1051
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1051 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3608 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Net neutrality is just Common Carrier rules as applied to the Internet. It's frankly a no-brainer.
Your proposal should definitely also have been done -- allowing telecoms to also produce content at all is a massive conflict of interest and should never have been allowed in the first place -- but it doesn't obviate the need to also regulate the pure telecoms even after the breakup.
The thing is there are no pure telecoms anymore. There's a company that maintains underground infrastructure and gets paid when that infrastructure is used, and is incentivised to upgrade the infrastructure because they make more money if it's used more.
And there are thousand of companies that benefit from the infrastructure, and they can charge customers pretty much whatever they want... though it better not be an excessively high price because every ISP, even a tiny one with a single employee, can provide service nationwide at the same raw cost as a telco with tens of millions of customers.
The difference between what we have done, and net neutrality, is our system provides an open book profit motive to upgrade the network. Net Neutrality doesn't do that.
Fundamentally there is a natural monopoly in that once every street in a suburb is connected, then why would anyone invest in digging up the footpath and gardens to run a second wired connection to every house? The original provider would have to provide awful service to justify that, and they can simply respond to a threat of a new network by improving service just enough (maybe only temporarily), for that new investor to run for the hills.
Net Neutrality stops blatant abuse. But it doesn't encourage good behaviour. Our NBN does both.
That's just not true.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with network upgrades, it only relates to how traffic can be treated on the network. That's it. If the network is insufficient, it needs to be upgraded, not reprioritized so preferred traffic is fast while everything else is slow.
I don't know anything about NBN Co, so I'm going largely based on this Wikipedia article.
Financials:
So they're subsidizing by ~$1B/year, or ~20%.
So let's look at prices, since surely they should be low if there's a "price war". Here are prices for the top ISP, Telstra (speeds in download/upload in mbps):
Here's my local ISP which isn't government owned, and all prices include all taxes:
And we're installing a municipal fiber network because we think that's too high, and the new network will provide 10gbps. Larger cities near us have gigabit symmetrical for $70-ish. The only reason it's relatively inexpensive is because the big cable companies actually have competition here. We have: DSL, cable, fiber backed Ethernet, and radio, and we'll be installing a new fiber-to-the-home network.
So not only is NMN government subsidized, it's also more expensive than our local service. And I'm not in some urban area, we have tens of thousands of residents, hardly a big city, and in one of the smallest states by population density in the country.
So no, I don't think your model is working properly. I'll take national Net Neutrality and push for local muni fiber.