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

An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#11

Post by skolor »

tc wrote: post #8
skolor wrote: post #7

Ha-rumph. Allow me to call them out on their "three points": 1. The networks are running at capacity. Well, maybe they are, I don't have inside information as to the big ISP's networks. What I do know, however, is that other countries have networks with 5x the bandwidth that the fastest internet connections available here have.While it may be prohibitively expensive to roll that out all across the country, there is n…

Since I'm in this industry, I'd like to point out that bandwidth is not artificially scarce. It is just scarce , necessarily limited by the capital available to buy equipment and lease facilities, fiber, and copper. Before talking about the artificial scarcity of bandwidth, I'd encourage you to check the prices on some Cisco or Juniper gear. No one buys this stuff to intentionally underutilized its capacity. And corr…

I am fairly aware what network infrastructure costs. I am also very aware that in several other countries it is not only profitable, but profitable enough that there are several companies doing it.

There are only two reasons I can see for not having the kind of high speed connections some many other places in the world enjoy, is either: A) the backbone of the network is overloaded, and that is what needs upgrading most, or B) they don't want to upgrade one part of the network and leaving the non-urban areas with only lower speed connections. Without any kind of inside knowledge, I would guess it is a mixture of the two.

In any case: I pay roughly the same as I could get several times the bandwidth in other countries. If it is economically feasible there, there really is no reason why it wouldn't be feasible here. You may not be able to see network-wide improvements due to a slow infrastructure, but with sites like Google and Amazon putting up edge servers in most large cities, and the use of P2P technology, the gains would still be significant. Hell, if the major ISPs really wanted to make an impact as far as bandwidth was concerned, they would embrace P2P far more. A network-aware P2P network helps solve much of the problem of a slow backbone connection, as long as there is a fast local (metro-area) connection. Of course, I can't see the companies going for that, for the same reason they dislike Net Neutrality: it forces them to give up control.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#12

Post by tc »

wmf wrote: post #5
padmanabhan01 wrote: post #3

"when we’re talking about ISPs that are near-monopolies built in large part on the basis of government subsidy or exclusive federal licensing," Isn't that the real problem? Govt first helps create monopolies and then worries about how to deal with them with antitrust and what not and starts lecturing about the flaws of free market or capitalism. Why create those monopolies in the first place? Why not have free market…

Why not have free market all along? That's nice to say in retrospect, but simply deregulating rights of way and video franchises wouldn't address the fact that strong incumbents exist today. Overbuilding an incumbent like AT&T or Comcast will cost billions and the reward for this investment is 20-30% market share. I think we're dealing with genuine natural monopolies here.

Being a competitor in this industry, I'm always surprised by the simplistic treatment telecom issues receive even by technical people.

I suppose it is the difference between being a driver on a road, or perhaps even the manufacturer of an automobile, and knowing anything about the messy business of road construction.

For one thing, everyone seems to focus just on consumer internet. But this is hardly the whole picture. Most people spend over half of their waking hours at work. To the consternation of many employers, people probably spend more hours on the internet at work than at home. And the market for business internet services is highly competitive and quite far from monopolistic. It perhaps shouldn't be surprising that a smaller number of names stand out in the consumer space -- it seems to happen with all consumer products.

Further, even the argument you posed is self-contradictory. Do you know how much a 30% market share is worth? It's worth enough that plenty of people are building to compete in that space right now.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#13

Post by wmf »

tc wrote: post #12
wmf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have free market all along? That's nice to say in retrospect, but simply deregulating rights of way and video franchises wouldn't address the fact that strong incumbents exist today. Overbuilding an incumbent like AT&T or Comcast will cost billions and the reward for this investment is 20-30% market share. I think we're dealing with genuine natural monopolies here.

Being a competitor in this industry, I'm always surprised by the simplistic treatment telecom issues receive even by technical people. I suppose it is the difference between being a driver on a road, or perhaps even the manufacturer of an automobile, and knowing anything about the messy business of road construction. For one thing, everyone seems to focus just on consumer internet. But this is hardly the whole pictur…

everyone seems to focus just on consumer internet.

Because evil is lurking there, and we want to stamp it out. AFAIK business Internet service has always been neutral so there's not much to discuss.

Do you know how much a 30% market share is worth? It's worth enough that plenty of people are building to compete in that space right now.

I hope so, but I don't see any fiber coming down my street.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#14

Post by tc »

skolor wrote: post #11
tc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I'm in this industry, I'd like to point out that bandwidth is not artificially scarce. It is just scarce , necessarily limited by the capital available to buy equipment and lease facilities, fiber, and copper. Before talking about the artificial scarcity of bandwidth, I'd encourage you to check the prices on some Cisco or Juniper gear. No one buys this stuff to intentionally underutilized its capacity. And corr…

I am fairly aware what network infrastructure costs. I am also very aware that in several other countries it is not only profitable, but profitable enough that there are several companies doing it. There are only two reasons I can see for not having the kind of high speed connections some many other places in the world enjoy, is either: A) the backbone of the network is overloaded, and that is what needs upgrading mo…

"Without any kind of inside knowledge, I would guess"

I don't want to be overly-harsh to you in particular, but I think this is the key to so much of the useless posturing and speculating on this issue.

It may in fact be similar to the familiar refrain that people become more tolerant of homosexuals when they realize that one of their friends, family members, or business partners is gay. It's easy to stigmatize and demonize internet carriers if you don't know anyone who runs a business in that field.

To your points though. Most carrier backbones are not regularly overloaded. The bottleneck is at the network edge. And it isn't that carriers don't want to build. Everyone I know in this industry loves expanding their network and increasing capacity. But at the end of the day, you have to make a return on investment or your go out of business. Building out the network edge is terribly expensive. You have to buy and place a lot of expensive equipment in a lot of different places. You have to lay or lease lots of fiber or copper, or you have to build towers (and lay fiber to backhaul). Amazingly, there are lots of carriers that do this. You wouldn't even recognize most of the names.

