3 ms·

Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different

by gojomo 12y ago

Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.

Silhouette 12y ago
Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?
- gojomo 12y ago
  Where that's true, antitrust action to create competition could make sense, or even perhaps specific regulations against abuses that actually happen. That is, focused on where choice is lacking, and tailored for particular abuses that are observed. But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures. By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    I'm not in the US, so maybe I've got the wrong idea. However, based on numerous previous articles and discussions, I was under the impression that quite a high proportion of US households really did only have one wired ISP available, that the relatively small number of major ISPs operating in the US at all tended not to compete over territory in this respect, and that there had been significant legal games played to block attempts by both heavyweight competitors like Google and local initiatives to create alternative provision. In other words, almost all the evidence I've seen as an outsider suggests that much of the US does not, in fact, have a functioning competitive market for residential high speed wired Internet access, but rather a complete monopoly whose single provider will furthermore spend a fortune on legal manoeuvres to defend that position if necessary. The net neutrality movement and efforts to classify Internet access as an essential service subject to regulation seem to be the first serious moves at national level to counter some of the resulting problems.
quanticle 12y ago
>They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. are willing and able to to lay down their own infrastructure, they're prevented from doing so by the government. If that doesn't make ISPs deserving of Title II regulation, I don't know what does.
- gojomo 12y ago
  You seem to be counting only cable companies and the highest-end services to imply a 'monopoly' over internet service where none exists. Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools. Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly". We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.

by gojomo 12y ago

Silhouette 12y ago

Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?

gojomo 12y ago
Where that's true, antitrust action to create competition could make sense, or even perhaps specific regulations against abuses that actually happen. That is, focused on where choice is lacking, and tailored for particular abuses that are observed. But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures. By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  I'm not in the US, so maybe I've got the wrong idea. However, based on numerous previous articles and discussions, I was under the impression that quite a high proportion of US households really did only have one wired ISP available, that the relatively small number of major ISPs operating in the US at all tended not to compete over territory in this respect, and that there had been significant legal games played to block attempts by both heavyweight competitors like Google and local initiatives to create alternative provision. In other words, almost all the evidence I've seen as an outsider suggests that much of the US does not, in fact, have a functioning competitive market for residential high speed wired Internet access, but rather a complete monopoly whose single provider will furthermore spend a fortune on legal manoeuvres to defend that position if necessary. The net neutrality movement and efforts to classify Internet access as an essential service subject to regulation seem to be the first serious moves at national level to counter some of the resulting problems.

quanticle 12y ago

>They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. are willing and able to to lay down their own infrastructure, they're prevented from doing so by the government. If that doesn't make ISPs deserving of Title II regulation, I don't know what does.

gojomo 12y ago
You seem to be counting only cable companies and the highest-end services to imply a 'monopoly' over internet service where none exists. Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools. Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly". We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.