Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

drawkbox t1_iucw5x0 wrote

Reply to comment by Buhodeleste in U.S. tech giants face pressure from Europe’s telcos to pay for building the internet by thinkB4WeSpeak

> then why are the telecom companies bitching?

Because they oversell and their infrastructure is pressed constantly, they'd rather you not use it.

They'd rather de-prioritize throughput, put in data caps and limits for rent-seeking than actually build up infrastructure. If you have a node overloaded it takes a long time to even know, and they drag their feet on upgrading it while they turn up the latency causing de-prioritization (throttling though not directly).

We have allowed ISPs to incentivize themselves to not increase network infrastructure throughput, slow progress benefits them. Rather than upgrading for better service, rent-seeking for slower and slower service compared to market/user need.

Without innovations like DOCSIS, like DOCSIS 3.1 + DOCSIS 4 and other throughput multiplexing technologies, we'd be even worse off on infrastructure. These ISPs will just not run fiber.

66

Buhodeleste t1_iucx5xf wrote

Sounds like we need to make some new laws to straighten that out. Something about only being able to sell bandwidth that the infrastructure can bear. Then strip the leadership of the telecoms of their compensation to pay for it.

22

KSRandom195 t1_iudhubl wrote

“The infrastructure can bear what I sold you, but not if you and your neighbor use it at the same time.”

9

switch495 t1_iufk0tc wrote

Local public libraries should become ISPs and run givers in their town - and finally create a nice revenge stream to fund the library and pay for enhanced public services in those libraries

3

Gloomy-Ad1171 t1_iuge5nn wrote

Chattanooga, TN. They have a county owned power system. Upgraded to “Smart Grid” in the early 2000s and now offer up to 10Gbs home service.

3

happyscrappy t1_iuew06h wrote

If customers aren't paying for metered service then the ISPs have a strong incentive to try to tamp down customer usage. It allows them to offer lower prices at the same profit margins (or higher margins at the same price). And customers like lower prices.

Going to fiber isn't going to fix this. They can still oversubscribe their uplinks if it saves them money.

Maybe the fix for residential ISPs is to abandon flat-rate service? Better services costs more, as expected.

−5

E_Snap t1_iueyyds wrote

Or you hold them to the agreements that they made when the US government gave them billions on the condition that they run fiber. You do know that not letting corporations run rough-shod over the country is an option, right? Anything involving changing public policy or other large scale changes should involve moving in that direction, not just throwing our hands up and saying “I guess we have to make incentives for capitalists to not be fuckheads!”

6

happyscrappy t1_iuf30my wrote

> Or you hold them to the agreements that they made when the US government gave them billions on the condition that they run fiber.

That's s myth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was almost completely unfunded. It authorized telecoms companies to add fees to their customer's bills to pay for infrastructure improvements. Those fees amounted to billions. And only some of it was used for fiber. But it didn't come from the US government, it came from customers.

The act was created to pay for "video dial tone", which was the idea you'd use interactive TV and video conferencing. The type of fiber chosen isn't even relevant today. It's not the type used for high speed internet now. It was used at the time in some ways for 45 mbps internet. Which is not what people are looking for today.

> You do know that not letting corporations run rough-shod over the country is an option, right?

I know you're not a child. I would appreciate it if you don't treat me like one as I am not one either.

> Anything involving changing public policy or other large scale changes should involve moving in that direction, not just throwing our hands up and saying “I guess we have to make incentives for capitalists to not be fuckheads!”

Capitalists are going to act in their best financial interest. Incentives work great to make changes as we know that's how capitalists work. When regulating you can do so most effectively by understanding how the groups you are regulating will operate.

What would be wrong with metered service? It's how we manage electricity usage. If you didn't pay for electricity you would use it a lot differerently.

−6

novacham t1_iuejq1k wrote

>These ISPs will just not run fiber.

Because running fiber is crazy expensive. You have to get multiple jurisidictions and private property owners to allow it. You end up ripping up streets or tunneling under them.

Remove a lot of the red tape to running the infrastructure and it will get a lot cheaper to run.

−6

nyaaaa t1_iuepk5h wrote

The only red tape is the monopoly wanting the red tape.

17

rcmaehl t1_iuffmmm wrote

Yes, like when Google fiber tried to expand in Louisville and AT&T sued them to monopolize utility poles they didn't even own.

6

Gloomy-Ad1171 t1_iuge15y wrote

Fiber was ran in most of my city in the early 2000s, then sat dark for decades.

2