3 ms·

That is an odd analogy, and I don't think infrastructure providers making all the money is "the natural state of things". The people actually building the infr

That is an odd analogy, and I don't think infrastructure providers making all the money is "the natural state of things". The people actually building the infrastructure (Android) arent't making much any money with it, while those using it (Samsung) are. That is how its supposed to work; if power companies and utilities had been able to extract all the profit from manufacturing companies and discriminate against specific ones or have the ability to simply deny necessary upgrades, we would still be using oil lights. I also respectfully disagree on the "very expensive" part. Internet access is one of the cheapest basic services, trivial to scale and the variable costs are basically zero. There is no inherent difficulty in transporting bits! Consider other infrastructure. Providing reliable electricity is very difficult (you need to balance demand and supply at all times), there is a very harsh regulatory environment that is constantly changing (in some countries, pocos need to prioritize renewable energy and pay guaranteed prices to customers inserting it), the hardware necessary is copper-heavy and poses significant reliability and safety issues. Meanwhile, we are being reluctant to regulate internet providers to the point where they are the fast, dumb pipe we need, because lawmakers are clueless how this internet thing works (the 'cloud' isn't helping) and internet providers have this dream where they are the premier entertainment and media source (wakeup; YouTube and Netflix exist).

rayiner 13y ago
Android is part of the platform, but it's clearly not the capital intensive part of the cell phone infrastructure. That's be the CPUs, the DRAMs, the flash memory, etc. And there is nothing cheap about providing internet access. AT&T and Verizon lead the country in annual capital expenditure: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute-ranks-highest-us-corporate-capital-spending.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute.... > Meanwhile, we are being reluctant to regulate internet providers to the point where they are the fast, dumb pipe we need Why should we regulate the telecoms into being fast, dumb pipes because that is what best serves the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world? > because lawmakers are clueless how this internet thing works There is a difference between not understanding the internet, and having a different value structure with respect to the internet. Saying that telcoms should be "fast, dumb pipes" isn't a matter of technical fact. It's not a part of any RFC. It's a (very software-centric) normative judgment about how the ideal organizational structure of the internet. It's certainly more consistent with how most software people view the internet to treat the physical infrastructure as dumb pipes, but that view has no technical basis. TCP/IP works just fine if AT&T gives higher priority to packets originating from companies that pay to play.
- revelation 13y ago
  CapEx obviously doesn't tell the story, certainly not for companies like AT&T and Verizon. Try fundamentals; Moores has done good work for bandwidth, as media is still being streamed at 6 MBit. I'm not sure lawmakers understand this; there is no capacity problem. Technology is vastly ahead of growth and certainly consumer access to bandwidth. Meanwhile, internet providers are trying to tell lawmakers they need to make YouTube (and customers) pay for traffic because theres somehow congestion. Of course it's not a technical fact. The basic idea is that regulating them to be the dumb pipe can yield the biggest gain for the general economy, while they get the benefit of a low margin, but extremely stable business (as with any other infrastructure). The obvious problem right now is that instead of competing with each other, internet providers are trying to compete with their customers. That is not the sign of a working market, and it is not acceptable for critical infrastructure. Regulation is needed, and certainly not towards giving providers more flexibility.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > CapEx obviously doesn't tell the story, certainly not for companies like AT&T and Verizon. Try fundamentals; Moores has done good work for bandwidth, as media is still being streamed at 6 MBit. It's hilarious for you to say CapEx doesn't matter, then invoke Moore's law, which is rooted in exponentially increasing CapEx! Guess who is in the top-5 of the CapEx list along with AT&T and Verizon? Hint: it's Intel.

rayiner 13y ago

Android is part of the platform, but it's clearly not the capital intensive part of the cell phone infrastructure. That's be the CPUs, the DRAMs, the flash memory, etc. And there is nothing cheap about providing internet access. AT&T and Verizon lead the country in annual capital expenditure: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute-ranks-highest-us-corporate-capital-spending.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute.... > Meanwhile, we are being reluctant to regulate internet providers to the point where they are the fast, dumb pipe we need Why should we regulate the telecoms into being fast, dumb pipes because that is what best serves the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world? > because lawmakers are clueless how this internet thing works There is a difference between not understanding the internet, and having a different value structure with respect to the internet. Saying that telcoms should be "fast, dumb pipes" isn't a matter of technical fact. It's not a part of any RFC. It's a (very software-centric) normative judgment about how the ideal organizational structure of the internet. It's certainly more consistent with how most software people view the internet to treat the physical infrastructure as dumb pipes, but that view has no technical basis. TCP/IP works just fine if AT&T gives higher priority to packets originating from companies that pay to play.

revelation 13y ago
CapEx obviously doesn't tell the story, certainly not for companies like AT&T and Verizon. Try fundamentals; Moores has done good work for bandwidth, as media is still being streamed at 6 MBit. I'm not sure lawmakers understand this; there is no capacity problem. Technology is vastly ahead of growth and certainly consumer access to bandwidth. Meanwhile, internet providers are trying to tell lawmakers they need to make YouTube (and customers) pay for traffic because theres somehow congestion. Of course it's not a technical fact. The basic idea is that regulating them to be the dumb pipe can yield the biggest gain for the general economy, while they get the benefit of a low margin, but extremely stable business (as with any other infrastructure). The obvious problem right now is that instead of competing with each other, internet providers are trying to compete with their customers. That is not the sign of a working market, and it is not acceptable for critical infrastructure. Regulation is needed, and certainly not towards giving providers more flexibility.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > CapEx obviously doesn't tell the story, certainly not for companies like AT&T and Verizon. Try fundamentals; Moores has done good work for bandwidth, as media is still being streamed at 6 MBit. It's hilarious for you to say CapEx doesn't matter, then invoke Moore's law, which is rooted in exponentially increasing CapEx! Guess who is in the top-5 of the CapEx list along with AT&T and Verizon? Hint: it's Intel.