this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1051 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

That's just not true.

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.

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:

Revenue - A$5.3 billion (2023)

Operating income - A$133 million (2023)

Net income - A$โˆ’1.1 billion (2023)

Total assets - A$37.94 billion (2023)

So they're subsidizing by ~$1B/year, or ~20%.

There has been a significant failure of the NBN to deliver nominal performance to end users. There has been contention between RSPs and NBN on the reasons for this. Bill Morrow, then CEO of NBN, admitted in 2017 that 15% of end users received a poor service through the NBN and were 'seriously dissatisfied'. In addition, Morrow indicated that, at July 2017, prices and performance for end users were suppressed through a 'price war' between RSPs.

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):

  • Basic (25/4) - A$85 - $56 USD
  • Essential (50/17) - A$100 - $66 USD
  • Premium (100/17) - A$100 (6mo promo)
  • Ultimate (250/22) - A$135 - $89 USD
  • Ultrafast (700/40) - A$170 - $112 USD

Here's my local ISP which isn't government owned, and all prices include all taxes:

  • 20/10 - $40
  • 50/25 - $55
  • 100/50 - $70
  • 250/125 - $100
  • 1000/500 - $125

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.