4 ms·

> At this point the problem isn't Net Neutrality, it's the internet is privately owned by for profit companies Eh, I don't think that's so bad. We needed some

> At this point the problem isn't Net Neutrality, it's the internet is privately owned by for profit companies Eh, I don't think that's so bad. We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality. What we don't need to grant is increased monopolies. There is a balance to strike. Removing net neutrality policies would shift it too far away from increasing competition and quality, and buying back ISPs would be both expensive and also reduce competition and then quality.

KZeillmann 10y ago
Where do you live where there's significant ISP competition? Where I live, there's Comcast and....that's it. This is a pretty common case around the country. I can choose to pay Comcast for internet, or I can choose to not have internet.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I've lived in 500 person towns, and currently live in a county with less than 60K, but I have always had DSL available. It is not great for bandwidth, but it is sufficient. I've read that ~80% of the US has access to DOCSIS and DSL, so usually it's a duopoly. Edit: I guess I'm a bit surprised you have cable lines running into your place but not phone lines.
  - Retric 10y ago
    DSL is kind of a wide range, I know people that cap out at 256kbps which is not broadband. Sure, if you can get 6-12MB/s download that's not bad, but most people are lucky to hit 1.5Mps/ download and 1/3 of that upload which is not really competitive.
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    My experience with DSL is that providers use a "burst" to give you ~15-20mbit (whatever you pay for) for a few seconds, and then quickly slow down to ~1mbit. Cable companies tend to act the same way, but much less consistently.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  Well mobile is one option. I don't know anyone who has more than one or two land-line options. I think the reason for that is businesses invested in infrastructure, and they expected to earn some profits for that. That was necessary to get the internet to where it is today. Going forward, the question is how to continue increasing quality. Buying out ISP's doesn't seem like the right solution to me. That's a worst-case scenario for the American public, when something needs to become totally government-owned, like banks or mortgage backers. I think killing net neutrality would build more silos, enabling people to further insulate themselves from each other, which leads to more miscommunication, and would be detrimental. We don't need to do that. We can make this issue known, and even if it passes, monitor its effects afterwards. Sorry I just don't think there's an overnight solution for increasing ISP competition, unless you're willing to switch to mobile. If you feel Comcast is somehow breaking their contracts, take them to court. That's how we address bad businesses. Perhaps there's some argument for breaking some up -- I don't know. That doesn't seem to be on the table at the moment and I think it's better to stay focused on net neutrality for now.
  - 49531 10y ago
    The problem is that ISPs already operate like monopolies. They don't operate in the same areas as their competition. It is not the free market serving consumers. Also, leaving regular people to take massive corporations is not really a solution. Most people don't have the time or money to go to court with anyone, let alone a team of corporate lawyers. ISPs know this, so we all just deal with their mistreatment because there is no other option around.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      > The problem is that ISPs already operate like monopolies. They don't operate in the same areas as their competition. It is not the free market serving consumers. I agree with that, I just don't think it's a problem that a market or politics are going to solve, and breaking up monopolies with regulation certainly isn't on the table in this administration. > Also, leaving regular people to take [on] massive corporations is not really a solution It is in the sense of voting. Your vote is more powerful than corporate spending. I agree going to court isn't an ideal backup option. It is nice that we have such a system that allows it, and a supply of pro-bono lawyers who will take class-action cases.
ue_ 10y ago
> We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality. Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastructure, in which the public can vote directly for what they wish to be improved about it. The argument against the quality of infrastructure isn't very strong when it's the public that decides how the infrastructure is operated and which parts are improved. As for competition, I can't see why that's necessarily a good thing. It's a waste of finite resources.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  You mean like the public owning the means to production? No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. As inept as we view our Congress to be, we're still a highly developed, functioning country.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. To avoid what?
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      Uninformed decisions by masses who can't be expected to have the general knowledge to solve every issue. In a republic, we trust that our representatives will find and tap such experts to inform them. We don't always agree with the end decision, but, at least we are not on the chopping block. If some portion of the voting public became directly responsible for a poorly engineered bridge failure, or Flint water, I can only imagine the backlash. With a republic we can hold a small few responsible without upending everyone for their votes all the time.

