Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 284 posts

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#241

Post by praneshp »

rayiner wrote: post #158
reaperducer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The next step beyond the mail was the telegraph and then the telephone. Those were built out by private companies Yes, and no. The electric and telephone companies built out the cities and big population centers, but left 50%+ of the nation without service. Much like today's ISP's would like to do. Some places only got wired because they formed local electric co-ops and what were called "rural telephone" cooperative…

The idea that the industry should self-fund universal coverage is massively distortionary. If we want everyone to have electricity and broadband (an admirable goal), that's fine. The government should build electricity and broadband to places that don't have it (and I'd posit they should do it in a cost efficient way, e.g. with wireless). Forcing the places that do have it to subsidize the places that don't have it,…

> Forcing the places that do have it to subsidize the places that don't have it, however, is incredibly destructive to competition

This is one reason why the have nots tend to vote for candidates the haves dislike, no?

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#242

Post by martinald »

rayiner wrote: post #195
martinald wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get why people think this is possible. Even with microcells and loads of spectrum, you might be able to get 2gigabit/sec of internet per cell, which would be enough for perhaps a couple hundred streams (not including all the other internet services people require all the time). Considering most cells right now serve thousands if not tens of thousands of devices, there is simply no way that wireless bro…

5G changes things dramatically. 5G deployment will be heavily focused on small cells. That means you can go to higher frequencies, because you don't care as much about propagation, and you've got much more bandwidth available at higher frequencies. So cell size goes down, users per cell goes down, and bandwidth per cell goes up. That still ends up being massively cheaper than FTTP. Getting fiber into peoples' houses…

Sorry, how is this any different to LTE on 3.4GHz or 2.6GHz? There is literally nothing different between 4G and 5G on this. 4G deployment on 3.4 or 2.6 could equally be said to be focussed on small cell, but we also have massive worldwide deployments on 450, 600, 700 and 800MHz. So is LTE also about long range?

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#243

Post by rayiner »

bmelton wrote: post #225
rayiner wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What infrastructure is broadband most like? The water utility that's poisoning people with lead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcs-decade-old-problem-... . The sewer utility that's dumping raw sewage into the local river: https://wtop.com/dc/2017/07/heavy-rain-raw-sewage-potomac-an... . Or the subway infrastructure that constantly catches fire? https://www.arlnow.com/2018/01/22/developing-track-fire-at-p... .…

Not that I disagree with your premise, but as someone who's never livd in America's most corrupt city, what is it about Chicago that inspires so much confidence with regard to municipal broadband?

Midwestern sensibility? DC Metro defines “on time” during the am rush as headway + 2 minutes, so a train can be 10 minutes late and still “on time.” Even then it hits only 87%. In Chicago, 83% of L trains arrive within a minute of schedule. And Chicago is dealing with a hundred year old system and tons of snow, while DC’s system dates to the 1970s and the climate is mild.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#244

Post by stale2002 »

reaperducer wrote: post #200
rayiner wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All taxing and subsidization is distortionary; but some methods are less distortionary than others. Imposing a tax on "everybody" and using it to pay for a public service dampens economic activity, but at least doesn't distort one industry relative to another. Imposing special, industry-specific taxes, however, dampens demand and investment in that industry relative to the rest of the economy. Take tobacco taxes, for…

>Imposing a tax on "everybody" and using it to pay for a public service dampens economic activity Yes. That's why we have no interstate highways to move goods around, spurring commerce. Oh, wait...

And what is your point?

Yes, taxes to pay for roads do indeed discourage economic activity.

This is a cost.

And the benefit that we get is the roads.

And in this case the benefits outweigh the costs.

But just because the benefits outweigh the cost doesn't mean that the cost doesn't exist.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#245

Post by kazinator »

stale2002 wrote: post #244
reaperducer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imposing a tax on "everybody" and using it to pay for a public service dampens economic activity Yes. That's why we have no interstate highways to move goods around, spurring commerce. Oh, wait...

