fiber internet a monopoly? Not only is it a utility, here is a list of 10 other broadband providers including att fiber, xfinity and verizon 300mb 5g: https://broadbandnow.com/Tennessee/Chattanooga https://broadbandnow.com/Tennessee/Chattanooga Pretty ridiculous and disingenuous to call it "monopoly".
- spullara 3y ago
  Does someone else have access to that infrastructure that can offer the service? Utilities are granted monopolies.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    > Utilities are granted monopolies. You can say that as many times as you want, but you don't have any evidence or even an explanation. If there were ten power lines and ten water pipes to your house would say each of those twenty companies had a monopoly? Repeating something isn't evidence of anything.
godelski 3y ago
Monopoly? That's a bit bold of a claim. The provider you're talking about is the utility company. You might not know why the utility company provides the internet either. It's because before that they couldn't get the other companies (AT&T, Comcast, Hughe, Verizon) to offer good speeds and reasonable rates. The utility also doesn't take a profit. Mind you, those other companies still operate and no one is holding them back. They just decided that the profit margins weren't worth it, though they did lobby against NoogaNet. It's not a monopoly. It's a city coming together and saying Fuck you, give us good internet or we're going to build our own internet w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶j̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶o̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ And overnight all those companies increased their speeds. They found what they were happy with and NoogaNet still decided "fuck it, we're going to just be better." I really REALLY wish more people/cities would take this "fuck you, we'll do it ourselves" attitude. Waiting on others to fix our problems clearly isn't working.

lolinder 3y ago

This was my thought. My municipality has been working towards laying a city-owned fiber network that ISPs compete on, and if that goes through I would have no problem with some of them running the kind of programs described in TFA. If consumers want it they'll choose those ISPs, if they don't they'll choose ones that offer flat rates for all traffic. The problem with unregulated broadband isn't the lack of regulation in the abstract, it's the lack of regulation over a sector that has 2(±1) choices per household and no easy path for new entrants.

EPWN3D 3y ago

I was definitely someone who wrote the FCC (futilely) in support of net neutrality in 2017, and I figured the inevitable outcome of the FCC decision back then would be skyrocketing broadband costs, fast lanes, etc. Except none of it happened. It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and people by and large don't seem bothered by data caps when they're subject to them, and they have access to reasonably priced, uncapped plans. All that said, I certainly won't say no to reinstating net neutrality, since I don't think you can argue it'll make anything worse. In fact it might make competition easier. But it's not the existential pillar to online existence that we seemed to think it was.

PoignardAzur 3y ago
Yeah, the discourse around the Net Neutrality thing was intense. I was one the few people who argued it wouldn't change much, and I remember being struck by the state of near-internet-apocalypse people were predicting at the time. Helps that I was seeing the whole thing from the outside as a non-US-resident.
- doublepg23 3y ago
  I have to take the L on going with the flow there. It's impossible to build a case that repeal of net neutrality was apocalyptic.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    That the potential of a future FCC reinstating it precluded ISPs' baser instincts? Their goal was to avoid excess, so maybe they could argue that net neutrality wasn't a good idea anyway, so they could gradually introduce new revenue streams from apps/platforms.
    - PoignardAzur 3y ago
      That repeal lasted five years, with virtually none of the visible effects people predicted. By contrast, when the Trump administration started tearing down environmental regulations, mining companies jumped on the occasion within months. If ISPs are playing the long game, they're being incredibly patient about it.

ThatMedicIsASpy 3y ago

All the free access has been removed in Germany a while ago because of net neutrality. The free access also came with a limit like bitrate and video resolution.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

The FCC did that with DSL. The incumbent telcos retaliated by not maintaining their copper plant and killing their own line of business as an ISP.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The mistake there was in leaving the private monopoly intact whatsoever. If you want to have ISP-level competition, one of the better ways to do it is to have the government install cable trenches along the roads which the government then owns and provides cheap access for anyone to lay cable. Once the trenches exist, wiring a neighborhood with fiber is then far less expensive and makes it feasible to have multiple competitors.

passwordoops 3y ago

The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) {insert industry} is shite is because of the monopolies that exist.

