You are making a good point, and yet...

> For those who are customers of AT&T - how do you like your service? Is it as good as Google?

Since you asked... AT&T is way better, here in Oakland and also in Austin (fiber). It's always up and there's actually decent customer support you can call. Their cellular service has been great too. Meanwhile, Google's search has turned into a content marketing delivery machine, and Google Drive web UI still cannot catch up to Windows 95 File Explorer features&performance.

But if you asked me which company can ruin my life or my company's future due to a glitch in an algorithm, the answer will be Google, not AT&T. I worry that Google is allowed to control both the search and the web browser everyone uses. I also worry that as Youtube is becoming increasingly more important for video, they'll control the "future of TV" as well. I am less worried about "dumb pipes" which is what AT&T is to me, especially with the latest migration to encryption for everything, even DNS.

> AT&T is way better

Seconded.

I can also call AT&T and, eventually, reach someone. If I'm angry enough, I can ask to be routed to cancellation. (They fix things quicker.) If things go awry, I can threaten, and act on the threat, to escalate matters to my state regulator.

None of these are options with Google.

That is actually false. You have to pay for AT&T. If you pay for G Suite then you have access to live support.

Paying for G-Suite is no guarantee your files won’t suddenly go missing with no backups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17115643

I pay for G-Suite for a side-project I inherited (I use Office 365 as my daily-driver) and while there is human support available, they don’t make it easy to get to. With Office 365 the phone support contact details are 2 clicks away from any screen.

Live support for what though, your YouTube account?

Any service that is covered under G Suite.

Based on purely anecdotal data points, it seems to me that YouTube is the lagging incumbent in online streaming these days. The creators that make their platform valuable are slowly either leaving the service, or diversifying their content streams to other services.

Twitch, Patreon, Curiosity Stream, etc are all taking the parts of the pie that YouTube could have had if they invested in understanding the communities that built themselves on top of their platform. But instead, smaller, more agile (the verb not the noun) companies are responding to the demand while YouTube's advertising revenue streams are starting to dry up.

Legally, they were "dumb pipes" until the rollback of net national neutrality laws and common carrier status for ISPs.

Agreed, that's why I said that game_the0ry is making some good points, monopoly for content delivery is not good (it leads to control, not just delivery).

I am just not comfortable with seeing Google as a lesser threat.

Where I'm at, you can't get ATT gigabit fiber without allowing them to do ad injection.

How does an ISP do ad injection? Where are the ads shown that originate from the ISP?

If you mistype a hostname in the browser and DNS lookup fails, they return a valid IP for a landing page with an ad. AT&T doesn't do it for my service, but at some point I had it with Time Warner cable, IIRC. You fix it by setting your DNS to (haha) Google's.

Try 9.9.9.9 and 1.1.1.1. There are many other external DNS services that don't break AD and eDirectory. You can also run your own but I'll grant you that isn't for everyone.

It does a yahoo search for me which includes ads if I use their dns servers.

But yes, this is why you use the DNS service of your choice instead of whatever dhcp returns.

I don't have uverse, so I don't know how they implemented it. I'm guessing it's done by violating DNS specifications.

Probably an obnoxious https mitm certificate that adds banners to your web browsing, along with a complete recording of your browsing history to sell to advertisers, like comcast does.

You're saying you can't visit any https sites without adding this certificate to your device's trusted certificates?

AT&T was just an example. How about the cost of insulin?

If Google's algorithm can ruin your life or your business, then I would suggest you figure out how to decouple Google's influence on your life and business. I am sure it wont be easy, but I am also sure it can be done.

Yes, Google is the new TV. And when we are old, we will be telling our children that Youtube "rots your brain," just like our parents did.

Adapting your habits is easier to control than breaking up Google and Youtube.

I mean, what industry is not consolidating at this point? It feels like just about every conceivable area is served by a handful of gigantic players, with the rest competing for scraps.

It's now at the point where new entrants don't even attempt to start small. They explicitly dump massive sums in a bid to break in. It seems that this is happening even in areas where it's not warranted (local food delivery???).

It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more.

It works, right up until it doesn't. I hope at some point, we make a big change in the level of corporate consolidation we allow.

> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more.

I've seen the theory that this is the result of QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market, but institutions have ever larger sums of money that they need to park and invest somewhere. Like, Softbank actively managing $100B in startups was never really going to work, at least not without these startups being required to get to ludicrous amounts of scale.

> QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market

This is a really interesting theory that I’ve never heard before, but it makes sense. Does that imply deflation could instead encourage innovation?

Maybe, maybe not, but it would be a very painful way to do it (particularly since the average person has debt, owns some assets, but doesn't park huge sums in savings accounts or cash under the mattress like prior generations did).

The general proposal to alleviate this problem is to increase the supply of assets. This means investing in the common good. Basic research to create whole new types of things to build, infrastructure to enable businesses to reach new markets, and workforce development so businesses have more effective employees.

This is also often coupled with renewed enforcement of antitrust legislation, to give new players some oxygen and to discourage business models that rely on unprofitable scaling in order to reap monopolistic rewards. Then there is the side benefit that smaller companies have a harder time creating the conditions for regulatory capture.

The largest economic expansions tend to be preceded by really painful destruction of wealth and savings (Great Depression and WWII preceding postwar booms, the largest US economic expansion in history preceded by a decades-long oil crisis)

I could see that. As money becomes more valuable, it becomes harder and harder to get. People have to become more and more clever to keep getting it.

The only real problem is that if you screw up the mix, massive deflation has some really horrible downsides.

> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more.

You say this like it's new. US anti-trust law started in the late 1800s because of a slew of consolidation in the railroad industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_competition_law...

The UK has had legislation to control monopolies for hundreds of years.

Well, yes, the concept is not new. What seems new to me is an increased focus on massive expansion in sectors that traditionally didn't operate that way.

Of course railroads, oil, and steel were the first groups who naturally thought, "wouldn't it be great if we were the only people doing this, and we didn't have to deal with other people competing?" Since those businesses are big by their nature (capital intensive, worldwide market, often working directly with national governments).

But now this attitude is everywhere. Dog walking, taxicabs, office space. Not to mention the traditional areas like insurance, healthcare, telecom, etc. It seems like everyone, across every sector, is trying to merge and congeal into a single blob that extracts a reliable stream of money each month. Those who aren't already around are trying to skip the "make a good/valuable business" part and skip straight to the money extraction step. And I think in many places, businesses are way more focused on this than on actually doing or providing valuable services/things for people.

I'm speaking in really broad terms here. The cultural focus seems to have shifted from "how can we make the best product" to "how can we guarantee payment every month by consolidating/merging."

My business, despite being quite critical (we sell parts for maintenance of machinery, today one of my clients for example was a medical equipment factory) relies heavily on ads, people come, buy what they want, and if I solves the problem, it is over, they don't recommend or talk about us, and often aren't return costumers either unless another machine break...

So our clients often are people googling desperately trying to make their suddenly stopped factory resume work, then they see our ads and buy from us.

It became obvious to us that Google is a threat, they changed rules multiple times in the past to encourage fraud (instead of stopping fraud), our revenue is directly proportional to the Google ads spend, and whenever we find a better ad provider, Google buys it.

Only possible competitor for Google is TV, but TV ads are way beyond our budget and we have no idea of they would work, considering our niche.

So... Google is not only a monopoly, it is an obvious one, and they abuse their power freely.

Yours is a real grievance, though most of the people on this thread are complaining from the perspective of a search consumer, not from a commercial advertiser.

Lots of businesses use Google ads to great success, and I get that it's frustrating when your one source of new business changes terms on you, but this is the game. Google now has a lot of power over you, that's the market working.

But your relationship with Google is not necessarily adversarial. After all, they still bring you new business. As long as the cost for ads does not exceed the revenue from new business, the relationship you have with Google is mutually beneficial, though it might hurt when they change terms on you.

That's how business works. It frustrating, but that's the game.

You should try Facebook ads

ISPs and telecoms are dangerous due to their level of control, but are significantly worse at using their data to influence the way you think. I strongly believe that the current political climate would be significantly more tepid if not for Facebook and YouTube alone... the scale is so hard to comprehend.

On the surface social media looks completely benign, but they have these far reaching insidious impacts. Our elected representatives don't even have a basic understanding of how these sites operate... yet you have the majority of the population being fed content by these algorithms that determine what you see when, and they're completely opaque. They've got scores of analysts and psychologists shaping this stuff full-time... no single entity in human history has had this level of data and reach into human behavior, and it's all proprietary.

Small intentional changes over time to such wide-reaching algorithms can literally shape humanity in ways that may be entirely impossible for an outsider to detect.

But you're aware of this, so the algorithm is obsolete for influencing you.

You have adapted. With time, most of us will.

