6 ms·

This is going to draw a lot of negative points here, but its important to note that the issue of net neutrality is an issue because of the lack of competition i

This is going to draw a lot of negative points here, but its important to note that the issue of net neutrality is an issue because of the lack of competition in the states. If BT (largest ISP in the UK) tried to pull any of the stuff that's been going on, they would have been fined, and users would have left in droves. All the major ISPs here in the UK have multiple CDN node on the edge of their network, simply because its cheaper and easier to do so. The other important thing to note about the netflix vs ISP battle is that it is still cheaper to pay the ISP money to install their own CDN than it is to use akamai(who already have CDN blades on the edge). The problem in the States is that end users have no choice, and there is no working mechanism for imposing fines on companies that are doing anti-competitive things. So I'd suggest that net neutrality is actually a side show here, the real culprit is monopolies. An example that I've bumped into, is trying to buy a decent network connection in redwood city. I naively assumed that it would be simple cheap and quick to procure a 1gig line. It took six months (not for legals but for actual installation), didn't work properly for the first 3 weeks. It also cost 3 times more than the connection in London.

ianlevesque 12y ago
I don't see why that'd draw negative points. Most of us know that's the root issue, where we disagree is in deciding whether we should pretend we will somehow magically acquire more competition with the invisible hand of the market, or whether to give up and regulate some improvements into the failed market we have.
- cornewut 12y ago
  I'm optimistic that we'll find a solution - "community broadband", "shared WiFi" etc. The problems we are seeing are because corporations are already failing as an infrastructure.
  - innguest 12y ago
    Corporations are failing because the government is setting them up for failure through regulation. It's not easy to start an ISP and as your sibling poster noted, it is not because of technical issues, but the laws that are in place.
  - zanny 12y ago
    It would be much easier to do shared wifi if we weren't trapped on a fraction of the potential wireless bandwidth that is not owned by some big business. Our communication demands are only excelling as time goes on and most metropolitan areas have intense spectrum clutter while we still have the current infrastructure. Imagine trying to route most of the Internet around wirelessly on just the 2.4 and 5ghz bands.
- zanny 12y ago
  > somehow magically acquire more competition Hard to do when anything and everything involving telecom is decidedly not free market. Just some larger obstructions: * Zoning permits * Getting permission to lay wire, even through private property * Wireless Spectrum Ownership * Zoning permits on broadcast towers * Anti-competitive pressure through corrupt state institutions by incumbents against potential competition * Absurdity of having a half dozen ISPs all running their own fiber lines under roads
  - ianlevesque 12y ago
    Totally agree on all points. Personally I think local-loop unbundling (UK-style) is probably the only viable way to get more competition back. It's weird to pine for the good ol' days of dialup internet, but when anyone could offer internet services over a common leased infrastructure (the phone system) there was vibrant competition.
Karunamon 12y ago
Probably because it's easier to prevent the companies from abusing their position than it is to do something about the fact that the monopolies exist in the first place. The former is a matter of defining a rule that says "If you do this, we will fine you or worse", where "this" is defined as various anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices. The latter is a morass of legal wrangling (think ma bell getting broken up) that would have to repeat itself for every single major ISP out there.
- wrkng 12y ago
  that is true for sure i like to believe that competition can solve this particular problem, but the honest truth is that real competition in broadband internet access is a distant distant idea, regardless of what policies we put in place (which would also be long term policies -- like dig once). enabling real competition would also require even more "heavy handed" regulation, like requiring open access to infrastructure & public right-of-ways, which are at the heart of the physical portion of broadband networks, and which would be a 10x bigger fight than the net neutrality fight.
bazzargh 12y ago
But we have had this battle in the UK, and not just with BT. Most of the ISPs have at some point or other been accused of throttling BBC's iPlayer: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/06/02/why-bts-not-the-biggest-broadband-choker/ http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/06/02/why-bts-not-the-bigg... The UK government was against Net Neutrality legislation: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/11/17/uk-government-supports-isp-with-two-tier-internet-content-and-shuns-net-neutrality.html http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/11/17/uk-government-su... And again in 2011: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/ed-vaizey%E2%80%99s-net-neutrality-roundtable https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/ed-vaizey%E2%80%99... This eventually led to consultation in 2012 by Neelie Kroes, EU Commissioner for Competition, and we got legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869
- rmc 12y ago
  The EU is great for making member states do the right thing.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Sometimes. Speaking of which, I don't know how the net neutrality legislation is progressing with the EU commission.
- KaiserPro 12y ago
  This is true, but then now you have adverts saying specifically that "we don't throttle"
GVIrish 12y ago
While ISP monopolies are a big part of the problem, even if there were competition, that would not ensure net neutrality. After all, if all of ISP companies decided that they could make metric tons of money by gating off the internet, and there were no laws against it, you could potentially end up with a situation where every ISP is charging ransom. Look at mobile telcos and text message charges. For a long time there every mobile provider was charging exorbitant rates for text messages because it was highly profitable and everyone was doing it. Eventually newcomers started offering free text packages, and maybe that's what would happen with ISP's. But it is not at all a given, especially because the barriers to entry to the market are so high.
- mseebach 12y ago
  It wouldn't "ensure" it in the formal sense of the word, but in a system with actual competition, actors generally can't get away with "charging ransom".
  - llamadrom 12y ago
    This assertion is often put forth by naive Libertarian types, but it's simply not true. Cartels routinely emerge in markets with high barriers to entry. This happens even if there are laws against direct coordination and those laws are obeyed. The market players aren't dumb, and they realize that if the barrier to entry is high enough, they can maximize profits by simply not competing. Price wars are terrible things for companies in such situations. That said, there's no point in discussing history (such as turbine pricing) with you, because you've already demonstrated that you're a completely typical closed-minded religious zealot with an aversion to reality.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      Even if I'm completely wrong and you're completely right, this level of discourse is simply not acceptable.
      - llamadrom 12y ago
mikeash 12y ago
The thing is, the problem of net neutrality has a pretty clear solution. You force companies to carry all traffic equally, give no special treatment, etc. It's not perfect, but it works. What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?
- KaiserPro 12y ago
  Until the market is competitive, its an intervention along the lines of tax incentives (carrot) or a specific regulator tasked with promoting competition amongst ISPs and the media. None of which the US government is particularly good at. Which is a shame really.
- zanny 12y ago
  > What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition? Either you remove restrictions on infrastructure building (ie, once one company is allowed to lay fiber or coax, any company must be allowed), or you have public ownership of the lines, or you compel the private owner of the lines to sell bandwidth on their lines at a state set rate.
- innguest 12y ago
  > You force companies to carry all traffic equally That is not a solution, it is an intention. The solution is how do you go about "forcing" companies to carry all traffic equally. This is utterly unenforceable and unmeasurable. Also, I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something because of your worldview. That kind of solution does not scale (you either think you could have a monopoly for every market and force them to do what you want, or you think we're all better off through the natural competition for paying customers). > What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition? Stop government from interfering with the market. This solution is much clearer in my opinion. Monopoly comes from the government as it gives particular rights and benefits to this or that corporation. Let corporations fight against each other for the customers' money and you'll be enabling people to choose what they want, by voting with their dollars.
  - mikeash 12y ago
Shivetya 12y ago
my concern is, who is uncompetitive? Comcast, the bane of reddit's technology sub and elsewhere is the only choice for real high speed internet I have. the phone company? They don't care, they did not and are not offering to increase speeds to compete. How would transforming this all to utilities solve it? If anything I would never seen any improvement, well unless I lived on the same route as an important politician. Where would the incentive be to ever serve outlying areas with high speed networks? Would changes prevent cherry picking which neighborhoods get access? Are we just going to regulate ourselves mediocrity? Besides lack of will, there will endless money spent on litigation.
- KaiserPro 12y ago
  I'd look at the history of BT in the UK. This is an example of turning complete monopoly into a thriving market.
wmf 12y ago
But many countries only have ISP competition because of "wire neutrality" (local loop unbundling), so it's more a matter of picking what layer you're going to regulate as neutral.

