9 ms·

"The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implication

"The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implications of their decision." I think you're missing the implication of the point. If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. Customers don't have to be aware of it. And it's a reasonable argument: ensuring healthy and fair competition is almost always better than legislative controls, usually because regulations are often poorly conceived and effectuated, or at least, the market changes rapidly and the regulations fail to adapt. I think that a reasonable net-neutrality law should probably be made both in Europe and in the US, that said, I'm weary of it being too onerous. My position is also pragmatic: 'more competition' is unlikely in an industry with such massive barriers to entry etc..

the_other 10y ago
> If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. Can you explain this further? I struggle to see how you get from "a lot of competition" to "de-facto net neutrality", and how that would continue indefinitely. It seems to me that we had de-facto net neutrality from the outset but that over time, as the industry matured, the large players started to talk about colluding. It has taken pro-neutrality lobbying and legislation to maintain neutrality in what was previously a free market.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Because it would be very difficult for carriers to co-opt entities like Netflix into nonstandard schemes if there were a lot of competition. You hinted at it in your comment: "the large players started to talk about colluding" Only a when there are a 'small number of large players' is this kind of collusion possible. When there is a lot of competition, the entire layer of the value chain becomes weaker. It's a problem because they control a scarce resource: the airwaves, and also a kind of scarce resource: access rights for fibre etc..
  - the_other 10y ago
    In my (limited) understanding of economics, all industries coalesce from numerous small players into a small number of big players.
- shard972 10y ago
  > Can you explain this further? I struggle to see how you get from "a lot of competition" to "de-facto net neutrality", and how that would continue indefinitely. Well to paint it as an extreme, if there was so much competition that you could change ISP's within minutes then considering the fact NN is so important to many people there will always be ISP's looking to offer that because people will leave the ISP's that don't.
kartan 10y ago
> If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. I don't see the point. If Google decides to pay to providers to speed up Google content. How having more carries solves the problem? Is not even worse as then Google will have more power to bring carriers to its side? What will happen with little content providers? Can they compete once they are slow? I see that is more difficult for carriers to agree on something, as the more they are the more difficult it gets. But I don't see hot it facilitates net-neutrality on, for example, the situation that I describe.
- nordify 10y ago
  > If Google decides to pay to providers to speed up Google content. The Internet doesn't work that way. If Google wants their services to work better at particular ISP they pay for bigger pipes to the ISP and/or install content caches at the ISP and everybody is better off.
  - kartan 10y ago
    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-t...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

the_other 10y ago

> If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. Can you explain this further? I struggle to see how you get from "a lot of competition" to "de-facto net neutrality", and how that would continue indefinitely. It seems to me that we had de-facto net neutrality from the outset but that over time, as the industry matured, the large players started to talk about colluding. It has taken pro-neutrality lobbying and legislation to maintain neutrality in what was previously a free market.

jomamaxx 10y ago
Because it would be very difficult for carriers to co-opt entities like Netflix into nonstandard schemes if there were a lot of competition. You hinted at it in your comment: "the large players started to talk about colluding" Only a when there are a 'small number of large players' is this kind of collusion possible. When there is a lot of competition, the entire layer of the value chain becomes weaker. It's a problem because they control a scarce resource: the airwaves, and also a kind of scarce resource: access rights for fibre etc..
- the_other 10y ago
  In my (limited) understanding of economics, all industries coalesce from numerous small players into a small number of big players.
shard972 10y ago
> Can you explain this further? I struggle to see how you get from "a lot of competition" to "de-facto net neutrality", and how that would continue indefinitely. Well to paint it as an extreme, if there was so much competition that you could change ISP's within minutes then considering the fact NN is so important to many people there will always be ISP's looking to offer that because people will leave the ISP's that don't.

kartan 10y ago

> If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. I don't see the point. If Google decides to pay to providers to speed up Google content. How having more carries solves the problem? Is not even worse as then Google will have more power to bring carriers to its side? What will happen with little content providers? Can they compete once they are slow? I see that is more difficult for carriers to agree on something, as the more they are the more difficult it gets. But I don't see hot it facilitates net-neutrality on, for example, the situation that I describe.

nordify 10y ago
> If Google decides to pay to providers to speed up Google content. The Internet doesn't work that way. If Google wants their services to work better at particular ISP they pay for bigger pipes to the ISP and/or install content caches at the ISP and everybody is better off.
- kartan 10y ago
  http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-t...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]