Detailed report shows how U.S. Internet access monopolies punish rivals
medium.com
medium.com
Until you can answer that question, you won't get a seat at the table. Sorry.
I'm concerned that people will feel placated by writing a blog post, when I think we need to be communicating more directly with the FCC.
"“You know, I contacted the FCC. I contacted the [state] utilities commission, just for help because you couldn’t make any ground with Verizon, Cogent, or anyone,”..."
> Because Boegly uses a Citrix application for payroll data, and “Citrix doesn’t like packet loss,” according to Boegly, the process was failing. ... > “Any time you have packet loss over a Citrix connection, it’s going to dump you,” says Boegly. “And that’s exactly what’s happening in the middle of the process. It has to then be started all over again and then begin the transfer process to get it to connect.”
If accurate, it sounds less than optimal.
Perhaps you are being sarcasic, but I cannot tell. This is a version of the broken window fallacy[0]. The money spent on the ISPs is now unavailable for netflix (as an example) to spend hiring new people, buying rights to new movies, etc. So it is not a given that this increases the GDP, or that it would do so in a healthy or beneficial way.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Netflix has to pay because they're too lazy to run their own ISP. In a way. Get your own 'last mile' customers, or pay the man. But why are there no other ISPs Netflix can choose from? Certainly a competitor could charge less, or nothing. But the customers all seem to want throttled access! They certainly pay the monthly fees. But why would a rational customer do that?
When would a rational customer pay for cracked windows? Why would Netflix, the stained glass entertainer, deliver their product on cracked glass? When there's only one glassmaker in town, I'd guess.
Because the end customers do not have a choice. In most areas of the US, the large ISPs have a government granted monopoly.
Take the house where I live as an example. I can choose Comcast or no internet. Great choice, right? In the region where I live, there are exactly 2 high-speed internet providers. So that lets the ISPs claim that there is competition. In reality, there's only a handful of houses in this region that can choose between the 2 options. Most houses are stuck with one choice or no connection.
At my work, the choices are even more limited. We pay crazy amounts for a T1 line at 1.5Mbs because that's the only option! Neither of the two high-speed options will provide access to our building. (They call regularly, "would you like our high-speed business package", "YES!", "oh, sorry, we can't connect to that address", "Then stop calling.")
Why have no new companies entered the market to provide better service? There's an enormous capital outlay to get started. Even worse, the local government regulations about running new cable or fiber make it cost-prohibitive or downright impossible.
Google is laying out new fiber networks right now. They have adequate capital, and they have the clout so that local governments are willing to change laws to get google fiber. The average startup does not have that kind of sway.