That's not true at all! We have little idea how or why it influences us outside of the basics (sell ads, make money).

People are looking at these feeds, often daily, for a significant amount of time. We don't know if it's intentionally showing us more of our racist uncle's posts because we buy things when we're angry, for example... and that's just one small example in a vast sea.

We can't adapt because there are far too many unseen factors to be aware of. And I'll say it again... most people do not understand that every post on these networks is being fed through a biased algorithm. I've seen large numbers of developers on this site agree that Facebook should remain neutral when it comes to certain ads/posts, without acknowledging that neutrality has been gone from every post on Facebook for years and years at this point.

They know who you are, where you are, who you're with, and what you do. Data that spans billions of people. For people with Facebook on their phones they can essentially track your behavior 24/7 and have been doing so for years. This type of unseen influence could be dangerous even in benevolent hands.

I have not adapted because I don't know what to adapt to. I've just removed myself from the environment as completely as I can.

To assuage your concerns, here's a start:

* delete FB and Insta accounts

* delete FB and Insta from your devices

* use Google search for stuff your ok with Google knowing; all else, use duckduckgo

* worry more about yourself, less about others

This is what I did.

Agree 100%, I've done the same things.

Add some ad blockers to the mix too.

I literally almost wrote this. I am glad I didn't because because you framed it better.

My gut tells me that there's no financial incentive for the government to target them. I.E. telco lobbies

Yes, lobbying is the root defect in the operating system of governance. This is what happens when business can buy legislative outcomes - Americans can't afford medicine when the rest of the world gets it cheaply.

I don't actually think the lack of choices is the real problem though. The issue I see is that things like AdSense or AWS are able to financially prop up Google and Amazon's ventures into a myriad of other markets that make them immune to the actual market forces in those domains. It ends up having a really bad distorting effect on any of the other players trying to run a normal business.

Many places have decent telecoms competition with a similar number of carriers.

As far as I understand the problem in the US is that many locations have just one wired service provider. Meaningful competitions would require that most buildings have multiple sets of fiber.

Splitting telecoms by geography seems pointless: California and Texas ISPs can't compete with each other without huge capital spending.

Which is why other countries have gone full in on local loop unbundling

In the UK the last mile is either OpenReach, Virgin Media or KCOM. Because OpenReach has a virtual monopoly in last-mile infra across the country they are regulated and must provide access to other ISPs, in the old days through colocated DSLAMs in local exchanges (LLU) and now by having a set maximum price they can sell wholesale VDSL, FTTP and voice lines.

As a result, you have the gamut of ISPs from niche who focus on having amazing backhaul and customer service (AAISP) to "pile them high" ISPs like Vodafone, TalkTalk and then people like Sky who bundle talk, tv and broadband into relatively affordable packages.

As a result - there is a lot of competition almost everywhere in the country, and I can get a 384Mbps down 37Mbps up connection with unlimited usage and no traffic shaping for £50 a month.

>I can get a 384Mbps down 37Mbps up connection with unlimited usage and no traffic shaping for £50 a month.

After all of the rest of the comment, that's a pretty disappointing result. Fifty quid is currently $63. I can get symmetric gigabit FTTH for $65, or docsis 200 mbit for $40. This is not uncommon in urban areas in the states.

Asymmetric plans are really disappointing. Back at my family’s residence we have Verizon Fios which only offers [near] symmetric plans (200/200, 400/400c 940/880) which is fantastic. They’re looking to upgrade from our legacy bundle package of 30/30 to gigabit, which is exciting for them.

Where I am, in an urban apartment complex I had two provider choices: Frontier and Optimum. Frontier wired the building, but their plans were ridiculously underwhelming. My Optimum plan is ~$55/m including modem/router for 300/35. Their highest offering for upload seemed to be 45Mbps (or 35, plan descriptions between the site and sales were not consistent).

I’m not in telecom nor a networking expert, but what difficulties are there in offering symmetric plans?

Someone else more knowledgeable will have to expand on this, but I know that on Docsis the lower bands are used for upload and those can carry less signal. Something about those lower bands makes them more advantageous for node > hub communications but exactly what I don’t know.

How many of those offers in the US have traffic limits though?

It's also worth mentioning that there's no "equipment rental" fee on my DOCSIS connection for the cable modem.

I think the solution is to have municipally owned fiber that is open to many ISPs.

