5 ms·

I think you understand this better than I do, so maybe I'm being simplistic. But isn't the gist of what you're saying "it's complicated because ISPs have gotten

I think you understand this better than I do, so maybe I'm being simplistic. But isn't the gist of what you're saying "it's complicated because ISPs have gotten themselves a near-monopoly status and then, in reaction, we've regulated them?" If so, that doesn't make me sympathize with them at all. If they want freedom to charge more according to access, or to charge more according to the difficulty of running the last mile connection, I'd say "give up your monopoly protections and we'll remove your regulation." If they don't want that, I'd say "you start charging both the consumer and the content provider and we'll pass a regulation saying you can't." If a company wants the government to be their sugar daddy, they shouldn't complain when they get grounded. You want your own rules, you move out of the house and compete in the free market.

josh2600 14y ago
In very old industries you often have players who have a monopolistic status. Markets either become price efficient or competition deficient over time. In the case of telecom there is stratified warfare. At the consumer level, competition is scarce. In the SMB Segment competition is fierce. In the Datacenters world competition is fierce, but at the core of everything you have to go through 721 Folsom street to get out of the left coast. This fight is particularly interesting because it's one of the first to cross the Commercial-Residential boundary. On the one hand, consumers pay for access, on the other, large ISPs peer networks. One is a contract, the other a handshake. In this particular case, ISPs argue that since usage increases so should rates, but in order to arrive at such a conclusion, the large ISPs would have to ignore their monopoly. Let's take this a step further though; there's a really big problem with everyone building their own network. That is, no one wants thousands of wires running to each residence, but that's what a competitive last mile would look like. The answer is municipally controlled networks with private operators. The infrastructure would be owned by the state, but operated by competitive virtual operators. Unfortunately, this vision is impossible in America, and that's why we can't tackle this problem straight-on and instead have to operate through layers of abstraction. TL;DR: public networks, private operators is ideal. Impossible in US.
- graysnorf 14y ago
  Why do you say it's impossible in the US?
  - josh2600 14y ago
    It's impossible due to regulatory and lobbying pressure. I believe Palo Alto, CA operates a network similar to this, but that kind of network isn't possible in a city like San Francisco or LA. IMHO the incumbent carriers have no interest in competing if they can be a monopoly.

josh2600 14y ago

In very old industries you often have players who have a monopolistic status. Markets either become price efficient or competition deficient over time. In the case of telecom there is stratified warfare. At the consumer level, competition is scarce. In the SMB Segment competition is fierce. In the Datacenters world competition is fierce, but at the core of everything you have to go through 721 Folsom street to get out of the left coast. This fight is particularly interesting because it's one of the first to cross the Commercial-Residential boundary. On the one hand, consumers pay for access, on the other, large ISPs peer networks. One is a contract, the other a handshake. In this particular case, ISPs argue that since usage increases so should rates, but in order to arrive at such a conclusion, the large ISPs would have to ignore their monopoly. Let's take this a step further though; there's a really big problem with everyone building their own network. That is, no one wants thousands of wires running to each residence, but that's what a competitive last mile would look like. The answer is municipally controlled networks with private operators. The infrastructure would be owned by the state, but operated by competitive virtual operators. Unfortunately, this vision is impossible in America, and that's why we can't tackle this problem straight-on and instead have to operate through layers of abstraction. TL;DR: public networks, private operators is ideal. Impossible in US.

graysnorf 14y ago
Why do you say it's impossible in the US?
- josh2600 14y ago
  It's impossible due to regulatory and lobbying pressure. I believe Palo Alto, CA operates a network similar to this, but that kind of network isn't possible in a city like San Francisco or LA. IMHO the incumbent carriers have no interest in competing if they can be a monopoly.