4 ms·

I think the real problem is unlimited internet connections. If ISP customers paid per-GB and/or per-Mbps, then the ISP shouldn't care if it's Netflix or Hulu o

I think the real problem is unlimited internet connections. If ISP customers paid per-GB and/or per-Mbps, then the ISP shouldn't care if it's Netflix or Hulu or YouTube being consumed. The issue is that today, it's difficult to get a good feel for how much bandwidth is being used at any given moment. Unlike a water faucet, our devices don't really have a knob we can adjust the speed with.

kalleboo 12y ago
I think the real problem is poor infrastructure. None of this has been a problem here in Sweden, where the infrastructure is solid and easily supports end users with 100 Mbit home connections without me hearing any complaints.
- dsjoerg 12y ago
  The quality of infrastructure is the result of political and cultural factors, which are therefore the more underlying/real problem. Do you have a choice of multiple ISPs? If yes, then that's the critical difference vs the U.S., not the infrastructure. If no, then why has your monopoly ISP built such good infrastructure?
  - nolok 12y ago
    France's situation: national public telecom company (France Telecom, now Orange) built the network, private competitors appeared, Orange got privatized, competitors didn't have the network to be everywhere and allow proper competition so the law forced Orange to allow other ISPs to use Orange's network for a fee (so I could be a client of, say, Bouygue Telecom, but using Orange network to join Bouygue's). A huge and easy justification for that is that Orange's network had mostly been built using public funds since it was a public company at the time. Since then, several competitors have built their own network, but most still use Orange's sharing for remote place, small villages etc where it's not worth it for them to deploy their own. So your question is hard to answer. Why has the monopoly ISP built the infrastructure ? Because it was a public company, and if you wanted your house to be connected to the network they had to do it. Why have the others built their own ? Because it was much cheaper for them long term, especially since they also use it for their cellphone network. And from what I see, it seems to be the same in a lot of Europe, the national companies made the original network, and competitors piggy backed on it until they had their own. (I've oversimplified of course, but that's the gist of it)
lingben 12y ago
the mistake is to think about data as water and wires as pipes, this is a classic but understandable fallacy for those that do not grasp the basic tenets of this topic remember the 'series of tubes' comment by Senator Stevens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
- ademarre 12y ago
  In his book Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet, Andrew Blum presents a partial defense of the late senator's analogy: "I have confirmed with my own eyes that the Internet is many things, in many places. But one thing it most certainly is, nearly everywhere, is, in fact, a series of tubes."

kalleboo 12y ago

I think the real problem is poor infrastructure. None of this has been a problem here in Sweden, where the infrastructure is solid and easily supports end users with 100 Mbit home connections without me hearing any complaints.

dsjoerg 12y ago
The quality of infrastructure is the result of political and cultural factors, which are therefore the more underlying/real problem. Do you have a choice of multiple ISPs? If yes, then that's the critical difference vs the U.S., not the infrastructure. If no, then why has your monopoly ISP built such good infrastructure?
- nolok 12y ago
  France's situation: national public telecom company (France Telecom, now Orange) built the network, private competitors appeared, Orange got privatized, competitors didn't have the network to be everywhere and allow proper competition so the law forced Orange to allow other ISPs to use Orange's network for a fee (so I could be a client of, say, Bouygue Telecom, but using Orange network to join Bouygue's). A huge and easy justification for that is that Orange's network had mostly been built using public funds since it was a public company at the time. Since then, several competitors have built their own network, but most still use Orange's sharing for remote place, small villages etc where it's not worth it for them to deploy their own. So your question is hard to answer. Why has the monopoly ISP built the infrastructure ? Because it was a public company, and if you wanted your house to be connected to the network they had to do it. Why have the others built their own ? Because it was much cheaper for them long term, especially since they also use it for their cellphone network. And from what I see, it seems to be the same in a lot of Europe, the national companies made the original network, and competitors piggy backed on it until they had their own. (I've oversimplified of course, but that's the gist of it)

lingben 12y ago

the mistake is to think about data as water and wires as pipes, this is a classic but understandable fallacy for those that do not grasp the basic tenets of this topic remember the 'series of tubes' comment by Senator Stevens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

ademarre 12y ago
In his book Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet, Andrew Blum presents a partial defense of the late senator's analogy: "I have confirmed with my own eyes that the Internet is many things, in many places. But one thing it most certainly is, nearly everywhere, is, in fact, a series of tubes."