3 ms·

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But if last-mile links are a natural monopoly (or a

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But if last-mile links are a natural monopoly (or at least demonstrably low competition markets), how do we get better broadband than we have now? We have data points from other nations that seem to indicate that publicly owned or open-access last-mile links create market conditions that deliver broadband more efficiently - both in lower cost and higher bandwidth. There is still competition - it just shifts to different market boundaries.

cpitman 12y ago
Do other countries also have problems with their roads and bridges being in disrepair? How about their water mains, do they break and wash out streets on a regular basis? US local governments do not seem to have a good record of maintaining public infrastructure, so why would public internet be any different?
ksk 12y ago
Okay, so you could to break down the ISP vertical into companies that only supply service and companies that only do the last-mile infrastructure. It would allow the government to regulate the industry without being involved in the supply side of things. One other option is to opt for a consumer ownership model where the each home pays for the bit of fiber that connects them to the neighborhood hub or w/e.
- rosser 12y ago
  And Comcast would somehow like that better?
- jfb 12y ago
  I would be happy with either (particularly the first) but politically the chances of something like that, which almost certainly would require legislation -- and would without question require a Sherman act prosecution from a Justice Department with some actual spine -- are approximately nil.
- digikata 12y ago
  I think that kind of structural split you mention first could be a nice low-regulation/high effectiveness solution, at least compare to other alternatives. However, I haven't seen any kind of willingness to impose that kind of regulation by agencies for at least the past two or three decades. As a matter of fact past structural regulatory market walls have been getting consistently removed in other industries.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    I find it a quite amazing situation. It's a good demonstration that US politicians are not interested in free market competition. In Europe, this structural split was a key part of the de-regulation of the telecoms market. In the UK alone, OpenReach, the BT subsidiary that inherited the last mile network, counts more than 500 companies as customers that provide telecoms and ISP services to end-users. Many of them are business focused or offer only specific subsets of services, but there are a huge number of nationwide ISPs using OpenReach's services. Especially because the starting point is very simple: You can start out using their "backhaul" service which lets you integrate with OpenReach a couple of places and be able to offer broadband nationwide in the UK and have OpenReach provide you with IP connections to each customer for you to do whatever you want with. You can then if you want "graduate" to local loop unbundling where you put equipment in local exchanges as/when demand justifies it, allowing you to connect directly to the local loop (line) of each of your subscribers, which allows you to offer services in excess of what OpenReach does (e.g. some ISPs offer higher speeds). Once you go the LLU route, you can turn around and offer backhaul services yourself if you wish, in competition with OpenReach. If even that isn't enough, and you have the capital, you can look at laying your own lines. E.g. in some cities we're starting to see alternative fibre connections to many apartment buildings etc. as providers are capitalising on the density to bypass OpenReach. So it encourages competition massively by creating a very low barrier to entry, while allowing larger providers to compete with OpenReach itself.
    - digikata 12y ago
