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

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3898 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan wrote:

> 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.

the monopoly structure prevents the competition, what was I not clear about 
related to that?

even in places where google fiber attempted to be competition, the incumbant 
monopoly blocked them by just being inconvienient with positioning fiber and got 
away with it. That's better than the old days of telephone service in NYC where 
competitors would cut other people's wires, but not by a lot.

David Lang

>  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.
>