4 ms·
>It should be a market decision, not a national government decision. That's all well and good where competitive markets exist, but in many places, they simply
by pharrlax 10y ago
>It should be a market decision, not a national government decision.
That's all well and good where competitive markets exist, but in many places, they simply don't.
Only 23% of American census blocks, for example, have more than 1 option for 25MBPS+ internet.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
- rdl 10y agoMaybe the solution is to use exemption from NN as a carrot to encourage competition. "If there are two (or 3? or 4?) or more separate providers offering parity level of service to a property, all providers to that property are exempt from NN requirements for service to that property". If you combined that with allowing new entrant providers to not cover an entire geographic market, but just cherry pick the high density/high profit segments, you might get both broad NN and competition.
- kuschku 10y agoThat is a very great idea. In general, it solves the problem that underlies it all: unregulated private monopolies become anticompetitive. If you force private monopolies to be fair, or end their monopoly, you have a nice solution.
- yulaow 10y agoThey are just gonna create "children" companies, make a pseudo cartel with them, and charge whatever they want in the area. US antitrust law are a joke and totally useless. If you want to do something like that you should first _strongly_ improve your anti-trust legislation and really start breaking big companies (yes, also those bahamut banks) and put them in a real competitive position.