filmguy123
Veteran
and now Google Fiber makes complete, total sense
Repeal of "Net neutrality"?
- Thread starter DLD
- Start date
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Here in Spain, newspapers lobbied to get legislation so that google news would have to pay them for the links to their articles. It passed. The result was that google shut down the Spanish version of google news, the newspapers had a huge hit on their traffic numbers, and they had to increase their ad expenditures on google.
In the US, I would expect that a repeal of net neutrality and a strong fight from ISPs would make Google spend a few billion dollars (small change if you're google) to get fiber to every place where an ISP can actually make money (i.e. everywhere but small villages), and restrict YouTube resolution to 480p if you're using any ISP other than Google Fiber.
In the US, I would expect that a repeal of net neutrality and a strong fight from ISPs would make Google spend a few billion dollars (small change if you're google) to get fiber to every place where an ISP can actually make money (i.e. everywhere but small villages), and restrict YouTube resolution to 480p if you're using any ISP other than Google Fiber.
Run&Gun
Veteran
One of the problems is that the existing ISP's in any given area fight tooth-and-nail to keep any other competition out. There have even been instances of municipalities wanting to bring in low-cost high speed internet and the existing ISP's suing to keep it out and winning.
I'm in the area of the last expansion of Google Fiber here in the US. It's not making it all the way to me, but I have seen some benefit, because the existing ISP(Time Warner) bumped everyone in the service area's speed up to stay competitive with GF. I'm on probably a mid-tier package, but it's enough to stream 4K over Netflix, Amazon and YouTube without issues. And fortunately, there are (currently) no usage caps. Although I am a very light streamer. I still consume most of my "TV" via DIRECTV.
It'd be in hundreds of billions to run fiber all over the US, not counting the political hurdles that Run&Gun mentioned above.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/08/21/will-google-fiber-waste-28-billion/#6dddbca81ad5
The way it was working prior to the NN was that Netflix had to pay (in hundreds of million$) for the servers that had to be placed next to the backbone or ISP provider or be throttled. Netflix preferred to get something for nothing and heavily lobbied for the passing of the NN. So, Comcast began to throttle everyone and it became next to impossible to get a 4K stream via Comcast and similar ISP's. Netflix and Comcast then kind of sort of made up.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/05/comcast-x1-make-netflix-binges-easier/86710810/
combatentropy
Veteran
The problem, as I see it, is that non-net neutrality is a weird mixture of free-market economics with monopolies. And that's why it doesn't work.
To be for net neutrality is pretty much to be for government regulation. Without a force from the outside, companies will be tempted to do whatever they can to make the most money. That's the free market, that's the American way, and it's something I often am in favor of. It just seems to work itself out and be more efficient than a top-down bureaucracy. So why doesn't it work very well for Internet access?
Internet access seems to be different than, say, bakeries. Most American cities have just one or two ISPs. And as has been said, they are so powerful that they run newcomers out of town. They are monopolies, and they stay monopolies. I guess this has to do with the cost of running cable everywhere. If a true newcomer were to come, they would have to run their own cable. You're not very independent if you just rent the use of the incumbent's cable, like some small fries do. Anyway, it's very expensive to run your own cable all over town, as you might guess. So that's why you've probably only heard of one company doing it, one of the richest companies in the world, and still it seems like it's taking them like forever (I'm talking about Google).
Besides being very expensive, it also seems like a downright waste of time, material, and work for four or five companies each to run their own cable all over the place, underground, up to the jack on every house in every neighborhood. Supposing we didn't live in a selfish society, and no one did anything for money, it was all out of love. It seems like the people would agree to run just one Internet cable to every house and be done with it. But even in a utopia like that, I can still imagine them wanting several bakeries, auto shops, etc., to choose from.
This is why I think Internet access is, well, special. Kind of reminds you of water and electricity, doesn't it? In fact the proponents of net neutrality use that very word, utility. They think Internet access should be a city-owned utility, just like water, electric, and gas. Meantime, the ISPs loathe the word utility and dread the day that they would become just a "dumb pipe."
They want to sell you extra-special bling with your water. You can have Water Basic, Filtered Water, Carbonated Water, and Kool-Aid, straight from the tap. And they want to charge you different rates for different water pressures. I mean Internet.
---
Non-net-neutrality is also kind of a double dipping. The ISP is already charging its customers. (Let them charge them for different download speeds even.) What Net Neutrality is meant to do is keep the ISP from turning around and saying, "Hey, Hulu, if you give me a little extra dough, I'll stream you faster than Netflix." The customer has already paid for a given download speed. All content should flow at that speed (at least as long as the source can send it that fast).
To be for net neutrality is pretty much to be for government regulation. Without a force from the outside, companies will be tempted to do whatever they can to make the most money. That's the free market, that's the American way, and it's something I often am in favor of. It just seems to work itself out and be more efficient than a top-down bureaucracy. So why doesn't it work very well for Internet access?