One challenge is that in many places (especially the most profitable areas), the last mile is already built out. So by saying "municipally owned fiber" you mean laying new pipes to replace existing pipes (significant material cost) or trying to wrestle control of the existing pipes away from large ISPs (significant political cost). A small to medium sized city cannot just tell AT&T "give me your fiber", and it often lacks the capital to put down new fiber. Even if a small project could be completed, the dominant ISP in the area would simply lower their prices enough to make the project uneconomical, thus preventing the project from recouping its costs and staining the idea of publicly owned internet infrastructure.

Then maybe more thought should be given to how the dominant ISP's as well as other anti-competitive business practices have put the local municipalities into a position where they 1) don't have the cash to lay down their own pipes 2)are put in a position where blatant anti-competitive behavior like strangling newly laid pipes would not be adjudicated fairly. A two prong approach of subsidizing local pipes and pressuring existing fiber to behavior fairly.

I'm not sure that's required, at least for urban areas cables are not that expensive. The problem might be deliberate anti-competitive collusion between the major ISPs.

More generally: government owned. i.e. could be provincial, federal, etc. Like how water pipes and electricity already are (in many places).

I switched from 3 years of bad Comcast cable to AT&T 1G fiber recently. They were professional and ran the fiber from the pole to my house in a few hours.

I ran a speedtest on fast.com and got 985Mbps. The service uptime and quality has been utterly stellar. AT&T has been really good to me, but not everyone has access to 1G fiber.

Sounds like you had a choice of service providers where you live. That might explain why the service was so good. Unfortunately, most americans don't have a choice of service providers, or only have one fast provider (eg. cable that goes to 100mbit, but DSL that only goes to 10mbit).

What if the government breaks up both. The ad tech businesses and the telecoms.

The question is whether this type of comment "[Google/Facebook] is not the problem..." is a not-so-clever attempt to defend a FAANG company or whether it is legitimiate. I have seen this type of response many times on HN. It is like someone saying "Don't look there, look here." Of course, we can look both here and there, one step at a time.

What is a legitimate argument why breaking up Google/Facebook prevents the government from later breaking up telecoms, or solving any other problem.

Whereas if the telecoms were broken up, how does that improve the situation with the ad tech oligarchy. Even if you say "Don't look there, look here" eventually we may look "there". The harmful effects of Google/Facebook cannot be easily overhsadowed by other problems.

>Financial services, airlines, oil majors, media, pharma, auto, etc. Those are the industries that need breaking up.

Great. Break up Google, in addition to those industries, as well.

>you don't even pay for Google

You don't pay for Google with cash. You pay for Google by submitting your free will.

All the big techs are stifling competition in many markets by offering their product in those markets at or below cost and supporting those losses with money that comes from elsewhere in the company. Look at music streaming: Spotify is the only big service that is only in that market. Look at consumer storage: Dropbox is the only big service that is only in that market. If tech behemoths didn’t exist, there would be much more active competition and thus technological advancement in those markets. They also buy start-ups in emerging markets at a breakneck pace.

Right now in my house I have the choice of 3 different cell networks, 2 broadband providers and coming some extra things like satellites. All of them can be swapped in or out without much trouble. I can move houses or even countries to get different options

My email and search though is just a few options and realistically most of my family and friends just one option. Even if I move to the other side of the world that option is still the same.

The fact that you identified worse offenders doesn't remove the initial problem.

This is a straight up failure of governments of preventing mergers. If you let all these companies merge or acquire each other without restriction, this is in the inevitable result which ultimately harms the consumer and new entrants to the market.

You and I may not worry about Google/FB etc, but many businesses do.

> Google, Amazon, FB are not the monopolies that you should be worried about. They are fun to talk about and tech is sexy, but there are bigger problems - ISPs / telecoms, for example.

That is a very misleading comparison. For almost all of the industries you've listed a) there are spatial limitations of monopolistic outreach (they have to exist in real world and can't exist all around the world at once) b) their products and services don't grow upon themselves exponentially c) the nature of their products and services is rather common knowledge. I'll go one by one;

a) Tech doesn't suffer from the spatial dynamics of competition and in that has virtually infinite economies of scale. A cable company has to fight for the right of physically laying cables, which creates a barrier of entry for the next competitor, but they have to do this work repeatedly in every other location. As long as bandwidth and compute is paid for, tech can be instantaneously omni-present around the world. This means the monopoly having a planet wide breadth, but also that margins required to sustain the monopoly can be much smaller.

