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

India, Jio, and the Four Internets

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 279 posts

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#101

Post by tw04 »

pdonis wrote: post #71
tw04 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And completely ignores the fact that internet penetration is mediocre at best, speed:price is horrendous compared to the nordic countries, and it's because of LACK of regulation. Had the US government enforced a 1-wire policy from the get-go (municipalities run single-mode fiber for the last mile and let ISPs compete at an aggregation point) we'd be world leaders instead of sad also-rans. All of that is ignoring the…

> it's because of LACK of regulation. Had the US government enforced a 1-wire policy from the get-go (municipalities run single-mode fiber for the last mile and let ISPs compete at an aggregation point) The fact that this did not happen was not because of lack of regulation; it was because of too much regulation and regulatory capture by large ISPs. Plenty of municipalities wanted to do exactly what you describe, sin…

>Plenty of municipalities wanted to do exactly what you describe, since the benefits to their residents are obvious.

No, municipalities were building out their own ISP because of a lack of the federal government drumroll... mandating a 1-wire rule. They were left to try to come up with their own solution and their own funding. I've yet to hear of a single municipality building out last-mile fiber and leasing it back to private ISPs. I'm sure one exists somewhere, but that's not what has been happening.

The ISPs even being allowed to sue municipalities was because of drumroll... the federal government not having regulations requiring a 1-wire policy for last mile, which would've pre-empted any attempted by an ISP to sue to stop it.

You could have literally no law in place around burying fiber in the ground and an ISP like Comcast would sue a city for the simple sake of slowing down build-out and draining municipal funds. Regulation is 100% not the reason we have the mess we do in the US.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#102

Post by wolco »

nktsg wrote: post #94
sachdevap wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked straightforward questions. I wasn't aggressive in what I said. I did call him out on his self-professed disappointment with the state of affairs which seems to be blaming the tech talent out of India for not working on solving fundamental issues. This sort of punting of responsibility for building India is common among Indian youth. The thought being - someone else is supposed to sacrifice their career and li…

I appreciate your inputs. But allow me clarify on a few points. First, I'm not blaming the tech talent here. There is a difference between expressing disappointment and outright blaming. I understand that we're still in early stages of tech innovation. And there are entrepreneurs out there who are trying hard to solve fundamental issues.What I was suggesting that we can do much more if we given our talent pool. Read…

Good discussion all around.

I will make the point if all you are doing is paying taxes you are supporting the system you dislike. Without you (and others like you) the system would fail. If you demanded change those that represent taxpayers will do your bidding.

Parent has a point if everyone is saying I'm too small to make a difference someone else richer or larger will than you become part of the problem.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#103

Post by pankajdoharey »

Barrin92 wrote: post #8

I feel like every Stratechery piece on Europe is just plain bashing because Ben Thompson is allergic to regulation. Somehow extrapolating from one Indian company, Jio, to some sort of global vision of an internet while completely disregarding the European continent (which in pure market value obviously still is large) just seems like bad faith. Every time I read one of these pieces about growth, growth and growth I'm…

India recently blocked an environmental protection website called http://letindiabreathe.in without any reasoning or notice. The founders haven't got any reply from nixi India, now they are seeking an RTI to find out the reason for the blockade. I dont think India can be a good example of the global vision for the Internet.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#104

Post by throwaway744678 »

catchmeifyoucan wrote: post #96
azinman2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything, Europe is creating a more sustainable framework for private companies and government intervention. Cross the moat, and you don't have to worry about castles. Just build a good product. That's what I'm reading. So it's just a market with restrictions for outside companies? I think the point of the article was the absence vision for Europe to generate its own compelling products and companies that spread…

At the end of the day, Europe is a country, not a company. It isn't about maximizing profits. It's about maximizing the equity among citizens. I'd argue that the majority of consumers will take anything for free and not think about the consequences. Very much like an innocent child getting free food samples. Private businesses have no incentive to correct themselves. At the end of the day, if I was Europe, as a gover…

> At the end of the day, Europe is a country...

Europe is definitely not a country!

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#105

Post by tsss »

darawk wrote: post #99
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

I feel like every Stratechery piece on Europe is just plain bashing because Ben Thompson is allergic to regulation. Somehow extrapolating from one Indian company, Jio, to some sort of global vision of an internet while completely disregarding the European continent (which in pure market value obviously still is large) just seems like bad faith. Every time I read one of these pieces about growth, growth and growth I'm…

> I feel like every Stratechery piece on Europe is just plain bashing because Ben Thompson is allergic to regulation. Somehow extrapolating from one Indian company, Jio, to some sort of global vision of an internet while completely disregarding the European continent (which in pure market value obviously still is large) just seems like bad faith. But he actually makes a very specific point: > This Internet, though, f…

And why is that bad? I don't care if the software I'm using is coming from the US and if there are going to be globally dominant European internet companies. The only thing that counts to me is getting a good product, which privacy regulations are critical for, and getting taxes, which also requires more regulation not less.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#106

Post by C1sc0cat »

zpeti wrote: post #43
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

I feel like every Stratechery piece on Europe is just plain bashing because Ben Thompson is allergic to regulation. Somehow extrapolating from one Indian company, Jio, to some sort of global vision of an internet while completely disregarding the European continent (which in pure market value obviously still is large) just seems like bad faith. Every time I read one of these pieces about growth, growth and growth I'm…