Internet access seems to be different than, say, bakeries. Most American cities have just one or two ISPs. And as has been said, they are so powerful that they run newcomers out of town. They are monopolies, and they stay monopolies. I guess this has to do with the cost of running cable everywhere. If a true newcomer were to come, they would have to run their own cable. You're not very independent if you just rent the use of the incumbent's cable, like some small fries do. Anyway, it's very expensive to run your own cable all over town, as you might guess. So that's why you've probably only heard of one company doing it, one of the richest companies in the world, and still it seems like it's taking them like forever (I'm talking about Google).
Besides being very expensive, it also seems like a downright waste of time, material, and work for four or five companies each to run their own cable all over the place, underground, up to the jack on every house in every neighborhood. Supposing we didn't live in a selfish society, and no one did anything for money, it was all out of love. It seems like the people would agree to run just one Internet cable to every house and be done with it. But even in a utopia like that, I can still imagine them wanting several bakeries, auto shops, etc., to choose from.
This is why I think Internet access is, well, special. Kind of reminds you of water and electricity, doesn't it? In fact the proponents of net neutrality use that very word, utility. They think Internet access should be a city-owned utility, just like water, electric, and gas. Meantime, the ISPs loathe the word utility and dread the day that they would become just a "dumb pipe."
They want to sell you extra-special bling with your water. You can have Water Basic, Filtered Water, Carbonated Water, and Kool-Aid, straight from the tap. And they want to charge you different rates for different water pressures. I mean Internet.
---
Non-net-neutrality is also kind of a double dipping. The ISP is already charging its customers. (Let them charge them for different download speeds even.) What Net Neutrality is meant to do is keep the ISP from turning around and saying, "Hey, Hulu, if you give me a little extra dough, I'll stream you faster than Netflix." The customer has already paid for a given download speed. All content should flow at that speed (at least as long as the source can send it that fast).
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
^ I agree with all of that
About the investment: a non-incumbent (Jazztel) is spending aroung $60/home to install FTTH for "the easy 25%" of all homes here in Spain. But I forgot how much different housing is in the US. Here in Spain almost everybody lives in apartment buildings, which reduces the cost significantly. And there must be other very different factors because, even choosing the easy neighborhoods, Google's cost seems to be around $1000 to $1500 per home!! (link)
Also, after a couple of very chaotic years, we got a law that said they had to share the underground pipes for the cables if that's a viable option, instead of making a new trench for each company. Those pipes run through public space, so it's not a crazy idea.
About the investment: a non-incumbent (Jazztel) is spending aroung $60/home to install FTTH for "the easy 25%" of all homes here in Spain. But I forgot how much different housing is in the US. Here in Spain almost everybody lives in apartment buildings, which reduces the cost significantly. And there must be other very different factors because, even choosing the easy neighborhoods, Google's cost seems to be around $1000 to $1500 per home!! (link)
Also, after a couple of very chaotic years, we got a law that said they had to share the underground pipes for the cables if that's a viable option, instead of making a new trench for each company. Those pipes run through public space, so it's not a crazy idea.
High1ander
Well-known member
Here in Sweden we have the former state owned Telia (the biggest and s*%ttiest, even under investigation from the US cause of bribes used in other countries such as Uzbekistan, and the US wants 1.5 billion dollars in damages) that uses a new policy which allows users to keep surfing for free on certain sites (music apps mostly) after the data limit is reached. Obviously the EU is against this and the Swedish regulators are giving Telia 30 days to stop their practice... The problem is that lots of people are just like "how nice, I can freely surf music even after my data limit is off", and don't see the bigger picture that crap companies like Telia will in the end go down a road that basically censors sites and hampers free competition. The sad part is that the regulators are like "yeah, keep doing your illegal stuff for 30 days more", whereas another company that refused to store certain data (which was deemed correct by EU) were told that every day they didn't they would have to pay ca. 1 million dollars in fines... Point being, not only the US that have these issues.
Last edited:
Technically speaking, most customers can choose between cable, telephone or wireless. Wireless seems to be the least monopolistic, with several companies vying for a dollar in any locale, but at the moment, it has the most expensive date rate. 5G may change it to some extent.
Then there are some alternative technologies.
http://www.recode.net/2016/1/27/115...is-back-with-starry-this-time-hes-going-after
and an update -
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/n...founders-new-internet-startup-raises-30m.html
combatentropy
Veteran
Yes, many U.S. cities technically have not a monopoly but a duopoly. Funny, they still seem like a monopoly: slow improvement, charging the same rates for years, poor customer service (Is now a good time to post that video of Comcast causing car wrecks?). Then suddenly when a serious third party, like Google, comes to town, they're like, "Oh! Hey, we just wanted you to know that we're now offering broadband at 10 times the speed that we were yesterday." I have never taken a business or economics class. Is there some collusion that often happens between duopolies?
