Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[dan <dandenson@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3415 bytes --]

On Mar 29, 2023 at 11:13:07 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote:
>
> Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results aren't
> pretty.
> Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and power
> lines
> in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving to
> the
> regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos
> (including
> deliberate sabatage of competitors)
>
> I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get fast
> cable
> service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, and I
> can
> still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) a
> wireless
> ISP as a backup
>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

When you said ‘even with’ you negated the previous point.  ‘Even with’
incredible density the monopoly structure of broadband in America today
makes competition beaurocratically hard.  That should be the place where we
see fierce competition.  Or, that should be the place the fiber has
completely wiped out cable, yet it hasn’t.   There are only so many
conclusions available here.  Fiber isn’t actually that much better than
cable, or the monopolies have non-monetary protections so competition can’t
move in,  or maybe those areas are already properly served 😕 . The
commonality in non-rural or small-town-rural areas that have connectivity
struggles is the monopoly that is in the way.  Rural areas often have few
options because the returns aren’t there for big companies, but they are
for small companies if they were actually able to get into those markets.
If you build in a monopoly in the rural areas, when they grow they will
have the same issue the urban areas have, a monopoly that was paid to
deliver last decades services and the only way they’ll upgrade is either
government money and mandates, or competition which you’ve prevented.  You
put a monopoly in place and that will be nearly permanent.  Outside the
scope of this debate but I’d rather see individual subsidies to promote
competition vs the government building out a monopoly.

I’ll remind you, I run 3 ISPs.  What limits my expansion is generally
protections given to a monopoly by local government.  You might ask Jeremy
from the previous comment, he has direct view to 2 of these networks and
might attest that we do reasonably well and are one of the ISPs putting in
real effort.   We welcome competition because it gives us an opportunity to
be the best.  Nothing better to drive positive reviews for your company
than being better than the other guys.

Also, in MOST of America, there is no shortage of money.  There is nothing
limiting multiple providers from building in.  You can find places this
isn’t true but 90%+ is it.  I run my businesses covering mostly rural areas
in a red state that is on the lower end of incomes and I’ve done this out
of pocket, operating in the black, and upgrading and expanding constantly.
I have 3 other wisps, spectrum, TDS, Century Link  in the area.  None of us
are hurting for money to expand services.  Also, I’m beating the
competition to the door vs their government money.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4251 bytes --]