b) Econ 101 has this classic output function: labor x capital x productivity = output. Tech is both an output and input in the form of increased productivity onto itself. This means exponential growth. When we talk about cable companies merging, it is a merger of homogeneous entities, and in that only a merger of capital and labor. The argument here is tech companies "merging" with their own, heterogeneous technologies to yield even greater exponential growth. They are talking about ads and search and chrome "merging". Therefore the monopolistic consequences of tech is very different than that of commodities and utilities.

c) Tech is constantly innovating on new products and new variations of their products, which we can't grasp the effects of. It is easier to guess what happens to competition or how the end user suffers when other industries have bad actors. Can we tell with confidence what the effect of Youtube's, Twitter's, Reddit's recommendation algorithms is on our collective sense-making capabilities and functioning of the democracy? Can we tell if the thousands of A/B experiments being run on us is revealing how the products can deliver more value or how to exploit the users better? Are users aware that they are participating in the largest scale applied-psychology lab ever existed? This information asymmetry is again a part of the unique dynamics of the monopolistic machinery of tech.

When these three come together, the resulting monopolistic dynamics is unprecedented and incomparable to that of commodities, utilities and other old-school services, and we would be fools to make light of it.

I don't hear any actual counterargument.

> BS. This is not economic theory, and you are not an economist, friend. If so, please quantify with numbers so we can compare (don't wast your time).

As it happens I actually am an economist, but that credential shouldn't have mattered either way. This function is called the Cobb–Douglas production function, it has statistical evidence as tested in the beginning of 20th century, and if someone has a qualified rebuttal they should go ahead because it could get them some academic award.

> Lofty claims here. I'll raise you - people die because they can't afford medicine but nobody died because of big tech.

Death is not the most useful standard by which we measure the health of a 21st century, developed nation economy. In fact, "this business doesn't kill people" is such a low standard to the degree of being virtually useless in this analysis. Sophistication of the tools we use for economic analysis should match the sophistication of the economic activity going on.

Next time you can’t make sense of an argument, you should not engage then, instead of making low effort, ad hominem attacks.

I'm actually an AT&T fiber user through Sonic and have a perfect experience with my service. Installation took some time originally because they had to route a line into my house but it has been great since.

> Google, Amazon, FB are not the monopolies that you should be worried about. They are fun to talk about and tech is sexy, but there are bigger problems - ISPs / telecoms, for example

Why not worry about both groups?

> auto

There are more major automakers who sell products in the US alone than there ever were baby bells. And there are a ton of regional competitors outside of the US.

My few attempts to get customer service from AT&T and Comcast went far, far better than the attempts to get help from Google.

On the other hand, AT&T doesn't affect anybody in Europe, but Facebook and Google have clear global effects.

FAANG are different a kind of monopoly - an unprecedented one for which no legislation exists. They have a monopoly on data, as brokers they control not only what companies may purchase for commercial services, but through curation of search results and news/social media feeds they control what information reaches the eyes of millions of people.

This is an unprecedented amount of power over society wielded by corporations and, in effect, the handful of private citizens who own them.

I tend to lean libertarian but I've questioned for a while if it's appropriate and/or possible to limit this power in an equitable manner...but unchecked Google alone can probably sway elections with algorithmic manipulation of search results and even selective autocompletion.

That's probably the entire reason that the administration is targeting these orgs, and while I don't agree with the administration I believe this particular endeavor may be for the greater good. When Twitter can delete videos retweeted by the president, or add "fact check warnings" which effectively (though maybe not truthfully) discredit his statements, Jack Dorsey and his board are wielding a more direct, more immediate, and possibly more effective power than any of other branches of government.

They have a monopoly on data bc you gave it to them.

You can choose not to use FB and Google.

You're being hit hard wherever you go, but I think you've got a fair mindset. Small amounts of people have a disproportionate amount of final say in how millions of people get to group and share information. That has to have negative externalizations, it doesn't track that it would have absolutely no ill effects. If you have a legitimate argument that defends there will be no problems, please share, I'm open minded.

If Trump is attacking them cynically out of some tantrum relating to how they beat on him and his supporters. Then yeah, I disagree he's doing it for the right reasons. But I think he has the right directional thrust.

Pretty simple really. Too big to fail? Break it up.

Didn't literally the same happen with Standard Oil?

True. That does not make google/amazon/fb immune though.

Another data point that people stuck overseas because of Covid-19: Airlines banded in their oligopoly and divided up the world.

