Whoo boy - that was an interesting read. The pseudo study done by NetCompetition.org makes no sense whatsoever.
The Methodolody Summary: > The research study’s methodology and assumptions are straight-forward, open, transparent, and catalogued in detail in the appendix so other researchers can replicate the findings; test their own assumptions or data sets; and improve the estimates started with this first-ever study. We welcome suggestions and improvements to enhance the quality and accuracy of this research study’s estimates in subsequent updates.
It omits one key phrase that goes just after “open, transparent”: “fundamentally flawed”. The basic hypotheses are based on apples to oranges comparisons and inapplicable analogies.
Some of the basic problems of the study are the assumptions that:
-
electronic infrastructure is comparable to physical infrastructure
-
we buy and sell bandwidth to both businesses and consumers the same way with the same constraints and expectations
There is also a fundamental disconnect between bandwidth and volume of data transferred within the window of opportunity offered by the available bandwidth.
Electronic infrastructure is comparable to physical infrastructure
In the study we find “Part IV: Relevance of Broadband Funding to Highway Funding” which is possible one of the silliest stretched analogies I’ve read in a while. Highway funding is often based on usage since there is a direct correlation between use and the necessary corrective maintenance required as a result of usage. Big 18 wheelers are harder on the wear and tear of the road surface, requiring more frequent resurfacing on frequently travelled routes which has a direct cost result.
Electronic infrastructure doesn’t get worn out as packets go through a given component. Your routers aren’t rated 50M packets between regularly scheduled maintenance and you don’t replace your fiber optic or ethernet cables after you’ve passed their rated billion packet mark. There’s a lot of talk about internet infrastructure upgrades, but that’s based on a demand component not an overuse and required replacement. This is a result of more and more people and devices being connected to the internet and finding more and more different and interesting ways of delivering and consuming content.
There are such lovely gems and rat holes like:> “Since cars get dramatically better miles per gallon than trucks on average, ~20 MPG for cars and ~5 MPG for diesel trucks, cars/consumers pay less than one-cent-per-mile of Federal fuel tax where trucks/businesses pay more than 4-cents-per-mile of Federal fuel tax.”
And your point is? How in the world could this be considered relevant? High end MAN rated Cisco routers get more packets/watt throughput than a D-Link? Are Cisco, Juniper, Netgear, Belkin and D-Link being taxed to provide funding for the back end of the Internet infrastructure built out by the telecom industry? To take the load off of the hardware folks, is there a per packet federal tax being imposed for the construction of the backbone? Should there be? Does this scale to the international structure of the internet? Do packets from other countries get taxed? Incoming our outgoing?
To sum up: “electronic infrastructure is comparable to physical infrastructure”. No. No it’s not. Not even close.
We frequently use the analogy since it’s the thing that most closely resembles the possible end to end delivery notion in the public mind, but that’s where it ends. If you absolutely must find a physical analogy, it’s much more closely related to a public waterway as a transportation device. Unlike a roadway the water doesn’t get worn out by being travelled upon (leaving aside the issues of physical maintenance of locks, pollution, and the fact that your packets don’t need to be stored in dry dock when not in use, etc.)
Commercial bandwidth is the same thing as consumer bandwidth
Yes and no. From a strictly technical standpoint a packet is a packet. But the commercialization of access is a very different story. Business internet access is usually considerably more expensive on a given size of pipe since it also comes with a much more stringent level of guaranteed service and response to incident cost.
The bottom line is that you’re not buying the same thing.
Google is currently paying what the market has imposed as the going rate based on our current models. Changing the model the way the telcos are putting forward would reduce the value of the internet to everyone and we haven’t even gotten to the intangibles.