KZeillmann 10y ago

Where do you live where there's significant ISP competition? Where I live, there's Comcast and....that's it. This is a pretty common case around the country. I can choose to pay Comcast for internet, or I can choose to not have internet.

narrowrail 10y ago
I've lived in 500 person towns, and currently live in a county with less than 60K, but I have always had DSL available. It is not great for bandwidth, but it is sufficient. I've read that ~80% of the US has access to DOCSIS and DSL, so usually it's a duopoly. Edit: I guess I'm a bit surprised you have cable lines running into your place but not phone lines.
- Retric 10y ago
  DSL is kind of a wide range, I know people that cap out at 256kbps which is not broadband. Sure, if you can get 6-12MB/s download that's not bad, but most people are lucky to hit 1.5Mps/ download and 1/3 of that upload which is not really competitive.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  My experience with DSL is that providers use a "burst" to give you ~15-20mbit (whatever you pay for) for a few seconds, and then quickly slow down to ~1mbit. Cable companies tend to act the same way, but much less consistently.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
Well mobile is one option. I don't know anyone who has more than one or two land-line options. I think the reason for that is businesses invested in infrastructure, and they expected to earn some profits for that. That was necessary to get the internet to where it is today. Going forward, the question is how to continue increasing quality. Buying out ISP's doesn't seem like the right solution to me. That's a worst-case scenario for the American public, when something needs to become totally government-owned, like banks or mortgage backers. I think killing net neutrality would build more silos, enabling people to further insulate themselves from each other, which leads to more miscommunication, and would be detrimental. We don't need to do that. We can make this issue known, and even if it passes, monitor its effects afterwards. Sorry I just don't think there's an overnight solution for increasing ISP competition, unless you're willing to switch to mobile. If you feel Comcast is somehow breaking their contracts, take them to court. That's how we address bad businesses. Perhaps there's some argument for breaking some up -- I don't know. That doesn't seem to be on the table at the moment and I think it's better to stay focused on net neutrality for now.
- 49531 10y ago
  The problem is that ISPs already operate like monopolies. They don't operate in the same areas as their competition. It is not the free market serving consumers. Also, leaving regular people to take massive corporations is not really a solution. Most people don't have the time or money to go to court with anyone, let alone a team of corporate lawyers. ISPs know this, so we all just deal with their mistreatment because there is no other option around.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    > The problem is that ISPs already operate like monopolies. They don't operate in the same areas as their competition. It is not the free market serving consumers. I agree with that, I just don't think it's a problem that a market or politics are going to solve, and breaking up monopolies with regulation certainly isn't on the table in this administration. > Also, leaving regular people to take [on] massive corporations is not really a solution It is in the sense of voting. Your vote is more powerful than corporate spending. I agree going to court isn't an ideal backup option. It is nice that we have such a system that allows it, and a supply of pro-bono lawyers who will take class-action cases.

ue_ 10y ago

> We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality. Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastructure, in which the public can vote directly for what they wish to be improved about it. The argument against the quality of infrastructure isn't very strong when it's the public that decides how the infrastructure is operated and which parts are improved. As for competition, I can't see why that's necessarily a good thing. It's a waste of finite resources.

unityByFreedom 10y ago
You mean like the public owning the means to production? No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. As inept as we view our Congress to be, we're still a highly developed, functioning country.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. To avoid what?
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    Uninformed decisions by masses who can't be expected to have the general knowledge to solve every issue. In a republic, we trust that our representatives will find and tap such experts to inform them. We don't always agree with the end decision, but, at least we are not on the chopping block. If some portion of the voting public became directly responsible for a poorly engineered bridge failure, or Flint water, I can only imagine the backlash. With a republic we can hold a small few responsible without upending everyone for their votes all the time.