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

151–160 of 284 posts

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

#151

Post by amazon_not »

brad0 wrote: post #131
pascalxus wrote: post #5

This the end of innovation in online videos: "When companies like Netflix, which today closed with a market cap of almost $158 billion, can’t necessarily get enough negotiating power to ensure that consumers have direct access to them, no startup can ever hope to compete. America may believe in its entrepreneurs, but its competition laws have done nothing to keep the terrain open for them. Those implications are just…

I could see a revival in P2P tech for doing real time video. Who knows, maybe we'll build local networks off the public internet.

P2P isn't very useful for real time video.

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

#152

Post by WillPostForFood »

spruciefic399 wrote: post #56

Another strategy to this (not exclusive of other strategies) is to encourage municipal ISPs, or even go further and roll out federal ISP infrastructure ala the federal highway system. I've always thought that this would be well within the rubric of the USPS. The constitutional mandate for a postal service was drafted at a time when the internet could not have been conceived of. I would argue that the intent of the co…

* I'm sick of this government handout to companies that want to have their cake and eat it too*

So you're advocating a federal subsidy so Google (4x the market cap of AT&T) and Netflix don't have to deal with the problem themselves? It is like fighting corporate welfare for big companies with even bigger corporate welfare for even bigger corporations.

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

#153

Post by hiram112 »

dsabanin wrote: post #38
pascalxus wrote: post #5

This the end of innovation in online videos: "When companies like Netflix, which today closed with a market cap of almost $158 billion, can’t necessarily get enough negotiating power to ensure that consumers have direct access to them, no startup can ever hope to compete. America may believe in its entrepreneurs, but its competition laws have done nothing to keep the terrain open for them. Those implications are just…

I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connect to (like Netflix, iTunes, YouTube) through them. Especially on higher plans, people buy a lot of bandwidth so that they can stream videos, that's how ISPs up-sell to them. If they start throttling, they'll be selling an empty bucket, and it's not going to be…

I can't even buy internet in my city (with 2-3 competing ISPs) without having to bundle cable. It's cheaper to get the internet / cable bundle because they want to up-sell on-demand videos, HD, recorder box rentals, etc. which is only possible with a cable TV bundle.

Comcast and friends are not going to let the cord-cutters get away with $30/month 100Mb down sans media, as is possible in the rest of the world, it seems.

The only way I will believe that we haven't been fleeced by the FCC / end of net neutrality is if there are more choices in the end: If I can get a $30 / month 100Mb standard internet connection without any media content, while those who binge watch Netflix, Prime, Youtube, sports, etc. have to pay more for the massive bandwidth and distribution costs of all that consumable media, I'd be willing to concede that maybe the FCC was right.

But I'm guessing that this won't happen: I'll still be paying high prices even though I don't want all the media content, and those who do will end up paying even more.

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

#154

Post by amazon_not »

rayiner wrote: post #144
djrogers wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you're looking at that wrong - almost half of US households only have a single choice for ISP. That's not competition, it's a travesty.

Only if you exclude wireless options, which is becoming an ever-less rational thing to do. (15% of households making over $100k/year have ditched wired broadband in favor of wireless, and that number is growing rapidly.) Also, the question is which households have options? I strongly suspect its the households in wealthier metro areas and suburbs. Competition for households that are the largest sources of potential r…

> Only if you exclude wireless options, which is becoming an ever-less rational thing to do.

Maybe some day wireless will become a meaningful substitute for wireline broadband, but that day is not here yet. Thus it's very much the rational thing to do to exclude it.

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

#155

Post by rayiner »

spruciefic399 wrote: post #56

Another strategy to this (not exclusive of other strategies) is to encourage municipal ISPs, or even go further and roll out federal ISP infrastructure ala the federal highway system. I've always thought that this would be well within the rubric of the USPS. The constitutional mandate for a postal service was drafted at a time when the internet could not have been conceived of. I would argue that the intent of the co…

This (1) would not happen; (2) would be awful. Utilities and infrastructure are state and local issues. The states and cities that would build public broadband infrastructure are in dire financial straits and can't afford it. You invoke "government handouts," but for decades the government has been loathe to get into the business of building broadband. All the "handouts" you hear about are intra-industry transfer payments: a special tax is levied on telecom service in urban areas to subsidize telecom service in rural areas. It doesn't cost the government anything, it just moves money from mostly urban ISPs to mostly rural ISPs.

