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

161–170 of 284 posts

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

#161

Post by adventured »

amazon_not wrote: post #148
adventured wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This type of comment implies you think the world is static. I'm not saying that this good, but what makes you so sure market and social forces won't produce a better model? They already are: multiple low or modest cost, high speed satellite providers are targeting the US market for deployment in the next four or five years. The dumber Comcast and AT&T are about the situation, the more money SpaceX is going to make…

> They already are: multiple low or modest cost, high speed satellite providers are targeting the US market for deployment in the next four or five years. Hoping satellite will solve your bandwidth problems is wishful thinking of the worst sort. There simply isn't enough spectrum, and thus bandwidth, to go around. Can't beat physics.

So your premise is multiple companies, with ultimately a decade of preparation, regulatory effort, and build-out, are set to spend billions of dollars on a non-market. All because they just didn't understand physics can't be beat.

Oh sure, amazon_not, I'll take your word for it. Since when does SpaceX know what they're doing.

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

#162

Post by Clubber »

VikingCoder wrote: post #134
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…

Private industry is better at profit. It's open for discussion whether government is better at providing essential services like healthcare, water, fire, police, electricity, and internet. I assert that it is, but I respect different views.

Right. What it really boils down to is a private entity more efficient at delivering a service than the 10% or so profit margin it requires to operate. The more profit margin a company requires, the more efficient over a government implementation it needs to be; so if a company requires a 20% margin, it needs to be 20% more efficient to break even with a government run entity of the same nature.

There are other aspects such as a company can't run without a profit and proper cash flow for nearly as long as a government entity can, because the government entity is subsidized. Also a government entity is much more susceptible to political winds (budget cuts) than a private entity may be.

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

#163

Post by jtbayly »

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,…

How exactly would the government do it without "forcing the places that do have it to subsidize the places that don't have it?"

Taxes are how the government funds those sorts of things, and taxes are collected from everybody. So the subsidization still happens.

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

#164

Post by amazon_not »

adventured wrote: post #161
amazon_not wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They already are: multiple low or modest cost, high speed satellite providers are targeting the US market for deployment in the next four or five years. Hoping satellite will solve your bandwidth problems is wishful thinking of the worst sort. There simply isn't enough spectrum, and thus bandwidth, to go around. Can't beat physics.

So your premise is multiple companies, with ultimately a decade of preparation, regulatory effort, and build-out, are set to spend billions of dollars on a non-market. All because they just didn't understand physics can't be beat. Oh sure, amazon_not, I'll take your word for it. Since when does SpaceX know what they're doing.

I'm not saying there won't be A market. I'm saying there won't be THE market you are hoping for.

Satellite has it's uses, but replacing terrestrial broadband networks isn't one. The satellite industry is littered with roadkill, bankruptcies and wasted billions. It's not the first time somebody would be wrong.

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

#165

Post by falcolas »

xj9 wrote: post #73
falcolas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What smaller competition will be capable of laying copper or fiber to its constituents? Even cities are, in many cases, rendered incapable of providing competition. And, for the record, wireless is not a viable competition for copper, let alone fiber. The available bandwidth by the most cutting-edge offerings is too low and latency is too high.

the hypothetical here is that Comca$t is going to artificially throttle Netflix and give you mandatory free (paid) access to their own streaming platform. all a WISP has to do to compete is offer more bandwidth than the throttle allows with no bandwidth shaping at a competitive price.

If all that the internet was was streaming video, sure. It's not, though.

The WISP also has to be resilient against Comcast removing the cap at a lower price (at least until the WISP folds). And against being bought out by Comcast. And against Comcast's lawyers and lobbyists (the wireless spectrum being a government controlled and finite resource).

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

#166

Post by falcolas »

mariojv wrote: post #61
falcolas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those technologies matter when your access to them is blocked. When it comes to access, you have copper, fiber, and radio. The latter is not really competitive to the first two, both of which require significant up-front investments with no promise of revenue to pay those investments back. Remember Google Fiber? Where's that now? Shut down with a marketing-speak comment that says "its purpose was fulfilled."

> Remember Google Fiber? Where's that now? Shut down with a marketing-speak comment that says "its purpose was fulfilled." Is this true? They just started offering services in my city a few months ago. I can't get it yet, but it seems like they're expanding at least in some locales.

"[...] we have reshaped the landscape — these innovations are becoming more commonplace"

"For most of our “potential Fiber cities” [...] we’re going to pause our operations and offices"

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/googl...

https://fiber.googleblog.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-b...

They haven't hit play; haven't hinted at hitting play.

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

#167

Post by tstrimple »

apeace wrote: post #128

Since I work for a startup ISP I am praying that AT&T will be dumb enough to prioritize their content over others. You're going to make TNT fast and Netflix slow? You've got to be kidding. The amazing PR team at Netflix will be all over this and users will revolt. It will open up opportunities for the small guys to compete. By all means big ISPs, please cripple a huge part of your service that is very important to yo…

> The amazing PR team at Netflix will be all over this and users will revolt.

That theory is not supported by history. Netflix will pay, because they can. New video streaming companies will have no chance.

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-com...

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

#168

Post by citilife »

jtbayly wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

How exactly would the government do it without "forcing the places that do have it to subsidize the places that don't have it?" Taxes are how the government funds those sorts of things, and taxes are collected from everybody. So the subsidization still happens.

The way electricity works is by allowing the electrical company to charge everyone (across their whole network) such that they make a max of 10% (depends on state) above their current amortized expenditure. The idea being, if an electric company wants to make more money, it has to spend more money. And it's fixed how much money they can charge (it's based on total network cost). Think of it as a semi-non-profit, which can only make 10% profit.

So, what it does is constantly relay wires, build out to rural areas, etc. and thereby extend their network and keep it up-to-date (wires only last 30 years anyway). This I think is what we need to companies such as Comcast.

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

#169

Post by snowwrestler »

chalkandpaste wrote: post #115
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…

>Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier," No. "Common Carrier" classification under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 comes more than 30 years after the introduction of the telephone, much longer than the telegraph. More than that, it could be argued that that, along with the Kingsbury Commitment were the contributions that led to an AT&T incu…

"Common Carrier" classification under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 is just one implementation of the legal concept of common carrier, which dates back to transportation systems in England. (warning: simplified)

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

#170

Post by VikingCoder »

Clubber wrote: post #162
VikingCoder wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private industry is better at profit. It's open for discussion whether government is better at providing essential services like healthcare, water, fire, police, electricity, and internet. I assert that it is, but I respect different views.

Right. What it really boils down to is a private entity more efficient at delivering a service than the 10% or so profit margin it requires to operate. The more profit margin a company requires, the more efficient over a government implementation it needs to be; so if a company requires a 20% margin, it needs to be 20% more efficient to break even with a government run entity of the same nature. There are other aspec…

There's also the aspect that a government-run program can be subsidized so that those who can't afford it can still use it.

Private entities are far less likely to provide that on their own. And when government starts subsidizing business or giving tax cuts for behavior, then things get wonky, too. Like when the company pockets the money, and doesn't provide the service. Like what happened with broadband:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-br...

Post reply on HN