3 ms·

So in this model, you are saying we should have companies that are responsible for just laying literal wires to connect houses to some type of neighborhood swit

by lbotos 12y ago

So in this model, you are saying we should have companies that are responsible for just laying literal wires to connect houses to some type of neighborhood switch and then from the switch side on is "ISP" territory and they are responsible to connect to the "greater internet"? I'm just wondering how the physical roles would be split and literally where.

mason55 12y ago
The reason for the split is that you don't want to have a bunch of companies trying to lay wire everywhere. It's very easy to build 10 power plants to connect to the grid vs. trying to run 10 sets of power lines everywhere. The problem is that internet wire technology moves so much faster than power wire tech. Even in just the last 20 years we've gone from copper phone lines to cable to fiber. As long as the last-mile tech continues to improve it will be hard to work this scenario because what incentive does the "wires" company have to re-do all their infrastructure from fiber to the next big thing?
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Even in just the last 20 years we've gone from copper phone lines to cable to fiber. Is there any reason to suspect that today's fiber (albeit possibly "lit" by tomorrow's fiber modems) will be insufficient twenty years from now? Are we approaching some sort of theoretical limit to the number of beams of light that one glass fiber can transmit?
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Is there any reason to suspect that today's fiber (albeit possibly "lit" by tomorrow's fiber modems) will be insufficient twenty years from now? Are we approaching some sort of theoretical limit to the number of beams of light that one glass fiber can transmit? No. And the premise that we've gone from twisted pair to coax to fiber in a period of 20 years is similarly silly. Telephone wire is essentially telegraph wire and has been in use since before the American civil war. Coax is from the same century and had been in use for cable TV before the internet was even a thing. Even modern fiber optic cable is older than, say, TCP/IP. The only reason fiber wasn't used to begin with is that the other cable was already in the ground before the internet existed.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  Coax was running to houses more than 20 years ago, DSL still works fine over copper, and many places aren't wired for fiber. Not saying your point isn't valid, just that it's a smaller problem.
diafygi 12y ago
Yes, the physical wires running to your home is the cost-prohibitive thing that is stopping competitors from entering the market (i.e. running a second set of wires to your home). The ISP should be responsible for your service to the rest of the internet, since there's many ways you can manage that side of the network. If an ISP wants to offer a non-net-neutral plan, they can, but there should be little barrier preventing another ISP from entering and competing with a net-neutral plan. This is very similar to the way the UK currently does it[1]. It always baffles me that the FCC thinks that it's in uncharted waters. This sort of thing has been hashed out and is working well in other infrastructures. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-officially-mock-us-over-isp-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-off...
Nimi 12y ago
This is what we have in Israel, and it works nicely IMO. We have a duopoly of "infrastructure" providers, where the wires go from homes to the local Internet eXchange Point, and from there it's a free market of ISPs. We don't pay a lot (and the bulk of what we pay is to the infrastructure providers), and user experience is mostly very good.
ksrm 12y ago
It works in the UK, and a lot of other places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

by lbotos 12y ago

mason55 12y ago

The reason for the split is that you don't want to have a bunch of companies trying to lay wire everywhere. It's very easy to build 10 power plants to connect to the grid vs. trying to run 10 sets of power lines everywhere. The problem is that internet wire technology moves so much faster than power wire tech. Even in just the last 20 years we've gone from copper phone lines to cable to fiber. As long as the last-mile tech continues to improve it will be hard to work this scenario because what incentive does the "wires" company have to re-do all their infrastructure from fiber to the next big thing?

jessaustin 12y ago
Even in just the last 20 years we've gone from copper phone lines to cable to fiber. Is there any reason to suspect that today's fiber (albeit possibly "lit" by tomorrow's fiber modems) will be insufficient twenty years from now? Are we approaching some sort of theoretical limit to the number of beams of light that one glass fiber can transmit?
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Is there any reason to suspect that today's fiber (albeit possibly "lit" by tomorrow's fiber modems) will be insufficient twenty years from now? Are we approaching some sort of theoretical limit to the number of beams of light that one glass fiber can transmit? No. And the premise that we've gone from twisted pair to coax to fiber in a period of 20 years is similarly silly. Telephone wire is essentially telegraph wire and has been in use since before the American civil war. Coax is from the same century and had been in use for cable TV before the internet was even a thing. Even modern fiber optic cable is older than, say, TCP/IP. The only reason fiber wasn't used to begin with is that the other cable was already in the ground before the internet existed.
seanp2k2 12y ago
Coax was running to houses more than 20 years ago, DSL still works fine over copper, and many places aren't wired for fiber. Not saying your point isn't valid, just that it's a smaller problem.

diafygi 12y ago

Yes, the physical wires running to your home is the cost-prohibitive thing that is stopping competitors from entering the market (i.e. running a second set of wires to your home). The ISP should be responsible for your service to the rest of the internet, since there's many ways you can manage that side of the network. If an ISP wants to offer a non-net-neutral plan, they can, but there should be little barrier preventing another ISP from entering and competing with a net-neutral plan. This is very similar to the way the UK currently does it[1]. It always baffles me that the FCC thinks that it's in uncharted waters. This sort of thing has been hashed out and is working well in other infrastructures. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-officially-mock-us-over-isp-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-off...

Nimi 12y ago

This is what we have in Israel, and it works nicely IMO. We have a duopoly of "infrastructure" providers, where the wires go from homes to the local Internet eXchange Point, and from there it's a free market of ISPs. We don't pay a lot (and the bulk of what we pay is to the infrastructure providers), and user experience is mostly very good.

ksrm 12y ago

It works in the UK, and a lot of other places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling