To fix net neutrality we need competition of broadband providers - Local Loop Unbundling explained - The Hated One
video description
Date: 2022-03-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Sha0
The Hated One:
Alice is an investor. Alice has options for what to invest in. She weighs the risks and makes her choices. One of the companies she invests in lays cable in areas that have none, so the company is a -natural- monopoly. Then people decide they don't like the monopoly, so the people use democracy to force the company to allow other companies to use the infrastructure they developed.
Does the company get re-imbursed by tax-dollars for the money they spent in establishing the cable infrastructure?
If Alice had known that the -natural- monopoly she was expecting to benefit from would be thwarted, would she have made different investment decisions?
A patent lawyer in the USA recently told me that patents only last for so long before anybody can compete. That is, gradually, all things eventually become -owned- by the public, but to keep incentives for innovation, innovators are given a promise that they are the sole beneficiaries for a set amount of time. A potential innovator can then consider the costs and rewards of innovation and make a decision that they can stand by.
Does this patent system seem reasonable, to you?
If so, let's return to Alice's scenario. Should we not provide Alice with some protection like the patent scenario provides? If we don't currently have such a protection, do Alice and her sympathizers have any right to a feeling of injustice?
reply
The Hated One:
Alice is an investor. Alice has options for what to invest in. She weighs the risks and makes her choices. One of the companies she invests in lays cable in areas that have none, so the company is a -natural- monopoly. Then people decide they don't like the monopoly, so the people use democracy to force the company to allow other companies to use the infrastructure they developed.
Does the company get re-imbursed by tax-dollars for the money they spent in establishing the cable infrastructure?
If Alice had known that the -natural- monopoly she was expecting to benefit from would be thwarted, would she have made different investment decisions?
A patent lawyer in the USA recently told me that patents only last for so long before anybody can compete. That is, gradually, all things eventually become -owned- by the public, but to keep incentives for innovation, innovators are given a promise that they are the sole beneficiaries for a set amount of time. A potential innovator can then consider the costs and rewards of innovation and make a decision that they can stand by.
Does this patent system seem reasonable, to you?
If so, let's return to Alice's scenario. Should we not provide Alice with some protection like the patent scenario provides? If we don't currently have such a protection, do Alice and her sympathizers have any right to a feeling of injustice?
reply
V-clav
You missed the point about the free market. When the government mandated that the infrastructure monopoly problem has been solved it discouraged the market from making solutions to infrastructure monopolies. In free market you are incentivized to have as much infrastructure going to your property as possible because id adds value to you and potential buyers (more choice and redundancy. You are incentivized to have pre-agreements with your neighbors and major infrastructure owners about new infrastructure installment because your property needs to be up to date to remain competitive. When local government halts new infrastructure development and federal one -solves- it by mandating regulations the free market is irreversibly changed. This setup just waits for a consumer catastrophe. Free market incentives cannot be changed throughout the times and technological advancement. However government regulations can be changed to a complete opposite overnight which means that the decades missing free market solutions are now instantly demanded and cannot be satisfied to the overall surprise and disillusion of consumers. As known from the past the regulations do change as big players like often and fast but struggle to keep up with technology requirements and consumers' needs.
reply
You missed the point about the free market. When the government mandated that the infrastructure monopoly problem has been solved it discouraged the market from making solutions to infrastructure monopolies. In free market you are incentivized to have as much infrastructure going to your property as possible because id adds value to you and potential buyers (more choice and redundancy. You are incentivized to have pre-agreements with your neighbors and major infrastructure owners about new infrastructure installment because your property needs to be up to date to remain competitive. When local government halts new infrastructure development and federal one -solves- it by mandating regulations the free market is irreversibly changed. This setup just waits for a consumer catastrophe. Free market incentives cannot be changed throughout the times and technological advancement. However government regulations can be changed to a complete opposite overnight which means that the decades missing free market solutions are now instantly demanded and cannot be satisfied to the overall surprise and disillusion of consumers. As known from the past the regulations do change as big players like often and fast but struggle to keep up with technology requirements and consumers' needs.
reply
Waitwhat469
I don't really have anything against LLU, that sounds like a semi reasonable measure to me. One thing that really urks me, at least where I live, is the city gave sole rights for last mile to one company, that is beyond frustrating, we have alternitive infrustructure companies just miles out of the city, but people can't connect to them because of the regulation. This compunds out to nearby town/suburbs that should be out of the ruling, because it give Cox so much guerenteed market that compition can't gain enough groud to afford the law suits they might face from Cox.
Personal Exp.
