4 ms·

> Net neutrality IS a government assisted monopoly The definition of monopoly ("the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or se

by daeken 10y ago

> Net neutrality IS a government assisted monopoly The definition of monopoly ("the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service") makes this clearly false. Net neutrality is a policy, supported by legislation that gives the FCC the power to enforce that policy. In no way is that related to monopolies.

russell_h 10y ago
Right, I'm not quite how you make the leap that "Net neutrality IS a government assisted monopoly". It does seem to me that net neutrality makes it effectively impossible for ISPs to differentiate, because they're all compelled to sell the same product - dumb pipes. This will likely make it difficult for two ISPs to exist in the same market, but it doesn't preclude competitors from entering the market at such time as the prevailing ISP becomes abusive. In other words, it's not worse than the status quo.
- duaneb 10y ago
  > It does seem to me that net neutrality makes it effectively impossible for ISPs to differentiate, because they're all compelled to sell the same product - dumb pipes. If ONLY they viewed themselves as a dumb pipe, I could actually shop on relevant metrics—price, availability, bandwidth, latency—and I would be happy to switch to the best available ISP in the market. As it is, it's actually very difficult to find any numbers on availability, bandwidth, and latency. Instead, I'm forced to compare prices and offerings. The offerings are actually an UPPER bound on bandwidth, rendering comparison meaningless for comparing ACTUAL bandwidth. The pricing advertised is often not for internet but some "bundle" of varied services, most of which will drastically increase in price after the first year, and only one of which (broadband internet) I actually want. For instance, I see ads for FiOS all over the damn place—successfully suckering me in, I might add—but in spite of living in residential, downtown city for the last eight years of my life I've never actually found a place I can actually get fiber. ISPs are already impossible to differentiate in terms of actual value. Selling dumb pipes can only improve.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- belorn 10y ago
  I am a bit surprised to hear the view that NN would make it impossible for ISPs to differentiate. Many companies sell the same product and manage to differentiate themselves. If you took away the customer service aspect of Dell, what reason have they to exist? Price and customer service is a good starting point for differentiate companies. Latency is an other point, since no ISP can have zero hops to every other ISP in the world, regardless of NN. The Internet is designed with routers in mind, and each router adds to the latency. Sadly there is currently little competition on latency, except of the world of stock trading. For companies, there is the world of BGP. High reliability, anycast, and so on. Not something I see much competition on either. Providing network solutions for companies is something that ISP's don't tend to do (here in Sweden at least), yet much at the network edge could be provided by an ISP if they wanted to offer it.
- apk17 10y ago
  Even 'dumb pipes' aren't equivalent. Here it's either IPv4 only (telekom.de), CG NAT IPv4 plus IPv6 (Kabel), or the small ISP I'm with (/28 static IPv4, /48 IPv6).
Terr_ 10y ago
Another analogy would be a policy of "No letter-carrier may open or tamper with the content of their customers' mail." Or perhaps "No company may dump doomtoxin into a river." Both affect the market, but neither establishes a monopoly and the companies "harmed" are simply being prevented from doing ethically-dubious things that may harm others.
- mattmcknight 10y ago
  Wouldn't the analogy be "no letter carrier may deliver packages from people who pay more faster than packages from people who pay less"?
  - wvenable 10y ago
    The analogy would be that no letter carrier may charge more (or deliver slower/faster) packages from particular suppliers. The consumer and supplier are both welcome to pay for faster service for all their packages but a particular supplier cannot be singled out just because of who they are or what they sell.
  - Terr_ 10y ago
    Down the path to The Perfect Metaphor lies madness. For example, people on both ends are paying their respective ISPs for traffic in both directions, and ISPs can artificially favor the content of their own sibling-companies without a payment occurring. The important thing here is that such policies are not monopoly-grants, and their net effect is the opposite, to deter monopolies.

by daeken 10y ago

russell_h 10y ago

Right, I'm not quite how you make the leap that "Net neutrality IS a government assisted monopoly". It does seem to me that net neutrality makes it effectively impossible for ISPs to differentiate, because they're all compelled to sell the same product - dumb pipes. This will likely make it difficult for two ISPs to exist in the same market, but it doesn't preclude competitors from entering the market at such time as the prevailing ISP becomes abusive. In other words, it's not worse than the status quo.

duaneb 10y ago
> It does seem to me that net neutrality makes it effectively impossible for ISPs to differentiate, because they're all compelled to sell the same product - dumb pipes. If ONLY they viewed themselves as a dumb pipe, I could actually shop on relevant metrics—price, availability, bandwidth, latency—and I would be happy to switch to the best available ISP in the market. As it is, it's actually very difficult to find any numbers on availability, bandwidth, and latency. Instead, I'm forced to compare prices and offerings. The offerings are actually an UPPER bound on bandwidth, rendering comparison meaningless for comparing ACTUAL bandwidth. The pricing advertised is often not for internet but some "bundle" of varied services, most of which will drastically increase in price after the first year, and only one of which (broadband internet) I actually want. For instance, I see ads for FiOS all over the damn place—successfully suckering me in, I might add—but in spite of living in residential, downtown city for the last eight years of my life I've never actually found a place I can actually get fiber. ISPs are already impossible to differentiate in terms of actual value. Selling dumb pipes can only improve.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
belorn 10y ago
I am a bit surprised to hear the view that NN would make it impossible for ISPs to differentiate. Many companies sell the same product and manage to differentiate themselves. If you took away the customer service aspect of Dell, what reason have they to exist? Price and customer service is a good starting point for differentiate companies. Latency is an other point, since no ISP can have zero hops to every other ISP in the world, regardless of NN. The Internet is designed with routers in mind, and each router adds to the latency. Sadly there is currently little competition on latency, except of the world of stock trading. For companies, there is the world of BGP. High reliability, anycast, and so on. Not something I see much competition on either. Providing network solutions for companies is something that ISP's don't tend to do (here in Sweden at least), yet much at the network edge could be provided by an ISP if they wanted to offer it.
apk17 10y ago
Even 'dumb pipes' aren't equivalent. Here it's either IPv4 only (telekom.de), CG NAT IPv4 plus IPv6 (Kabel), or the small ISP I'm with (/28 static IPv4, /48 IPv6).

Terr_ 10y ago

Another analogy would be a policy of "No letter-carrier may open or tamper with the content of their customers' mail." Or perhaps "No company may dump doomtoxin into a river." Both affect the market, but neither establishes a monopoly and the companies "harmed" are simply being prevented from doing ethically-dubious things that may harm others.

mattmcknight 10y ago
Wouldn't the analogy be "no letter carrier may deliver packages from people who pay more faster than packages from people who pay less"?
- wvenable 10y ago
  The analogy would be that no letter carrier may charge more (or deliver slower/faster) packages from particular suppliers. The consumer and supplier are both welcome to pay for faster service for all their packages but a particular supplier cannot be singled out just because of who they are or what they sell.
- Terr_ 10y ago
  Down the path to The Perfect Metaphor lies madness. For example, people on both ends are paying their respective ISPs for traffic in both directions, and ISPs can artificially favor the content of their own sibling-companies without a payment occurring. The important thing here is that such policies are not monopoly-grants, and their net effect is the opposite, to deter monopolies.