7 ms·

> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your ev

> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh. > This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.

wpietri 12y ago
There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n... To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices. I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.
- monochromatic 12y ago
  I meant more about what "reasonable people" agree upon.
- neuromancer2701 12y ago
  So the better question is how did we get to this duopoly?
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    By making it public infrastructure. Remember, if not for an accident of history (cable and telephone services running over completely different kinds of wires), it wouldn't be a duopoly, it would be an outright natural monopoly -- a prime candidate for treatment as a public utility.
- gojomo 12y ago
  The FCC had to change their definition of "broadband" to get that "quite literally almost no competition" result. The traditional 4Mbps standard found 2 or more wired and 3 or more wireless providers at about 90% of US addresses. I like ever-faster service, but the idea that's what most people need or even want – when superfast speeds cost more – isn't well-supported. 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing. When and where people crave more, and if the solo 25Mbps-provider annoys them with pricing or traffic policies, more options will arrive, just as they have been arriving for the past two decades. Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+. Options and speeds have been steadily growing, not shrinking. But utility-style federal regulation, without regard to local competitive possibilities, slowed telephone-network dynamism for decades. It will similarly constrain rather than expand 'broadband' choices, by forcing them into a nationally-managed utility mould.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    > 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing The last six years of my life have been consumed by work on video streaming services. While in a lab environment you would be correct, I can tell you that in the real world you are off by a factor of about 4, and will be off by a factor of about 8 for 4k video. > Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+. I have no idea where you got that idea, unless you think wireless is a substitute for cable or DSL. It's not.
    - freeasinfree 12y ago
      Fixed terrestrial wireless is indeed a substitute to cable and DSL (especially DSL)
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        I've personally had three fixed wireless installations over the past decade. Two residential, one business. I've researched the option in numerous additional cases for both business and residential service. Both business and consumer services are typically more expensive by 10-100% and have installation (particularly LOS) requirements many -- if not most, in topographically unfavorable areas -- cannot meet. While the business services are usually OK once installed, consumer services are particularly unstable and the equipment prone to early death. Notably, the wireless ISPs I'm familiar with ended up either shut down or moving to a different line of primary business as soon as any sort of viable wired service made it into town. While far better than relying on mobile data if you don't have other options, it's still definitely not a substitute, even for DSL.

wpietri 12y ago

There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n... To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices. I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.

monochromatic 12y ago
I meant more about what "reasonable people" agree upon.
neuromancer2701 12y ago
So the better question is how did we get to this duopoly?
- nknighthb 12y ago
  By making it public infrastructure. Remember, if not for an accident of history (cable and telephone services running over completely different kinds of wires), it wouldn't be a duopoly, it would be an outright natural monopoly -- a prime candidate for treatment as a public utility.
gojomo 12y ago
The FCC had to change their definition of "broadband" to get that "quite literally almost no competition" result. The traditional 4Mbps standard found 2 or more wired and 3 or more wireless providers at about 90% of US addresses. I like ever-faster service, but the idea that's what most people need or even want – when superfast speeds cost more – isn't well-supported. 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing. When and where people crave more, and if the solo 25Mbps-provider annoys them with pricing or traffic policies, more options will arrive, just as they have been arriving for the past two decades. Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+. Options and speeds have been steadily growing, not shrinking. But utility-style federal regulation, without regard to local competitive possibilities, slowed telephone-network dynamism for decades. It will similarly constrain rather than expand 'broadband' choices, by forcing them into a nationally-managed utility mould.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing The last six years of my life have been consumed by work on video streaming services. While in a lab environment you would be correct, I can tell you that in the real world you are off by a factor of about 4, and will be off by a factor of about 8 for 4k video. > Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+. I have no idea where you got that idea, unless you think wireless is a substitute for cable or DSL. It's not.
  - freeasinfree 12y ago
    Fixed terrestrial wireless is indeed a substitute to cable and DSL (especially DSL)
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      I've personally had three fixed wireless installations over the past decade. Two residential, one business. I've researched the option in numerous additional cases for both business and residential service. Both business and consumer services are typically more expensive by 10-100% and have installation (particularly LOS) requirements many -- if not most, in topographically unfavorable areas -- cannot meet. While the business services are usually OK once installed, consumer services are particularly unstable and the equipment prone to early death. Notably, the wireless ISPs I'm familiar with ended up either shut down or moving to a different line of primary business as soon as any sort of viable wired service made it into town. While far better than relying on mobile data if you don't have other options, it's still definitely not a substitute, even for DSL.