ianlevesque 12y ago

I don't see why that'd draw negative points. Most of us know that's the root issue, where we disagree is in deciding whether we should pretend we will somehow magically acquire more competition with the invisible hand of the market, or whether to give up and regulate some improvements into the failed market we have.

cornewut 12y ago
I'm optimistic that we'll find a solution - "community broadband", "shared WiFi" etc. The problems we are seeing are because corporations are already failing as an infrastructure.
- innguest 12y ago
  Corporations are failing because the government is setting them up for failure through regulation. It's not easy to start an ISP and as your sibling poster noted, it is not because of technical issues, but the laws that are in place.
- zanny 12y ago
  It would be much easier to do shared wifi if we weren't trapped on a fraction of the potential wireless bandwidth that is not owned by some big business. Our communication demands are only excelling as time goes on and most metropolitan areas have intense spectrum clutter while we still have the current infrastructure. Imagine trying to route most of the Internet around wirelessly on just the 2.4 and 5ghz bands.
zanny 12y ago
> somehow magically acquire more competition Hard to do when anything and everything involving telecom is decidedly not free market. Just some larger obstructions: * Zoning permits * Getting permission to lay wire, even through private property * Wireless Spectrum Ownership * Zoning permits on broadcast towers * Anti-competitive pressure through corrupt state institutions by incumbents against potential competition * Absurdity of having a half dozen ISPs all running their own fiber lines under roads
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  Totally agree on all points. Personally I think local-loop unbundling (UK-style) is probably the only viable way to get more competition back. It's weird to pine for the good ol' days of dialup internet, but when anyone could offer internet services over a common leased infrastructure (the phone system) there was vibrant competition.