What exactly gives you more faith in the old continent? The thousands of unicorns Europe has? No, there are hardly any. The UX nightmares cookie laws create? No. Lower bandwidth fees than in the US? That is actually because of regulatory capture in the US, plus the sheer size of the continent, nothing to do with free markets. So how exactly is Europe so great? The most unicorns came out of the UK who have just decide…

The US has botched regulation of telecoms compared to the UK/Europe

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#107

Post by pasticom »

The author's view of the evolving internet landscape. Real world geopolitical alliances and divides are increasingly being represented on the internet. Author Ben Thompson writes that the internet is dividing into 4 increasingly separate zones. Each zone dominated by a major power (United States, China, European Union, and India). Thompson outlines his views of vision behind the American, Chinese, and Indian zones while lamenting the lack of vision in the European zone.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#108

Post by bluecatswim »

el_programmador wrote: post #81
victor106 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monopoly of Jio is extremely bad for India. It's an open secret that the Ambani's have significant control over most politicians and political parties in India. Any of the big tech companies who wish to make a significant presence in India have to go through Jio. The monies that Facebook and Google spent buying stakes in Jio is to assure them that their operations wont be hurt.

As a plebeian, the only thing I'm worried about is my internet bill. Why should I worry who Ambani has political ties with as long as I'm getting cheap bandwidth?

The usual reasons monopolies are bad. Jio in particular is known for being highhanded in blocking websites. A couple weeks ago duckduckgo was unavailable on their network across India. [0] Last week, the government of India proposed some changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process which would make it easier for corporations to cause ecological damage without repercussions. A couple organizations published articles condemning these changes and explained the procedure to oppose this process, their websites were promptly blocked. [1]

[0] https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1278288303532302336

[1] https://thenextweb.com/in/2020/07/14/india-reportedly-blocks...

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#109

Post by pdonis »

tw04 wrote: post #101
pdonis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's because of LACK of regulation. Had the US government enforced a 1-wire policy from the get-go (municipalities run single-mode fiber for the last mile and let ISPs compete at an aggregation point) The fact that this did not happen was not because of lack of regulation; it was because of too much regulation and regulatory capture by large ISPs. Plenty of municipalities wanted to do exactly what you describe, sin…

>Plenty of municipalities wanted to do exactly what you describe, since the benefits to their residents are obvious. No, municipalities were building out their own ISP because of a lack of the federal government drumroll ... mandating a 1-wire rule. They were left to try to come up with their own solution and their own funding. I've yet to hear of a single municipality building out last-mile fiber and leasing it back…

> municipalities were building out their own ISP

Municipalities were trying to build out their own last mile infrastructure. Some of them wanted to add ISP functionality on to that, but not all. In other words, they were already trying to do exactly what a "1 wire rule" would have mandated.

> They were left to try to come up with their own solution

In other words, municipalities were trying to do what was best for them. They did not need the Federal government to tell them that 1-wire last mile was a good idea. They already knew it.

> and their own funding.

Yes, and funding was never an issue. Many municipalities were trying to build, or had already started building, last-mile 1-wire infrastructure with their own funding that would have required ISPs to compete for access at aggregation points, exactly as you describe. What stopped them, as I said, was regulations and lawsuits.

> The ISPs even being allowed to sue municipalities was because of

Regulatory capture and a broken US legal system that allows large corporations with deep pockets to make frivolous lawsuits against municipalities that they know can't afford to defend themselves. If we forced plaintiffs to pay all legal costs for the defendants if they lose their lawsuit, those frivolous lawsuits would go away.

> You could have literally no law in place around burying fiber in the ground and an ISP like Comcast would sue a city for the simple sake of slowing down build-out and draining municipal funds.

Yes, indeed; see above. But why should we allow them to get away with frivolous lawsuits? Why not do the obvious thing to fix that particular problem, as described above?

> Regulation is 100% not the reason we have the mess we do in the US.

Stupid regulation that benefits large corporations and their political cronies instead of the people is 100% the reason we have the mess we do in the US.

Smart regulation that was targeted at obvious abuses, like the lawsuits mentioned above, would greatly improve the situation, without having to have the government try to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone.

Re: India, Jio, and the Four Internets

#110

Post by retromario »

RestlessMind wrote: post #24
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

I feel like every Stratechery piece on Europe is just plain bashing because Ben Thompson is allergic to regulation. Somehow extrapolating from one Indian company, Jio, to some sort of global vision of an internet while completely disregarding the European continent (which in pure market value obviously still is large) just seems like bad faith. Every time I read one of these pieces about growth, growth and growth I'm…

> We need an internet that works for its citizens and members, and on that front I have still more trust in the old continent I broadly agree with the spirit of this line. But I fail to see how Europe is achieving that. Can you share a few specific (and meaningful) examples of how European approach has created an outcome which works better for its citizens and members? So far from what I have seen, European companies…

A few examples which benefit citizens:

* Websites are required to clearly present what information they store and track. They are also required to provide an option of functionality without ad tracking technology. The UX problems have been discussed ad nauseam, but from a pure requirement, this is a net win for citizen's data privacy and data tracking transparency.

* Internet companies are required to report and delete all citizen's data on request. This is a huge win for citizen's control over their own data. While companies like Google had already started to become more transparent on the data they collect from their users even before GDPR, this specific law spurred a huge increase in functionality in order to meet the full requirements.

* The fact that it has forced major international companies to provide these data transparency and deletion features to all users is a net win for all, including non-European citizens.

* Companies (and government institutions) are required to publicly notify any breach of data within 72 hours.

Post reply on HN