      Looking at some of the other complaints re: OpenReach, the best setup might be municipal ownership/oversight of the last-mile, but with operations contracted out to private companies. That way you can split the network ops among vendors, or periodically reassess effectiveness of the private companies.
- jzwinck 12y ago
  > break down the ISP vertical into companies The UK did this with British Telecom (BT). In a word, it sucks. It creates confusion for consumers: * "I get internet from Twinkle but they say they can't repair my line." * "I signed up for service with Floyd's Internet but a truck showed up at my house that says Ben's Broadband." * "Decker offered me fast fiber, but when I called to sign up, they said WestLane only has copper to my home and they aren't allowed to run the fiber." The names have been changed to protect the guilty, but the experiences are real.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    They did it in Sweden too (Telia/Skanova) and I haven't heard any such complaints. Just because something can be poorly implemented doesn't mean it has to be.
  - jalfresi 12y ago
    Living in the uk all my life and having switched adsl providers pretty much every 12 months for the past 10 years I can honestly say the above is utter nonsense. Yesterday bt wholesale can be a pain sometimes (the company that manages the lines and exchanges) but then they are bt; they've always been awful at this sort of thing. Ever since ISPs have been taking advantage of llu though things are much better, especially if you use a provider who has their gear in the local exchange already. I still find it strange that the U.S., which is such a bastion of the free market is so anti-free market In regard to internet ISPs.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    I've never been confused about it. OpenReach (the BT subsidiary operating the line network) has a clear (available on their website) policy for how their engineers should interact with people that includes guidelines for informing ISP-customers about who they are and who they represent (OpenReach and the end-user ISP) and how to deal with customers in a way that represents the ISPs well (the customer of OpenReach is the ISP - they're a service delivery company working on behalf of the ISP, not the end-user). A few years ago some of this may have been confusing, as customers used to have to deal with BT directly, but now "everyone" knows about BT/OpenReach handling the installation on behalf of a lot (not all) ISPs, and every ISP I've had in the last decade has explained this to me when I signed up, and these days customers do not have to deal directly with BT other than OpenReach engineers. And people are used to outsourced service companies dealing with utilities. E.g. I get power from Npower, and over the years a dozen different companies have done meter readings on their behalf where I live. As for your "Twinkle" and "Decker" examples, blame your ISPs that have decided to use this as an excuse for their own problems. In the Twinkle example, the ISP is a customer of OpenReach, not you, it is their responsibility to deal with OpenReach, not yours. If they're trying to push OpenReach in front of them, that's their bad customer service. As for your "Decker" example, it's Decker's fault they've not checked coverage prior to making promises they can't keep. And "aren't allowed to run the fiber" == "we've decided (as most, but not all, UK ISPs) that OpenReach provides a good enough network for us, so we won't make any investment in rolling out our own, sorry". Nothing prevents UK ISPs from trying to build competing networks, other than the capital investments needed, and the low projected rate of return for most of them outside of the most densely populated city cores. The relative lack of competition for OpenReach is a good demonstration that the market doesn't share your assessment of them. Many are unhappy with them, but not unhappy enough to pay for anything better.