Even if there was the money for it, you wouldn't want it. Public Internet in the U.S. does not look like "fiber for everyone." Instead, it would be 25 mbps DSL for everyone. It would be that way for the same reason we build six-lane highways to far-flung exurbs while public transit in urban areas decays, and why we continue to use lead-piped water systems in order to keep water rates extremely low. Our political situation tilts things heavily toward favoring coverage over quality.

Over the last 10 years, my private-sector broadband speeds have gotten 10 times faster, even as bandwidth usage exploded. But my public-sector subway ride has gotten slower (and more jerky when they turned off automation), even as ridership went down. It seems absolutely insane to me that anyone would want to put the people responsible for the latter in charge of the former.

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

#156

Post by hiram112 »

bradleybuda wrote: post #59
knowuh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must live in one of the few places in the US where high-speed internet is available through multiple providers. That is definitely not the norm. Most people won't be able to simply switch to the least nasty provider.

More than half of US households have multiple wired broadband providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi... This does not include wireless broadband options. Could the competitive situation be better? Absolutely. But it is, in fact, the "norm" to have a choice.

I live in a city with multiple providers. Some lucky ones even have choice of FIOS, along with fast cable from two providers and slower DSL.

It doesn't matter for cord-cutters and people like me, who just want to pay for a $30 / month 100 Mbit internet connection without TV, cable, wireless data, HBO, etc. I've lived in several countries outside the US (including 'developing' ones, and this seems possible everywhere but N. America).

None of the providers will sell a $30 / month vanilla internet connection. Either you can get the absurd $20 / month 1Mb down (which they were required to provide for low-income families) or the next higher speed includes Cable, premium channels, rental boxes, etc. You aren't getting out of it without paying $60 / month which ends up being $70 after all the taxes and fees, increasing to $75 next year, etc.

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

#157

Post by amazon_not »

httpz wrote: post #68

What we really need is preventing existing ISPs from having a regional monopoly. In order to do that, the congress has to change the law so the ISPs have to share the cables they own in a building like phone lines, or someone has to make a technological break through that solves the last mile problem. Also, this is a US specific problem that doesn't exist in places like S.Korea or Japan. Here's a NPR PlanetMoney epis…

> In order to do that, the congress has to change the law so the ISPs have to share the cables they own in a building like phone lines,

No can do. We already had that law and it was revoked in the Brand X decision.

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

#158

Post by rayiner »

reaperducer wrote: post #110
snowwrestler wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next step beyond the mail was the telegraph and then the telephone. Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier," which protected the network owner from liability so long as it charged and carried traffic from all parties equally. These days, that concept is called "net neutrality" in the context of the Internet, and I suppose you may have heard it ment…

>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, however, is incredibly destructive to competition. It prevents smaller entrants, and entrenches incumbents. Those are the only entities that can afford to both operate an infrastructure business and run a money-losing government service on the side. It is, in fact, why we're in this mess to begin with. It was municipalities that granted cable franchise monopolies (before that was made illegal), to ensure universal build-out.

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

#159

Post by lostapathy »

martinald wrote: post #138
DenisM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is more demand for cell service the cell companies will build more towers. Lower the power levels and use higher frequency bands to reduce interference. By your numbers, 200 clients x $50/mo $10k revenue per mo for a tower. A new cell tower costs $150k, so it pays for itself in 15 months.

It can take years in the UK to add a new cell tower. Apply to the local govt for planning, then more applications to dig the road up for fibre. And then you need a power connection which often aren't trivial or quick to get. $150k sounds unbelievably low.

You have to remember that the denser you install towers, the shorter and less obtrusive they need to be. I.e., you don't need to be nearly as high if you only need line of sight over one mile instead of ten.

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

#160

Post by redial »

Everyone is worried about video and rightly so, or maybe is just being used as an example, but my question is: Could ISPs prevent in any way Software Updates? Could they block (for example) a patch that would fix a bug allowing them to mim web requests to inject lets say, ads?
Post reply on HN