How Net Neutrality Really Works
-
@Dashrender Regulatory issues and the threat of a lawsuit from one of the bigger ISPs.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK, so other than HUGE start up costs, what keeps more ISPs from moving into cities offering real choices to consumers?
Contracts. Local governments often sign contracts with Time Warner or Comcast or COX or Verizon that basically ensures that $small_town_USA will only ever have Time Warner as an option. In larger cities, it's often harder to limit, from what I've seen. But in my area, in Dallas, there are apartment complexes literally across the street from one another where one has only Time Warner as an option and the other has FiOS AND Time Warner.
Some part of it is the cost of implementing services into a given neighborhood or complex, but more often than not it's that the complex has made a deal to be exclusive to one ISP or another.
-
I have an issue with government (cities in these cases) making exclusive deals. That is monopolistic and shouldn't be legal. As for the apartment complexes, assuming they are privately owned and not government project, those privately owned entities can do whatever they want, and you as a renter have the choice to not live there and live somewhere else to get the services you desire.
-
@Dashrender said:
I have an issue with government (cities in these cases) making exclusive deals. That is monopolistic and shouldn't be legal. As for the apartment complexes, assuming they are privately owned and not government project, those privately owned entities can do whatever they want, and you as a renter have the choice to not live there and live somewhere else to get the services you desire.
Sadly, both are pretty common.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
I have an issue with government (cities in these cases) making exclusive deals. That is monopolistic and shouldn't be legal. As for the apartment complexes, assuming they are privately owned and not government project, those privately owned entities can do whatever they want, and you as a renter have the choice to not live there and live somewhere else to get the services you desire.
Sadly, both are pretty common.
More then just pretty common. From the research I've done Comcast generally requires this kind of agreement before they will start laying infrastructure in your town.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
I have an issue with government (cities in these cases) making exclusive deals. That is monopolistic and shouldn't be legal. As for the apartment complexes, assuming they are privately owned and not government project, those privately owned entities can do whatever they want, and you as a renter have the choice to not live there and live somewhere else to get the services you desire.
Sadly, both are pretty common.
More then just pretty common. From the research I've done Comcast generally requires this kind of agreement before they will start laying infrastructure in your town.
And the government wonders why we have problems...
-
@thanksaj Of course that is only if they don't have a "gentleman's" agreement with the existing ISP to no compete in each others markets... I'm looking at you Comcast/TWC.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj Of course that is only if they don't have a "gentleman's" agreement with the existing ISP to no compete in each others markets... I'm looking at you Comcast/TWC.
Yup. Pretty much.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So the question is - where is the real problem? Is it a real lack of bandwidth? Is it an unfair usage pattern (peering points)? Is it content providers simply trying to hold onto their previously nearly monopolistic hold on home delivered entertainment content?
It's just an opportunity to blackmail large content providers through a lack of consumer knowledge and the complete lack of consumer choice. This is simply the expected result of an unregulated monopoly.
Here Here - the key part, Monoply!
I actually think the key word there is regulated. There are a few highly-regulated monopolies that do just fine for the consumer.
-
@coliver said:
I actually think the key word there is regulated. There are a few highly-regulated monopolies that do just fine for the consumer.
Sure, a correctly regulated monopoly is just an extension of the government. Although at that point, why is a company involved at all?
-
@Dashrender said:
OK, so other than HUGE start up costs, what keeps more ISPs from moving into cities offering real choices to consumers?
tl;dr available
Here in Australia, >90% of in ground infastructure is owned by one telco, Telstra.
Telstra used to be owned by the Australian Government but was privatised for a cash injection for the federal budget (well, that's how I took it)... bla blah blah Monopoly blah blah fair go for competitors blah blah blah Telstra required by law to allow competing ISPs to put their stuff in Telstra's telephone exchanges blah blah blah Telstra whining blah blah blah.So now any new ISP can get access to any exchange to put their equipment in. Yay? I think not.
- If it's only Telstra in the exchange, upgrades need to happen to make space, upgrade air con etc... can be up to $2m. Telstra are not required to help financially. Any other ISP can come along and offer services in that area and are not required to pay one red cent to the company that footed the bill for the upgrade... as a result, most smaller towns only have Telstra access (unless you want to pay a $20 tax to another ISP for having to use Telstra's equipment.
- Sub-exchanges/RIMs are not included in the reqired "openness". Vendor lock-in at it's finest
In saying all that Telstra's customer service has improved dramatically over the last few years. As a broadband ISP, their service has been pretty reliable. I just like to suport the little guys, when I have the choice.
tl:dr, not much stopping ISPs in the city as most can make the population density is there.
-
@Dashrender said:
I have an issue with government (cities in these cases) making exclusive deals. That is monopolistic and shouldn't be legal. As for the apartment complexes, assuming they are privately owned and not government project, those privately owned entities can do whatever they want, and you as a renter have the choice to not live there and live somewhere else to get the services you desire.
That's not how the government views housing. Housing is not a "just live somewhere else" proposition. People don't have complete freedom to move places like that. Rich people do, but not normal people. Housing, medical care, food... these are things that have to be regulated because they are not open markets.
I don't know about residential, but multitenant office buildings cannot legal do what you are describing. They are required to allow in any vendor that wants in to provide service.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK, so other than HUGE start up costs, what keeps more ISPs from moving into cities offering real choices to consumers?
There is limited availability of physical infrastructure. It is similar to electric, water and sewer. You can only reasonably have one of each. You can't actually have five power lines running to every house or three sewer lines that you hook up to the one that you want. The ground can't fit all of those pipes and stuff. There can be only so many physical lines running to your house.
Most jurisdictions allow for one telephone carrier and one cable carrier and that is all. If you are lucky your local government owns those lines and sells access to them. But that is super rare in the US. To save money, most towns sold those rights to private monopolies who now own the access to you. They paid for and own the last mile and have the right to keep others out. It's a horrible system of fake open market. It only happens because Americans don't understand economics but are obsessed with the idea of capitalism without knowing what it is so end up with the least capitalistic system around because it is so easy to fool the average American by calling something capitalism. Marketing does far more than common sense does.
-
To the point of the OP comic. That is a completely off base one sided view.
Yes, there is a problem. Yes, things need done. No, it is not all the providers fault. I've stated my arguments about the Netflix issue specifically in a prior thread and will not resurrect them here.
Network Neutrality to the Consumer is not the same as back bone infrastructure contracts.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
There is limited availability of physical infrastructure. It is similar to electric, water and sewer. You can only reasonably have one of each. You can't actually have five power lines running to every house or three sewer lines that you hook up to the one that you want. The ground can't fit all of those pipes and stuff. There can be only so many physical lines running to your house.
Power, Water and Sewer I can understand - but phone, cable, internet - we're not talking huge items here. While I will agree that the government should PERHAPS own this and allow at cost access, I don't see running more fiber/copper, etc into neighborhoods as physically restricted as water and sewer.
The fact that the intercity part of my city does have multiple options kinda speaks against this.
-
@Dashrender said:
Power, Water and Sewer I can understand - but phone, cable, internet - we're not talking huge items here. While I will agree that the government should PERHAPS own this and allow at cost access, I don't see running more fiber/copper, etc into neighborhoods as physically restricted as water and sewer.
It's not as restrictive but once you don't have the right to do it, you don't have the right to do it. It's a black and white issue in many cases. No one wants twenty carriers running lines down the telephone poles. It gets very messy very quickly. And if you go underground then you are looking at digging up a whole city to let a new carrier in. It's not impossible, but it is just as effective as water or sewer in most cases and definitely as restrictive as power.