AA cancelled all flights but Europe, United in americas, Delta in Asia, etc.

Now if you want to fly from one of those places, you must get a mile voucher for your return flight, and re-purchase the exorbitant one way ticket from the one company from the oligopoly that got your current location to explore.

>Google, Amazon, FB are not the monopolies that you should be worried about.

You're right we shouldn't be worried about them...we should be afraid of what has transpired these past 10-15 years because of them.

A common divergence tactic by those companies is to switch focus on the financial services/telcom, etc.

A key difference between those industries and FB, Google, and Amazon, is that they are under extreme regulations and oversight.

Google, et. al. are free to do whatever they and has resulted in billions in damages.

"especially as you have smaller players that are able to buy last mile lines wholesale at/near cost to compete."

The US has just as much as this.

US rates are lower for the more common bandwidth options [1][2], and as soon as you consider Purchasing Parity - Canadian rates are very high. 'Equipment' / CAPEX is a tiny part of the cost of said networks, so it really should cost a lot less to manage networks in Canada if salaries are lower. Once that factor is taken into consideration Canadian prices are very materially higher.

That US companies are cheezy with their 'increasing rates' is kind of a different story.

[1] https://mobilesyrup.com/2019/12/18/canada-top-five-highest-c...

[2] https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/693.nsf/eng/00169.html

Which smaller ISP in the US is able to resell lines from Comcast, TW, AT&T, and Verizon with nationwide coverage?

I'm not aware of the US mandating lines be resold at controlled costs dictated by the FCC, but I don't deal with consumer/eyeball networks so perhaps I'm missing something? From the frequent complaints I see about duopolies in most US networks, I'm quite skeptical of this.

In metro Vancouver, I'm able to purchase 1G VPLS fiber links for around $800/mo, and dark fiber in the $1000-$2000/mo range for the most part, with similar pricing in Calgary and Toronto. Quotes I've seen in Seattle and Los Angeles have been typically 3-6x that range.

I can purchase municipal dark fiber in Coquitlam or New Westminster (suburbs of Vancouver) for $400/mo, and I believe Montreal is $500/mo. I'm not aware of being able to buy metro dark fiber for anywhere near that anywhere in the US.

Teksavvy which has pretty good national presence using lines from any of Shaw, Telus, Bell, and Rogers charges $45/mo for 30Mb, $55/mo for 75Mb, and $70/mo for 100Mb. Just in nominal dollars without adjusting for currency, this is better than most pricing I've seen in the US.

Comcast is showing a $65/mo promotional offer for 1 year, with no details showing on what speed that is. If it's anything like the $50/mo offer I used to have, it will most likely increase significantly at the end of the year, and will continue going up in price periodically unless you call and complain.

Which ISP with nationwide coverage in the US offers significantly better pricing than Teksavvy on comparable plans?

canada is ultra dependent look at south korea

South Korea has a dense population and just came out of a centrally planned economy wherein they had to create a modern network and just rolled out fiber almost everywhere. That's a very special case. At the 'start' of such central/social reforms, leaps of progress can often be made no doubt, the issue is what happens in the long run.

I've managed some local networks (remotely) in this region for some high traffic sites: quite a handful of Asian countries have high bandwidth dense fiber inside the country, but it tends to go to crap as soon you exit the country/bottleneck heavily.

For example, Japan has 1G being common, SK has 1G being common, Taiwan has 500-1G common. They all bottleneck quite a bit exiting the country (except for TW, but to some destination countries only); and as a side effect, many "local" websites are extremely popular as opposed to being subject to other countries' laws and media.

SK has side effect of also having an extensive DNS and RST/hijacking-based national "great firewall" censorship system that is officially deployed for pornography and pro-NK articles, but has also been used for anti-LGBT rights websites and other purposes in the past, in addition to threats of forcing foreign companies to comply with heavy surveillance requirements like requiring national ID to comment on a blog post. Honestly, SK is not a great role model for internet or censorship. On top of that, while your "home" connectivity is fine, content providers trying to set up even CDN/caching nodes in SK are subject to serious annoyances, like the KRNIC/KINX crap where they really dislike it if your ASN isn't allocated by KRNIC - you're literally on the internet exchange already but all Korean ASs will not talk to you or give you time of day because you're not one of them, and are not present on the route server, and you're forced to route traffic that originates and terminates in Seoul through the US or Hurricane Electric or some other insane route.

South Korea is a positive outlier, it isn't representative of most of the western world