Karunamon 12y ago

Probably because it's easier to prevent the companies from abusing their position than it is to do something about the fact that the monopolies exist in the first place. The former is a matter of defining a rule that says "If you do this, we will fine you or worse", where "this" is defined as various anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices. The latter is a morass of legal wrangling (think ma bell getting broken up) that would have to repeat itself for every single major ISP out there.

wrkng 12y ago
that is true for sure i like to believe that competition can solve this particular problem, but the honest truth is that real competition in broadband internet access is a distant distant idea, regardless of what policies we put in place (which would also be long term policies -- like dig once). enabling real competition would also require even more "heavy handed" regulation, like requiring open access to infrastructure & public right-of-ways, which are at the heart of the physical portion of broadband networks, and which would be a 10x bigger fight than the net neutrality fight.

bazzargh 12y ago

But we have had this battle in the UK, and not just with BT. Most of the ISPs have at some point or other been accused of throttling BBC's iPlayer: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/06/02/why-bts-not-the-biggest-broadband-choker/ http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/06/02/why-bts-not-the-bigg... The UK government was against Net Neutrality legislation: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/11/17/uk-government-supports-isp-with-two-tier-internet-content-and-shuns-net-neutrality.html http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/11/17/uk-government-su... And again in 2011: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/ed-vaizey%E2%80%99s-net-neutrality-roundtable https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/ed-vaizey%E2%80%99... This eventually led to consultation in 2012 by Neelie Kroes, EU Commissioner for Competition, and we got legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869

rmc 12y ago
The EU is great for making member states do the right thing.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Sometimes. Speaking of which, I don't know how the net neutrality legislation is progressing with the EU commission.
KaiserPro 12y ago
This is true, but then now you have adverts saying specifically that "we don't throttle"

GVIrish 12y ago

While ISP monopolies are a big part of the problem, even if there were competition, that would not ensure net neutrality. After all, if all of ISP companies decided that they could make metric tons of money by gating off the internet, and there were no laws against it, you could potentially end up with a situation where every ISP is charging ransom. Look at mobile telcos and text message charges. For a long time there every mobile provider was charging exorbitant rates for text messages because it was highly profitable and everyone was doing it. Eventually newcomers started offering free text packages, and maybe that's what would happen with ISP's. But it is not at all a given, especially because the barriers to entry to the market are so high.

mseebach 12y ago
It wouldn't "ensure" it in the formal sense of the word, but in a system with actual competition, actors generally can't get away with "charging ransom".
- llamadrom 12y ago
  This assertion is often put forth by naive Libertarian types, but it's simply not true. Cartels routinely emerge in markets with high barriers to entry. This happens even if there are laws against direct coordination and those laws are obeyed. The market players aren't dumb, and they realize that if the barrier to entry is high enough, they can maximize profits by simply not competing. Price wars are terrible things for companies in such situations. That said, there's no point in discussing history (such as turbine pricing) with you, because you've already demonstrated that you're a completely typical closed-minded religious zealot with an aversion to reality.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    Even if I'm completely wrong and you're completely right, this level of discourse is simply not acceptable.
    - llamadrom 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

The thing is, the problem of net neutrality has a pretty clear solution. You force companies to carry all traffic equally, give no special treatment, etc. It's not perfect, but it works. What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?

KaiserPro 12y ago
Until the market is competitive, its an intervention along the lines of tax incentives (carrot) or a specific regulator tasked with promoting competition amongst ISPs and the media. None of which the US government is particularly good at. Which is a shame really.
zanny 12y ago
> What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition? Either you remove restrictions on infrastructure building (ie, once one company is allowed to lay fiber or coax, any company must be allowed), or you have public ownership of the lines, or you compel the private owner of the lines to sell bandwidth on their lines at a state set rate.
innguest 12y ago
> You force companies to carry all traffic equally That is not a solution, it is an intention. The solution is how do you go about "forcing" companies to carry all traffic equally. This is utterly unenforceable and unmeasurable. Also, I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something because of your worldview. That kind of solution does not scale (you either think you could have a monopoly for every market and force them to do what you want, or you think we're all better off through the natural competition for paying customers). > What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition? Stop government from interfering with the market. This solution is much clearer in my opinion. Monopoly comes from the government as it gives particular rights and benefits to this or that corporation. Let corporations fight against each other for the customers' money and you'll be enabling people to choose what they want, by voting with their dollars.
- mikeash 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

my concern is, who is uncompetitive? Comcast, the bane of reddit's technology sub and elsewhere is the only choice for real high speed internet I have. the phone company? They don't care, they did not and are not offering to increase speeds to compete. How would transforming this all to utilities solve it? If anything I would never seen any improvement, well unless I lived on the same route as an important politician. Where would the incentive be to ever serve outlying areas with high speed networks? Would changes prevent cherry picking which neighborhoods get access? Are we just going to regulate ourselves mediocrity? Besides lack of will, there will endless money spent on litigation.

KaiserPro 12y ago
I'd look at the history of BT in the UK. This is an example of turning complete monopoly into a thriving market.

wmf 12y ago

But many countries only have ISP competition because of "wire neutrality" (local loop unbundling), so it's more a matter of picking what layer you're going to regulate as neutral.