Speaking as someone who came to telecom from a software background, I think there is a tendency for software people to want to idealize telecom into an ethereal mass-less abstraction, like software. If you look at it that way, any limitation is artificial -- the man is holding you down for his own pleasure. But the business isn't anything like that. Think Fedex rather than Google, and you'd be on the right path.

As for Europe, Asia, etc., keep in mind that those networks were far more heavily subsidized than our own. You may think that's a good thing, but remember that this removed resources from other human endeavors. Not everyone on Earth rates decreasing his or her CounterStrike latency as the highest priority in life.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#15

Post by symesc »

Net neutrality? Has to happen.

Unlimited bandwidth? Can't happen.

No business is sustainable without a usage cap. The all-you-can-eat buffet will get a few pigs at the trough but there's still a cap: night falls and the restaurant is closed.

What I seek is value in the equation, whereby I can choose how much bandwidth I can reasonably eat, pay for it, and not be bankrupted if I go over. The chart of bandwidth cost should not look like a hockey-stick stock price.

My wireless provider does this with text messages. I hate them for it. And I always will.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#16

Post by derefr »

tc wrote: post #14
skolor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly aware what network infrastructure costs. I am also very aware that in several other countries it is not only profitable, but profitable enough that there are several companies doing it. There are only two reasons I can see for not having the kind of high speed connections some many other places in the world enjoy, is either: A) the backbone of the network is overloaded, and that is what needs upgrading mo…

"Without any kind of inside knowledge, I would guess" I don't want to be overly-harsh to you in particular, but I think this is the key to so much of the useless posturing and speculating on this issue. It may in fact be similar to the familiar refrain that people become more tolerant of homosexuals when they realize that one of their friends, family members, or business partners is gay. It's easy to stigmatize and d…

So, then, what makes building out last-mile capacity in NY or SF so much harder/less ROIful than building it in Tokyo?

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#17

Post by seabee »

tc wrote: post #10
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why not have free market all along?" -- Because having every company dig up ditches along public thoroughfares and through yards would be untenable. Also, some companies only decide to make the infrastructure investment in towns if the town council would agree to allow that provider to be exclusive (a town council then has to decide if the monopoly is better than no service... but the problem is that these contracts…

More companies than you probably realize lay fiber and copper. You can check the permits issued by your local municipality to see what I mean. If you wanted to lay a few miles of fiber yourself, you'd find that it is fairly straightforward in most areas. You cross a bit of red tape, fill out all the forms, and pay the impact costs. If you don't want to do it yourself, companies like Comcast actually do a good bit of…

> More companies than you probably realize lay fiber and copper.

Could be misleading, since these jobs are often performed by contractors, at least in the UK. If you see work being done, there's often a sign by the site saying "X ltd., on behalf of Y plc".

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#18

Post by tc »

ewjordan wrote: post #9
tc wrote: post #4

This is the most important point: Third, the new regulations create an additional layer of government bureaucracy where the free market has already proven its effectiveness. The reason you’re not using AOL to read this right now isn’t because the government mandated AOL’s closed network out of existence: It’s because free and open networks triumphed, and that’s because they were good business.

Don't forget the next statement: Now the FCC is proposing taking a free market that works, and adding another layer of innovation-stifling regulations on top of that? Of course, the problem is that we don't really know whether a free market would work or not without the looming specter of net neutrality legislation, since the current market (which may be free, but is certainly not competitive, at least where I live)…

Speaking as just one person in this field, every new regulation makes me reconsider my desire to be in the industry.

It doesn't so much even matter who the regulations favor. It's that at some point, after spending countless hours with lawyers, filing government paperwork, and fretting about current and future regulatory issues, you really begin to see your customers as being politicians and regulators rather than the people who pay you for service.

Which is all to say that, I believe, if you regulate enough, you will get the monopolies that you fear.

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#19

Post by tc »

derefr wrote: post #16
tc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Without any kind of inside knowledge, I would guess" I don't want to be overly-harsh to you in particular, but I think this is the key to so much of the useless posturing and speculating on this issue. It may in fact be similar to the familiar refrain that people become more tolerant of homosexuals when they realize that one of their friends, family members, or business partners is gay. It's easy to stigmatize and d…

So, then, what makes building out last-mile capacity in NY or SF so much harder/less ROIful than building it in Tokyo?

Remember Japan's "lost decade"? The government threw money at every infrastructure project they could find.

Before you get too nostalgic about Japanese internet though, a friend who worked in Tokyo for a couple of months tells me it isn't really that much to write home about. Access to all of the services you care about as an American are slower, and my friend's provider explicitly blocked VoIP. I have no doubt that this isn't fully representative (except the latency/limited intercontinental bandwidth part). Perhaps patio11 could lend some experiences?

Re: An opposing viewpoint on net neutrality

#20

Post by paul9290 »

This is a no brainer! The cost and way we pay for Internet will have to change; resemble cell phone and electric bills. Economies have been hurt by the Internet and when it starts hurting the ISPs we will finally start to feel it. The ISPs offer Cable TV & phone services and those services can be enjoyed for free using the net now. ATM only a select few connect their computers to TVs to enjoy a free Cable TV like service(thanks Justin.TV) and only a few use iPod Touch's as a cell substitute, but in time .. more and more will do this and the ISPs will be hurting as no one is buying their Cable TV or phone services anymore. GIve it five to ten years but the cost of Internet is going to increase. Either bill by the byte or hefty costs for unlimited monthly broadband. Sucks but it makes economical sense!
Post reply on HN