Thank you for the links about city-wide wireless. I thought of mentioning it. But I have been hearing about it since 2001. The news for the start-up named Starry is nice, but it kind of reminds me of when I tried tracking the progress of a quantum-film company called Invisage. I kept thinking their sensor would arrive any year now, but that thread is 6 years old now, and I lost most of my enthusiasm. It will be some day, probably, but it may be after my eyesight goes and I don't care anymore
Thank you for the links about city-wide wireless. I thought of mentioning it. But I have been hearing about it since 2001. The news for the start-up named Starry is nice, but it kind of reminds me of when I tried tracking the progress of a quantum-film company called Invisage. I kept thinking their sensor would arrive any year now, but that thread is 6 years old now, and I lost most of my enthusiasm. It will be some day, probably, but it may be after my eyesight goes and I don't care anymore
Last edited:
When I was in the cell phone (that was before they were called smartphones) biz in LA in the 1990's, the rates were set by a local agency for both companies (then LA Cellular and PacTel/PacBell). Back then, there was a lot of flesh peddling, with the mobile providers agreeing to hold their rates in exchange for the state using its power for the cell tower and the repeaters placements.
KurtF
Well-known member
Most cities actually own the easements necessary to cross over property lines, which they do when delivering water and removing sewage (at least in the U.S.). That's why I believe that Municipal Broadband may be the answer. The city runs fiber to every home and becomes your ISP. Done deal. Better service, cheaper rates. Break the monopoly of the big 5 multimedia companies.
That new FCC head wants the broadcasters to switch to the ATSC 3.0 sooner rather than later, with the 4K broadcasts to come by the end of the year. Maybe.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488608/4k-tv-broadcasts-ajit-pai-atsc-3-hdr?hl=1&noRedirect=1
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488608/4k-tv-broadcasts-ajit-pai-atsc-3-hdr?hl=1&noRedirect=1
The 5G is a few years away but the speeds are in Gb/s.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ericsson-and-ibm-announce-5g-breakthrough/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ericsson-and-ibm-announce-5g-breakthrough/
I'm surprised to see this thread is still alive as it's hard to discuss net neutrality without touching on politics at all. There was talk of Google (Alphabet) building out their own network, but that's sort of stalled, I think; there are not many companies that could do that, and those that could are not always interested (Apple). Interesting times ahead.
Politics is totally irrelevant in here because it's always the "my guy" vs. "your guy/gal" exchange. The net obviously depends on who's in charge of the government but, once again, what is important is not the people and the political parties themselves but their approach. In other words, if there's an XYZ ruling, then it will result in the certain course of action in the market, regardless of whether the person in charge likes the Falcons or the Patriots and I struggle to understand why people don't realize that.
A long article with a lot of links on Google Fiber 2.0 (using the final mile wireless) and its battles with AT&T and others.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google...ge-its-comeback-as-at-t-fiber-prepares-to-go/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google...ge-its-comeback-as-at-t-fiber-prepares-to-go/
Google is not doing anything unique. The reason they stalled is because they, like all the carriers, realized that they need to stop spending capital on FTTH and move on to wireless. AT&T also figured this out and announced that they would disband the Direct TV satellites and use wireless by 2020. The carriers don't invent anything when it comes to technology. By law, AT&T and Verizon cannot design technology. Cable companies also don't design any technology.
They all are presented technology solutions by a very small set of vendors that are all inventing the same technology at the same time (5G LTE for example). So when one of the carriers decides that its time to switch to last-mile wireless, they all are coming to the same conclusion, because they are all hearing the same story from all of the vendors at the same time. Google and the others aren't inventing anything. They just market solutions that have been provided by the vendors and put marketing names on it like FiOS (Veriizon) and U-Verse (AT&T). The fact is that both of those technologies, while quite different, were designed and sold to Verizon and AT&T by the same vendor. Funny, they both bought their competing solutions from the same company.
They all are presented technology solutions by a very small set of vendors that are all inventing the same technology at the same time (5G LTE for example). So when one of the carriers decides that its time to switch to last-mile wireless, they all are coming to the same conclusion, because they are all hearing the same story from all of the vendors at the same time. Google and the others aren't inventing anything. They just market solutions that have been provided by the vendors and put marketing names on it like FiOS (Veriizon) and U-Verse (AT&T). The fact is that both of those technologies, while quite different, were designed and sold to Verizon and AT&T by the same vendor. Funny, they both bought their competing solutions from the same company.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
Demistate
Veteran
As our bandwith usage increases, the speed, tier of services, and caps will not most likely. These companies know that everybody will need to pay for more bandwidth as time goes forward and telecom companies will be there to sell you higher tiers of service. It will most likely slow down economic growth if you believe that the Internet is more like a utility where the existence of it helps to promote and grow business who take advantage of it.
From a practical standpoint I shot 1.5tb of greenscreen footage last month. I have a cloud backup service that is unlimited space, but I will probably shift to more local backups now that it's going to be cheaper for me to buy a bunch of hard drives and duplicate the data than spending the extra $150 a month for uncapped internet (at the same speeds)
There is a reason why telecom stocks have been rushed to with the new administration. They knew that they were going to have a field day being able to charge whatever they want.
From a practical standpoint I shot 1.5tb of greenscreen footage last month. I have a cloud backup service that is unlimited space, but I will probably shift to more local backups now that it's going to be cheaper for me to buy a bunch of hard drives and duplicate the data than spending the extra $150 a month for uncapped internet (at the same speeds)
There is a reason why telecom stocks have been rushed to with the new administration. They knew that they were going to have a field day being able to charge whatever they want.