I was trying to get a small city muciple wifi project going, but literally infrustructure would let me, because they were either Cox, or were afraid they couldn't afford the frivulus law suits that Cox would put on them. Even the rual WISPs just used coxs as backbone (and cox throttles them hard for it.
reply
I don't really have anything against LLU, that sounds like a semi reasonable measure to me. One thing that really urks me, at least where I live, is the city gave sole rights for last mile to one company, that is beyond frustrating, we have alternitive infrustructure companies just miles out of the city, but people can't connect to them because of the regulation. This compunds out to nearby town/suburbs that should be out of the ruling, because it give Cox so much guerenteed market that compition can't gain enough groud to afford the law suits they might face from Cox.
Personal Exp.
I was trying to get a small city muciple wifi project going, but literally infrustructure would let me, because they were either Cox, or were afraid they couldn't afford the frivulus law suits that Cox would put on them. Even the rual WISPs just used coxs as backbone (and cox throttles them hard for it.
reply
Anase
I won't pretend to have fully understood this video (It's getting late for me, but I do think this sounds like a workable solution. That being said, I can't imagine it'll be easy to get this info out to the internet and turn the tide, as it were. Especially since this plan is a bit more complicated than reversing a bill repeal. For the time being, I think the best plan of action would be to maintain net neutrality so that ISPs can't brazenly throttle and price-gouge consumers. At the very least, their behavior would be more subdued than without these rulings. Then as the dust settles, people would be able to see that a problem remains, that the problem lies in monopolies, and that we need to foster competition. THEN we can get into this stuff.
reply
I won't pretend to have fully understood this video (It's getting late for me, but I do think this sounds like a workable solution. That being said, I can't imagine it'll be easy to get this info out to the internet and turn the tide, as it were. Especially since this plan is a bit more complicated than reversing a bill repeal. For the time being, I think the best plan of action would be to maintain net neutrality so that ISPs can't brazenly throttle and price-gouge consumers. At the very least, their behavior would be more subdued than without these rulings. Then as the dust settles, people would be able to see that a problem remains, that the problem lies in monopolies, and that we need to foster competition. THEN we can get into this stuff.
reply
AtlantisArch
The solution you point out is in France since 2 decades. I'll say it helps, but for me internet still has to evolve to brain like structure: peering+bonding with both neighboors and long distance cells. It would mean a total rewriting of protocols. For the physical part it could use wifi like mean in the begining, specially suitable as it is evolutive/adaptative to make/unmake links. In a second time you could imagine people wanting to make their own -lan- pipe using fiber and connecting this input with other bonded connection to distribute packets everywhere.
Because internet is NOT a network capable of dealing with natural/human disaster yet.
reply
The solution you point out is in France since 2 decades. I'll say it helps, but for me internet still has to evolve to brain like structure: peering+bonding with both neighboors and long distance cells. It would mean a total rewriting of protocols. For the physical part it could use wifi like mean in the begining, specially suitable as it is evolutive/adaptative to make/unmake links. In a second time you could imagine people wanting to make their own -lan- pipe using fiber and connecting this input with other bonded connection to distribute packets everywhere.
Because internet is NOT a network capable of dealing with natural/human disaster yet.
reply
Sergio
I love how much I learn from your videos. My only issue is that the monopolies in place right now wouldn't just sit idly by, they're quite vicious in trying to earn more money/power over the consumer. Anything that will cause them to lose money or prevent them from earning more money will naturally just be forgotten through various sneaky means as you mentioned.
reply
I love how much I learn from your videos. My only issue is that the monopolies in place right now wouldn't just sit idly by, they're quite vicious in trying to earn more money/power over the consumer. Anything that will cause them to lose money or prevent them from earning more money will naturally just be forgotten through various sneaky means as you mentioned.
reply
dr
Great vid! Hope u keep putting out great content like this and dont get tempted to lower the quality and just appeal to the -everything is wrong and I dont care what takes its place--folk, just to get more views. There are enough of those outputs as it is.
reply
Great vid! Hope u keep putting out great content like this and dont get tempted to lower the quality and just appeal to the -everything is wrong and I dont care what takes its place--folk, just to get more views. There are enough of those outputs as it is.
reply
Yaron
Continue to make movies. You explained well how they hurt us all. Most people feel when hurt them, but can not explain the technical and legal mechanism used against them in a heap.
reply
Continue to make movies. You explained well how they hurt us all. Most people feel when hurt them, but can not explain the technical and legal mechanism used against them in a heap.
reply
The
One of the best I never seen about net neutrality. Thank you The hated one for making this very informative video and providing actual sources with links.
reply
One of the best I never seen about net neutrality. Thank you The hated one for making this very informative video and providing actual sources with links.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
8:56
