The internet should be a public utility • Hacker News Board

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#131

Post by fsckboy » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

jcrawfordor wrote: post #104

bgorman wrote: post #69

The danger with government nationalizing telecommunications networks is that once it is done, innovation and quality go way down. We had nationalized telecommunications for over 70 years and customers could only have one brand of phone, and we're limited in the number of phones available in their houses. In addition, long distance calling was cost-prohibitive. The monopoly only started cracking when MCI introduced mi…

AT&T also provided an extremely high quality of service, not really seen since that time, and operated a corporate R&D arm that I think could fairly be called the global center of innovation for decades, designing as an almost side-effect of telephone switches a large portion of the computer technology we use today from silicon to operating system. One wonders where the state of the industry would be today had Bell L…

the argument you are making, from the perspective of microeconomic theory, in short: no.

for a monopolist to offer high quality products and service is exactly part of the monopolist's playbook, not any sort of consumer benefit. The overly generous profits they earn allow them to use comparatively smaller quality enhancements as a barrier to entry for competition. The point is that "high quality service that you pay too much for" reduces the overall level of consumption. So, while the smaller market is happy with the service they receive, a larger market is receiving less service than they want because the price is artificially too high.

Monopolists absolutely do restrict supply, and economists all agree that monopolists are bad for markets.

The part where you suggest "particular situations" is essentially reflective of the other monopolist tactic of "bundling", product mixes designed to price discriminate separate market segments, again, always to the monopolists benefit.

The theory of monopoly is quite robust, and your arguments in favor of the benefits of monopoly do not hold any water whatsoever.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#132

Post by joveian » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #18

Has the author never heard of the Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers (aka Obamaphones)? This program already provides a benefit designed to provide free access to mobile internet. The $10 per month subsidy may not seem like much, but it'll buy you ~1Gb per month via Tracfone, for example. It's important to note that this program includes a requirement that "Obamaphones" be hot-spot enabled so that they can be…

I've had that and a major issue is that the $10/month covers both phone and internet, not just internet. The combined plan I had was supposed to include 500MB per month internet but I'm fairly sure hot-spot was not enabled and direct tethering was certainly not enabled. Also the phones are extremely locked down and don't even allow USB audio devices. The $10/month can be used towards a more expensive plan which is what the providers would really prefer that you do. There are obviously corrupt limitations like a six month (at least, maybe longer?) waiting period between services if you want to change data plans (this does not apply to phone service). There are $10/month DSL plans available in my area but it is extremely slow, maybe 2mbps I think. The phones have some security issues; a six digit numerical PIN is all that protects full call records and the ability to change devices for the Virgin plan I was on.

Lifeline is better than nothing when needed but there are reasons it is still mostly used for phone access. It seems like a fairly corrupt program.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#133

Post by Klinky » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:25 PM UTC

creato wrote: post #122

greedo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you think "decent cooper" is as good as fiber. Unless you can deliver me 1Gbps symmetrically like my current fiber, you're inadequate. I currently have two kids doing remote learning, a wife who's starting to VPN at times, and I myself work remotely at least 9 hours a day for the last 20 days. My podunk town has FTH through a municipal partnership. It works great. If my town can do it, I expect every…

> Unless you can deliver me 1Gbps symmetrically like my current fiber, you're inadequate. I currently have two kids doing remote learning, a wife who's starting to VPN at times, and I myself work remotely at least 9 hours a day for the last 20 days. This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average. Often the nic…

>This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average.

You're assuming averages, but just looking at Youtube buffering, it downloads videos in bursts, despite being a "streaming" service. Combine bursty behavior with latency sensitive applications like video conferencing or gaming, and having that headroom is nice.

That said 1000/1000 may not be absolutely needed, but 100/100 or even 100/10 does not seem like it should be that big of an ask.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#134

Post by Aloha » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:30 PM UTC

greggman3 wrote: post #106

Aloha wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And compared to virtually every nationalized telecom it provided better, cheaper service that was universally available. Internet access should be regulated like it was a utility however, and that's the great failing of public policy in that area.

Cheaper!?!?! I had $1200 one month long distance bill in 1984. That today is effectively free. Only competition made that happen. If AT&T was still in charge we'd be paying by the call and by the byte.

The price of long distance has more to do with the changes in technology since then than the regulatory environment. Competitive long distance could have happened without lifting the overall regulatory framework that governed telecommunications for 60+ years. Sometime between 1975 and 2005, long haul bandwidth became effectively free - consider that in 1975 the widest bandwidth deployed carrier system was about 108,000 simultaneous calls, a fiber system deployed in 1999, is now carrying 320gb/s which if I did my math right works out to 500m simultaneous calls.

