4 ms·
I think you make good points. But by having additional compliance rules, it becomes slightly harder to compete with the ISP. This argument, therefore, taken t
by jpwagner 10y ago
I think you make good points. But by having additional compliance rules, it becomes slightly harder to compete with the ISP.
This argument, therefore, taken to a natural conclusion gives up on competition at the ISP level in favor of competition at the data level.
I think the counter argument is that by allowing for way more competition at the ISP level - there is no data level competition problem (the problem becomes how to allow for more ISP competition).
This side of the argument would love to see all users have access to 5 or more ISP choices where today more than 25% have access to 2 or less.
- metaphorm 10y agothe really noxious combination is local ISP monopolies (most neighborhoods in NYC have only 1 broadband ISP available, for example) with upstream non-neutral internet backbones. this leads to extreme service reduction and price gouging of consumers, as all the costs of paid prioritization that the backbone imposes on the local ISP get passed right through to the end user. this is particularly problematic for mobile internet access too, since the mobile data provider is often owned by the same parent company as a large backbone company.
- jpwagner 10y agototally agree. but my understanding is 'net neutrality' accepts this monopoly as a given and says the monopoly needs to be regulated. i think opponents would say - let's try to allow for competition (to break up the monopoly without central planning intervention).
- infinite8s 10y agoHow exactly would that competiton work? Should we wire 5 coaxial cables into each house/building? Let each ISP lay their own fiber? The discussion around competition supposes that the current incumbents are required to share their pipes, which can only happen through regulation.