And what is your point? Yes, taxes to pay for roads do indeed discourage economic activity. This is a cost. And the benefit that we get is the roads. And in this case the benefits outweigh the costs. But just because the benefits outweigh the cost doesn't mean that the cost doesn't exist.

And even people who don't drive consume goods that are distributed by trucks.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#246

Post by bmelton »

rayiner wrote: post #243
bmelton wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree with your premise, but as someone who's never livd in America's most corrupt city, what is it about Chicago that inspires so much confidence with regard to municipal broadband?

Midwestern sensibility? DC Metro defines “on time” during the am rush as headway + 2 minutes, so a train can be 10 minutes late and still “on time.” Even then it hits only 87%. In Chicago, 83% of L trains arrive within a minute of schedule. And Chicago is dealing with a hundred year old system and tons of snow, while DC’s system dates to the 1970s and the climate is mild.

Thanks for the explanation.

Like I said, I know very little about the region. While I certainly laud WMATA for upgrading the cars, I definitely agree that service quality is declining enough that if I need to be in DC for something promptly, I'll usually leave 30 minutes early, and then wonder why I didn't just drive in the first place.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#247

Post by rayiner »

wpietri wrote: post #239
rayiner wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What infrastructure is broadband most like? The water utility that's poisoning people with lead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcs-decade-old-problem-... . The sewer utility that's dumping raw sewage into the local river: https://wtop.com/dc/2017/07/heavy-rain-raw-sewage-potomac-an... . Or the subway infrastructure that constantly catches fire? https://www.arlnow.com/2018/01/22/developing-track-fire-at-p... .…

Ok. I've lived in Grand Rapids, Chicago, Sydney, London, and San Francisco. I'd trust all of them except maybe Chicago. People have different opinions and different experiences. Turning toward actual data, in general, the US's water quality is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_quality_in_the_... In the US most water systems are run by local governments, and generally it works out fine.

You’d trust the people who run BART and CalTrain with your broadband? BART’s on time performance is 87% arriving within 5 minutes of schedule for all trains. In a place that basically has no weather. In Chicago, 83% of trains arrive within a minute of schedule during rush periods.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#248

Post by stale2002 »

kazinator wrote: post #245
stale2002 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is your point? Yes, taxes to pay for roads do indeed discourage economic activity. This is a cost. And the benefit that we get is the roads. And in this case the benefits outweigh the costs. But just because the benefits outweigh the cost doesn't mean that the cost doesn't exist.

And even people who don't drive consume goods that are distributed by trucks.

Correct. And?

Yes roads have benefits. They also have costs.

The benefits are greater than the costs, but we should be aware that the costs still exist.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#249

Post by rayiner »

martinald wrote: post #242
rayiner wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G changes things dramatically. 5G deployment will be heavily focused on small cells. That means you can go to higher frequencies, because you don't care as much about propagation, and you've got much more bandwidth available at higher frequencies. So cell size goes down, users per cell goes down, and bandwidth per cell goes up. That still ends up being massively cheaper than FTTP. Getting fiber into peoples' houses…

Sorry, how is this any different to LTE on 3.4GHz or 2.6GHz? There is literally nothing different between 4G and 5G on this. 4G deployment on 3.4 or 2.6 could equally be said to be focussed on small cell, but we also have massive worldwide deployments on 450, 600, 700 and 800MHz. So is LTE also about long range?

US 5G deployment will leverage spectrum above 24 GHz where it is feasible: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/5g-mo.... The FCC is working on auctions of 100+ MHz channels in these bands: http://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-schedule-for-28-g.... AT&T already spent more than a billion dollars buying up that spectrum. It’s starting 5G trials at 15 GHz: http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/atandt-5g-trials-to-st...

In the US, almost all LTE deployment is below 2 GHz.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#250

Post by mattkrause »

stale2002 wrote: post #248
kazinator wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even people who don't drive consume goods that are distributed by trucks.

Correct. And? Yes roads have benefits. They also have costs. The benefits are greater than the costs, but we should be aware that the costs still exist.

If the benefits exceed the costs, it’s hardly fair to argue that the program slows economic activity.
Post reply on HN