3 ms·

While I don't like Internet providers creating different classes of traffic, the idea of the government getting involved should terrify anyone who values innova

by shaftoe 12y ago

While I don't like Internet providers creating different classes of traffic, the idea of the government getting involved should terrify anyone who values innovation and freedom. Soon, we'll end up with a monopoly guided by regulations from lobbyists and using laws as a weapon against competition. That's hardly better than the problem we seek to resolve.

badsock 12y ago
Genuinely curious, how would you resolve the problem differently?
- aaron42net 12y ago
  The lack of provider competition isn't a natural monopoly. It's a government-created monopoly/duopoly in a given market. Instead of regulating the one or two providers in a market, we could try a different model that improves competition. One way is to do city-owned and maintained layer 1, like Chattanooga (http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chattanooga-internet/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chatta...), and sell access to as many ISPs want it. The other way is to break the city franchise model. Cities generally grant franchise rights to cable and phone companies, excluding other providers for a promise of universal coverage and a few percent of the revenue. The latter is what Google Fiber is asking for from the cities it goes into: - It wants blanket access to all of the telephone poles and other right-of-ways, without having to do per-pole applications, application fees, and approval process that can take weeks/months each. - It wants to not have to do universal access, but rather only roll into neighborhoods with a high enough density to be profitable. - It won't pay the city a percentage of revenue. Instead, it agrees to build out free internet access to schools, public spaces, etc. Google Fiber's model has the advantage of not relying on a city to properly maintain a fiber network, but the disadvantage of leaving poor communities un-served.
dasil003 12y ago
I don't think this libertarian sloganeering does anything to help. Freedom is something that individual persons deserve, not massive entrenched corporations who are throwing their weight around to prevent any innovation from happening and keep their profits fat. It's true that government intervention screws a lot of things up, but so does unrestricted capitalism. We can't solve the biggest problems of today with reductionist ideologies.

by shaftoe 12y ago

badsock 12y ago

Genuinely curious, how would you resolve the problem differently?

aaron42net 12y ago
The lack of provider competition isn't a natural monopoly. It's a government-created monopoly/duopoly in a given market. Instead of regulating the one or two providers in a market, we could try a different model that improves competition. One way is to do city-owned and maintained layer 1, like Chattanooga (http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chattanooga-internet/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chatta...), and sell access to as many ISPs want it. The other way is to break the city franchise model. Cities generally grant franchise rights to cable and phone companies, excluding other providers for a promise of universal coverage and a few percent of the revenue. The latter is what Google Fiber is asking for from the cities it goes into: - It wants blanket access to all of the telephone poles and other right-of-ways, without having to do per-pole applications, application fees, and approval process that can take weeks/months each. - It wants to not have to do universal access, but rather only roll into neighborhoods with a high enough density to be profitable. - It won't pay the city a percentage of revenue. Instead, it agrees to build out free internet access to schools, public spaces, etc. Google Fiber's model has the advantage of not relying on a city to properly maintain a fiber network, but the disadvantage of leaving poor communities un-served.

dasil003 12y ago

I don't think this libertarian sloganeering does anything to help. Freedom is something that individual persons deserve, not massive entrenched corporations who are throwing their weight around to prevent any innovation from happening and keep their profits fat. It's true that government intervention screws a lot of things up, but so does unrestricted capitalism. We can't solve the biggest problems of today with reductionist ideologies.