spxneo 3y ago
ppls comments on this thread towards Canada really struck a nerve with their cluelessness about Canada. People from other countries always act like it's some shining example of the Western world, but that's not the real deal at all. Canada is basically just three big resource companies propped up by a massive housing bubble that traps newcomers in debt slavery in a form of reverse colonialism where they trick immigrants to become serfs paying rent so people who bought homes in the 80s (after working for like 6 months) can keep flipping it to the next wave of immigrants and blame them with the media owned by the very oligarchs that are supposed to regulate the real estate industry (lol!). They don't even bother using or valuing the skills and experience these immigrants bring - you've got surgeons from the UK working as cashiers, immigrants without income so all they can do is start businesses or become traders, all to line the pockets of the ultra-rich oligarchs who get everything for cheap and flip at insane markups. They have every Prime Minister wrapped around their little finger, letting them monopolize everything and then screwing over everyone that comes to this miserable piece of land. Take this one famous billionaire in Vancouver - I'm not gonna name names, but this dude practically owns all the salmon in BC, along with Aboriginal monopolies that were handed out just because of what has been described in anthropology textbooks as "white guilt". Then there's another billionaire from Ottawa who has a monopoly on the legal drug market - guy ended up getting choked out with a wire, and the RCMP just called it an "accident." Oh, and let's not forget the billionaire who somehow scored the exclusive rights to run the only online casino in BC. The list goes on and on. There's no such thing as a free market in Canada - it's just a banana republic country club for the rich old Canadians at the top. Actually, I'm not even sure if the casino guy was born in Canada, but he definitely looks like he could be. So yeah, to a lesser extent makes no sense here as somebody that has decades of experience with that country. At least America still recognizes the value of some free market and competition with or without a housing bubble.

godelski 3y ago

I lived in Tennessee when Google Fiber was announced there. At the time Chattanooga (and a few small towns) already had fiber internet that were offered by the utilities companies. It was an absolute shitshow. Actually, a shitshow would have been cleaner. Immediately AT&T rolls out gigabit internet, but not everywhere. I was in one of the small towns with gig and the previous renter had AT&T. AT&T literally cut the lines into the apartment instead of disconnecting them, causing me to have a $50 install fee (the technician was clearly also annoyed). Then Google, AT&T, and Comcast got into a big fight and it got political. Politicians would talk about how Google coming in was preventing competition (I shit you not) and attacking the little guys. Then a judge ruled that Google couldn't operate on telephone polls because Google would "cause danger to employees" and "be a union violation" (not the unions saying these things, it was AT&T. Obviously this made people think the unions were blocking things and continued to get mad at unions)[0]. So basically one of a Comcast and AT&T technician had to be there while Google would place in fiber and you know how it goes. It was a literal circus and the whole while it was politicized and misinformation was spreading like wildfire. Big Tech screwing over the little guys. Big Tech coming after the public utilities (never happened). Unions making everything impossible. Something about Big Tech and liberals/trans/gays taking over at some point. Like the on the ground conversations that would happen were mindbogglingly dumb. It actually was hard to figure out what was actually going on because every person and news article would have a unique story to tell. But the weirdest thing to me is about how nearly everyone I knew was a self-proclaimed Libertarian who hated government yet was licking their boots ad propping them up because they didn't want those gay/liberal/furry/godless/<insert random insult> techies rolling in decreasing competition and destroying the free market. That's when I truly started to believe that there's no such thing as a Libertarian (or any other cleanly encapsulated idea, but Libertarians are in your face), it's just a label. Because I watched anti-government free market devotees bend over backwards to protect monopolies and not even have a clue of the cognitive dissonance. It also made me really pay attention to how this happens more often than we care to think (including how we ourselves do it). [0] https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rules-against-metro-blocks-google-fiber-backed-utility-line-policy-at-t-poles/889313001/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rule...

freedomben 3y ago

Xelbair 3y ago

>In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. there were such offers. about 10 years ago, but they are illegal EU-wide.

wredue 3y ago

Canadas ISP situation was far better when Crown corporations were providing better, cheaper services. In standard fashion, conservative government successfully convinced half the population that it’d be better if the crowns were sold. Spoiler: it has gotten way way worse. Not better.