To give you an idea, a residential phone bill from 1982 with unlimited local calling in Seattle was around 13.50 inclusive, in 2019, that same service cost 50 dollars - inflation alone would expect the cost of that service to only be 36 dollars or so - and technological advantages should make that service cheaper, not more expensive.

AT&T was a different company, at one point before divestiture they were the single largest private employer (1973) in the US, providing union jobs with good benefits and stable (effectively) lifetime employment. Beyond this, they were also a leader in providing equal opportunity for minorities.

The money generated by AT&T was paid back in technology dividends - dividends that underpin much of the technological innovation we've seen over the last 60 years.

AT&T's disaster preparedness is a whole other topic that could be gone into as well.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#135

Post by MR4D » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

So, we should have PG&E run it? Or maybe the city of Flint, Michigan?

God no.

That’s what happens when you make the decision to be a utility. You give up all choice.

The solution is more choice in the internet market, not less.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#136

Post by Aloha » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

heymijo wrote: post #124

greggman3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheaper!?!?! I had $1200 one month long distance bill in 1984. That today is effectively free. Only competition made that happen. If AT&T was still in charge we'd be paying by the call and by the byte.

You seem to have interpreted this as monopoly prices were less than today's prices. My read of the parent comment is that monopoly era phone service from AT&T was cheaper when compared to phone service in other parts of the world during that era. I can't speak to the veracity of this claim.

I was making the argument that the price for a local loop was price competitive with nationalized telecoms, but with little to no wait to have service provisioned - in many cases though the nationalized services were cheaper, by far even - but you may be pressed with a months or years long wait to establish service, because of capacity limitations, similarly in some countries you often would have experienced a dial tone delay of minutes from the time you picked up the phone, and/or would have had to schedule your long distance call many hours or days in advance because of limited circuit capacity.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#137

Post by ClikeX » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #133

creato wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you can deliver me 1Gbps symmetrically like my current fiber, you're inadequate. I currently have two kids doing remote learning, a wife who's starting to VPN at times, and I myself work remotely at least 9 hours a day for the last 20 days. This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average. Often the nic…

>This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average. You're assuming averages, but just looking at Youtube buffering, it downloads videos in bursts, despite being a "streaming" service. Combine bursty behavior with latency sensitive applications like video conferencing or gaming, and having that headroom is nice.…

My provider gives me 250/25. That the upload speed has been a tenth of the download has never been an issue before.

But video calling with colleagues and while doing syncing data with servers has been a bitch.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#138

Post by dang » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

pshiryaev wrote: post #74

zbrozek wrote: post #4

I talked with the mayor of Los Altos Hills, CA yesterday where I advocated for a municipal fiber ISP. It seems crazy to me that in Silicon Valley, and specifically in one of its richest towns, that broadband is not available to every residence. She makes a good point: the residents don't care. Her argument is that ~20 mbps DSL is good enough for the elderly population. And further - that for those who find that inade…

So basically you are advocating that someone else (the taxpayers) picks up you internet connection bill? Have you considered to move somewhere else with a better internet rather than complain about everything and everyone?

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and commenting in the intended spirit of the site? We'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#139

Post by dantheman » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #102

sneak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. Competition is a realtime mechanism for stopping this sort of fuckery on a provider level presently. I can switch ISPs immediately (provided that there is more than one around). Remediations for 1A violations are anything but realtime. You could suffer rights abuses for a very long time with no immediate or cost-effective recourse. Also, such a circumstance in which your 1A rights are violated by your govern…

>> I can switch ISPs immediately (provided that there is more than one around). You may want to look at what percentage of America has this kind of choice (and whether it is a choice between viable and high quality alternatives, as opposed to ones that are equally shitty).

Most places without options are where those localities gave a monopoly to a single company -- so that they would subsidize rural people. In the US we need to stop subsidizing the costs of living in the middle of nowhere. Mail, electricity, phone, etc should all cost substantially more - it should reflect the cost of living there.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#140

Post by kick » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

TheColorYellow wrote: post #116

jcrawfordor wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AT&T also provided an extremely high quality of service, not really seen since that time, and operated a corporate R&D arm that I think could fairly be called the global center of innovation for decades, designing as an almost side-effect of telephone switches a large portion of the computer technology we use today from silicon to operating system. One wonders where the state of the industry would be today had Bell L…

This is awesome content. Any chance you have a book you could recommend on this subject?

The title is bad enough that I won't mention it, but the alternative title is good (and will find you the book):

'The Criminal Wrecking of the Best Telephone System in the World' by Kraus and Duerig.