cpitman 12y ago

Do other countries also have problems with their roads and bridges being in disrepair? How about their water mains, do they break and wash out streets on a regular basis? US local governments do not seem to have a good record of maintaining public infrastructure, so why would public internet be any different?

ksk 12y ago

Okay, so you could to break down the ISP vertical into companies that only supply service and companies that only do the last-mile infrastructure. It would allow the government to regulate the industry without being involved in the supply side of things. One other option is to opt for a consumer ownership model where the each home pays for the bit of fiber that connects them to the neighborhood hub or w/e.

rosser 12y ago
And Comcast would somehow like that better?
jfb 12y ago
I would be happy with either (particularly the first) but politically the chances of something like that, which almost certainly would require legislation -- and would without question require a Sherman act prosecution from a Justice Department with some actual spine -- are approximately nil.
digikata 12y ago
I think that kind of structural split you mention first could be a nice low-regulation/high effectiveness solution, at least compare to other alternatives. However, I haven't seen any kind of willingness to impose that kind of regulation by agencies for at least the past two or three decades. As a matter of fact past structural regulatory market walls have been getting consistently removed in other industries.
- vidarh 12y ago
  I find it a quite amazing situation. It's a good demonstration that US politicians are not interested in free market competition. In Europe, this structural split was a key part of the de-regulation of the telecoms market. In the UK alone, OpenReach, the BT subsidiary that inherited the last mile network, counts more than 500 companies as customers that provide telecoms and ISP services to end-users. Many of them are business focused or offer only specific subsets of services, but there are a huge number of nationwide ISPs using OpenReach's services. Especially because the starting point is very simple: You can start out using their "backhaul" service which lets you integrate with OpenReach a couple of places and be able to offer broadband nationwide in the UK and have OpenReach provide you with IP connections to each customer for you to do whatever you want with. You can then if you want "graduate" to local loop unbundling where you put equipment in local exchanges as/when demand justifies it, allowing you to connect directly to the local loop (line) of each of your subscribers, which allows you to offer services in excess of what OpenReach does (e.g. some ISPs offer higher speeds). Once you go the LLU route, you can turn around and offer backhaul services yourself if you wish, in competition with OpenReach. If even that isn't enough, and you have the capital, you can look at laying your own lines. E.g. in some cities we're starting to see alternative fibre connections to many apartment buildings etc. as providers are capitalising on the density to bypass OpenReach. So it encourages competition massively by creating a very low barrier to entry, while allowing larger providers to compete with OpenReach itself.
  - digikata 12y ago
    Looking at some of the other complaints re: OpenReach, the best setup might be municipal ownership/oversight of the last-mile, but with operations contracted out to private companies. That way you can split the network ops among vendors, or periodically reassess effectiveness of the private companies.
jzwinck 12y ago
> break down the ISP vertical into companies The UK did this with British Telecom (BT). In a word, it sucks. It creates confusion for consumers: * "I get internet from Twinkle but they say they can't repair my line." * "I signed up for service with Floyd's Internet but a truck showed up at my house that says Ben's Broadband." * "Decker offered me fast fiber, but when I called to sign up, they said WestLane only has copper to my home and they aren't allowed to run the fiber." The names have been changed to protect the guilty, but the experiences are real.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  They did it in Sweden too (Telia/Skanova) and I haven't heard any such complaints. Just because something can be poorly implemented doesn't mean it has to be.
- jalfresi 12y ago
  Living in the uk all my life and having switched adsl providers pretty much every 12 months for the past 10 years I can honestly say the above is utter nonsense. Yesterday bt wholesale can be a pain sometimes (the company that manages the lines and exchanges) but then they are bt; they've always been awful at this sort of thing. Ever since ISPs have been taking advantage of llu though things are much better, especially if you use a provider who has their gear in the local exchange already. I still find it strange that the U.S., which is such a bastion of the free market is so anti-free market In regard to internet ISPs.
- vidarh 12y ago
  I've never been confused about it. OpenReach (the BT subsidiary operating the line network) has a clear (available on their website) policy for how their engineers should interact with people that includes guidelines for informing ISP-customers about who they are and who they represent (OpenReach and the end-user ISP) and how to deal with customers in a way that represents the ISPs well (the customer of OpenReach is the ISP - they're a service delivery company working on behalf of the ISP, not the end-user). A few years ago some of this may have been confusing, as customers used to have to deal with BT directly, but now "everyone" knows about BT/OpenReach handling the installation on behalf of a lot (not all) ISPs, and every ISP I've had in the last decade has explained this to me when I signed up, and these days customers do not have to deal directly with BT other than OpenReach engineers. And people are used to outsourced service companies dealing with utilities. E.g. I get power from Npower, and over the years a dozen different companies have done meter readings on their behalf where I live. As for your "Twinkle" and "Decker" examples, blame your ISPs that have decided to use this as an excuse for their own problems. In the Twinkle example, the ISP is a customer of OpenReach, not you, it is their responsibility to deal with OpenReach, not yours. If they're trying to push OpenReach in front of them, that's their bad customer service. As for your "Decker" example, it's Decker's fault they've not checked coverage prior to making promises they can't keep. And "aren't allowed to run the fiber" == "we've decided (as most, but not all, UK ISPs) that OpenReach provides a good enough network for us, so we won't make any investment in rolling out our own, sorry". Nothing prevents UK ISPs from trying to build competing networks, other than the capital investments needed, and the low projected rate of return for most of them outside of the most densely populated city cores. The relative lack of competition for OpenReach is a good demonstration that the market doesn't share your assessment of them. Many are unhappy with them, but not unhappy enough to pay for anything better.