holmesworcester 3y ago

Actually, the empirical record on this shows that we see more net neutrality violations by ISPs in marketplaces with high competition.[1] This is counter-intuitive but here's how it works: In a competitive marketplace ISPs have tighter margins and look for every opportunity for cost savings, so if throttling a high-bandwidth application only affects a small percentage of customers, and only a tiny tech-savvy minority of those affected will accurately attribute the effect to ISP throttling, it will incur only the tiniest competitive pressure on the ISP, so the ISP will do it to increase profits. We actually saw more net neutrality violations in competitive EU markets than in the US, until EU-level net neutrality rules passed. Another way to look at the limits of competitive pressure is from a startup's point of view: if your startup is offering a new videoconferencing service, how will competition help you when a rogue ISP breaks your service for 10% of your customers by throttling your service but putting Zoom in a fastlane? Your customers will not think "oh, I'd better switch to a better ISP," when ~10% of call participants are unintelligible. They will think, "oh, this new service sucks, I'm going to stick to Zoom." Competitive pressure on ISPs does not protect nascent startups with small userbases from ISPs. And yet, everything we care about on the Internet started as a nascent startup with a small userbase. Competition is great for keeping prices down and the US needs more of it. But to protect the long tail of startups and all the new ways people use the Internet from ISPs you need net neutrality laws. 1. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700055 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700055. Key finding: Relying on consumer switching behavior to provide more comprehensive competitive discipline was insufficient for a variety of reasons, including the presence of switching costs.

jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  If the FCC does not do something, they will. As to why it has not happened yet: it is easier to corrupt a new infrastructure from the beginning than change one that is already entrenched.

alephnerd 3y ago

> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist Hot take - Reliance Jio+Bharti Airtel, China Mobile+Telecom+Unicom, and NTT+KDDI are basically duo/triopolies yet were able to roll our 5G nationwide in just 2-4 years in India, China, and Japan while keeping competitive pricing, and make the US market look free in comparison. The issue seems to be the relative lethargy of the FCC and regulators, along with issues around deprecating older infra. This doesn't mean we should go all Reagan, but if this is streamlined at the executive level, it would really simplify everything.

lostlogin 3y ago

> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. New Zealand went from having a single provider for service and infrastructure, to having actual options. The breakup of the monopoly was imposed by regulation [1]. Following this there was a lot of taxpayer investment in fibre and while it’s been a flawed rollout, it’s made a hell of a difference. I’m on symmetric gigabit and have 2gb/s, 4gb/s and 8gb/s options if I pay more. [1] under history section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

Broadband funding just funded some competition here. Before: One ISP. Spectrum $120/mo 1Gb down & 40Mb up. After: New choices of 8 fiber ISP. Opts inc $35 250Mb/250Mb, $50 1Gb/1Gb, $70 2.5Gb/2.5Gb, $120 10Gb/10Gb. ISPs spend billions on politicians to make sure (the most possible) Americans don't have choices. They get their money's worth. ref: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/28/infuriating-telecom-lobbyists-spending-big-money-keep-gigi-sohn-fcc https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/28/infuriating-tel...

thomastjeffery 3y ago

I live in a city with a competitive municipal network and Google fiber. If you live in a house down the street from me, you can get 1gbit for $70. Yet somehow, I'm paying $100 for 190mbit. The price and ISP (not the speed) are literally written into my apartment's lease agreement. This is an apartment managed by the same developer who owns every other apartment I can afford, so it's not as if I have any bargaining power here, either. My parents, who live in a remote area, but happen to be next to a major fiber line, pay even more than I do for less than 20mbit FTTH! I think we have made a grave mistake obsessing over the word, "monopoly". It doesn't take a monopoly for anti-competitive behavior to absolutely ruin a market. Even if healthy competition thrives in a market, some participants will find a way to abuse some customers. We shouldn't be so lazy that we point a finger at what's working, and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

wzyboy 3y ago

I immigrated from China to Canada and I'm not sure if monopoly is the root cause. In China, ISP is state-controlled and 100% monopoly, yet the plans are dirt cheap compared to those in Canada. I just looked up the price in my hometown in China: 1000 Mbps fibre internet + 3 mobile phone lines (105 GB data) + IPTV = 249 CNY tax included (30 USD / 42 CAD / 28 EUR) The 1000 Mbps fibre Internet plan alone (no phones no TVs) I have in Canada is $65 + tax. And it's a discounted plan. The price on the ISP website is $100. Also in China phone plans have fast lanes as well. SNS and video streaming data are treated separately (cheap or even free).

gswdh 3y ago
Communist and capitalist monopolies are two completely different things.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I lived in China for 9 years and always found the internet, even for going just to Chinese sites, to be really slow. Like sure you have 5G, but the overall internet trunks are just saturated and not built out enough. Maybe it has gotten better since I left Beijing in 2016? It was definitely cheap and affordable. But I always felt a huge speed bump (along with easy access to foreign web sites) when I went to Thailand or Indonesia for vacation.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > always found the internet, even for going just to Chinese sites, to be really slow A lot of that is because of the GFW. MITM/TLS decryption/DPI has a massive performance overhead (and why the first question any agent based security product is ask is whether it is "in the path of traffic"). It's basically a giant version of Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) The performance hit is a major reason why a lot of edge computing development has happened in the Chinese ecosystem (you can't guarantee stuff works with latency, so how do you solve that) This is an older investigation (2017) by ThousandEyes about this - https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/benchmarking-network-performance-china https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/benchmarking-network-perfo... Note that the infra has changed drastically since 2017.

mardifoufs 3y ago

If that's true, then why does the US have higher average and median broadband speeds than pretty much every European country[0]? The narrative that is seen online isn't necessarily representative of the reality, Americans just like to complain more. In my experience, bundled data whatsapp/YouTube or whatever else is much more common in Europe too and no one really complains because again, Americans are just that much more vocal. [0] for mobile, they are also in the top 15. For fixed broadband, they are 5th. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed

iknowstuff 3y ago
Here’s some better research https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/Wireless_market_operator_competitiveness_2023_PUBLIC.pdf https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/Wireless_market_operat...

Larrikin 3y ago

I haven't checked lately, but Comcast tried that data cap crap and was completely pushed back on in every economically important state they tried it in or there was actually an option someone could switch too. I was shocked in Chicago when I got an overage fee, but I promptly switched to RCN even before Illinois shut it down.

deanishe 3y ago

The worst part is, imo, US taxpayers paid for all that infrastructure. These ISPs absolutely should be forced to open their infrastructure to other providers, like in Europe, and for the same reasons.

palata 3y ago
> The worst part is, imo, US taxpayers paid for all that infrastructure. Isn't that exactly how it always worked? Whatever public service works well is privatised (for some reason I don't get), and whatever is a source of cost stays public. Such that the taxpayer keeps paying, and some people get rich by screwing them.
- palata 3y ago
  Not sure why I got downvoted for that. It seems only rational that private actors may want to privatise and buy any public service that is profitable. Because private actors seek profit. Now many times I don't think it is a good idea (why in the world would one privatise public transports? "Public" is in the title...), but that is another question.

scarface_74 3y ago

There is no “monopoly” on cellular service. There are three national carriers and a few regional carriers that have their own network. How exactly do more carriers competing locally even work? You slice the spectrum they are allowed and have worse service? Do you remember when t-mobiles spectrum allocation was so bad that you couldn’t get a signal inside of a building?

nostromo 3y ago

I'd agree with this comment if it was 2010. But today the US has good internet speeds -- in general much better than Europe despite it's bigger geographic size and less-dense population. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/internet-speeds-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/internet-...

fulafel 3y ago
Despite the category mismatch (continent vs country) .. Europe and USA have very similar population densities (~35 p/km2) [0] [1] [2] [3] Also, many sparsely populated European countries have relatively good internet speeds (eg Iceland, Sweden). [0] https://database.earth/population/europe/density https://database.earth/population/europe/density [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-popula... [2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-po... [3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=U...

jabroni_salad 3y ago

T-mobile offers it in the US still: https://www.t-mobile.com/tv-streaming/binge-on https://www.t-mobile.com/tv-streaming/binge-on In this mode, video streams will be limited to 480p but will not count against your bandwidth cap.

remram 3y ago
And by "video" we mean "Netflix". There goes neutrality and fair competition.

rjzzleep 3y ago

> the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite Why to a lesser extent? In my experience Canada's was way worse than the US, which I honestly didn't think would be possible.

rayiner 3y ago

The OpenReach model doesn’t make much sense for wireless, where the market can support three competing providers (plus a ton of MVNOs) and overbuilding is necessary to provide sufficient capacity anyway. (E.g. AT&T couldn’t serve everyone with just its own cell towers.) I think the more salient issue is the market simply doesn’t care about this stuff. As long as you can get on Facebook and instagram they are not mo rd by what’s going on behind the scenes.