3 ms·

Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet ar

Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet around here, and I'm pretty sure the two are related. If you want better internet access, instead of begging the FCC for scraps get on repealing legislated monopoly rights for kinds of wires and/or unbundling last mile from ISP. Then ask yourself why internet reform is focused on NN instead of provider competition.

Delmania 9y ago
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-b... Because a market solution with ISP is a pipe dream spouted by "conservatives" trying to win over people to vote against their own interests. If you start an ISP, there's a good chance the incumbent is going to fight you tooth and nail.
jandrese 9y ago
Because high fixed costs make it very expensive for competitors to enter the market. It's like asking why someone doesn't just open up a competing water company in a place like Flint. More to the point, can you imagine how fast the knives would come out if the FCC announced this deregulation and also a federal universal broadband plan where they use taxpayer money to deliver fiber to the home of everybody in the country in order to insure healthy competition? On a side note, what do you think the odds are that this plan will remove uncompetitive restrictions on ISP (especially municipal ISP) development at the same time? I mean it's all about competition right? If I didn't know better I'd say that the talk of "competition" was just a smoke screen to hide the fact that this is the "allow ISPs to hold your service hostage with no repercussions" bill.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > More to the point, can you imagine how fast the knives would come out if the FCC announced this deregulation and also a federal universal broadband plan where they use taxpayer money to deliver fiber to the home of everybody in the country in order to insure healthy competition? I think people would be more confused than anything, since this FCC just voted to drastically restrict choice under the existing universal service find.
- bcoates 9y ago
  High fixed costs aren't what's keeping competitors out of the market; legally mandated monopolies are. City/Neighborhood/small scale ISPs work just fine where they're allowed to exist. There's no natural reason people should be married to one ISP based on their address without any alternatives, the overwhelming majority of services do not work this way for good reason. It'd be like banning FedEx anywhere UPS owns one truck. If you're really worried about the coax network then push for what I suggested: unbundling the last mile. It worked great for the phone network. I'm not arguing that the proposed plan actually helps anything (although the smaller scale and unconventional ISPs that should be encouraged are harder hit by neutrality requirements and compliance obligations in general) I'm arguing that tilting at the network neutrality windmill doesn't actually deliver much to end users. There's about a million ways an ISP can suck and network neutrality, if you can even get it to happen, kinda-sorta fixes one of them. There's a real problem (shitty monopoly internet providers) that has a real solution (the entirely proven strategy of eliminating monopolies). PS: People in areas where the indoor plumbing water isn't safe to drink use competing water companies, mostly those bring-your-own-container 25c water vending machines you see in front of stores in low-income areas. If they waited for regulation to solve their problems they'd all be dead.
jogjayr 9y ago
Why can't we have both?
takeda 9y ago
I agree with most what you're saying, but I don't think NN necessarily goes against it. While competition is by all means good, I also DON'T WANT ISP controlling what I can access and how. I want ISP simply just provide the service, and Title II does just that.
nikdaheratik 9y ago
I don't understand how you claim that these actions are exclusive. More alternatives for the consumer are good. Regulations preventing unnecessary charges for the consumer, directly or indirectly are also good. If you are happy with your Internet service under the current system, then why do you want to change anything? More to the point, the people writing the regulations need to consider everyone in the U.S. not just the happiest Internet users. There already is a fairly large divide between people who can and can not access decent Internet service and this policy will only make that worse.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Why not both? Not to mention, there are areas of the country which absolutely could not support more than one provider. Why should they have to suffer non-neutral net?
- bcoates 9y ago
  Why not both: because debundling and/or demonopolizing cable involves moving against entrenched interests, and the pro-NN forces have just demonstrated they don't have the political strength to get neutrality alone, let alone "neutrality and". Competitive, non-neutral networks is something that much of the country already has, so it's a smaller, more regional fight you might actually win. You can try for neutrality after that if it means that much to you (but at that point nobody will care because NN is a non-issue in areas with a competitive provider landscape) Network neutrality is irrelevant to areas that can't support more than one provider, weird rural providers and satellite internet are already exempt from neutrality rules (iirc because they aren't "broadband" in the FCC sense). Those places will continue to have sucky internet until someone wires them out of charity.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Delmania 9y ago

> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-b... Because a market solution with ISP is a pipe dream spouted by "conservatives" trying to win over people to vote against their own interests. If you start an ISP, there's a good chance the incumbent is going to fight you tooth and nail.

jandrese 9y ago

Because high fixed costs make it very expensive for competitors to enter the market. It's like asking why someone doesn't just open up a competing water company in a place like Flint. More to the point, can you imagine how fast the knives would come out if the FCC announced this deregulation and also a federal universal broadband plan where they use taxpayer money to deliver fiber to the home of everybody in the country in order to insure healthy competition? On a side note, what do you think the odds are that this plan will remove uncompetitive restrictions on ISP (especially municipal ISP) development at the same time? I mean it's all about competition right? If I didn't know better I'd say that the talk of "competition" was just a smoke screen to hide the fact that this is the "allow ISPs to hold your service hostage with no repercussions" bill.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> More to the point, can you imagine how fast the knives would come out if the FCC announced this deregulation and also a federal universal broadband plan where they use taxpayer money to deliver fiber to the home of everybody in the country in order to insure healthy competition? I think people would be more confused than anything, since this FCC just voted to drastically restrict choice under the existing universal service find.
bcoates 9y ago
High fixed costs aren't what's keeping competitors out of the market; legally mandated monopolies are. City/Neighborhood/small scale ISPs work just fine where they're allowed to exist. There's no natural reason people should be married to one ISP based on their address without any alternatives, the overwhelming majority of services do not work this way for good reason. It'd be like banning FedEx anywhere UPS owns one truck. If you're really worried about the coax network then push for what I suggested: unbundling the last mile. It worked great for the phone network. I'm not arguing that the proposed plan actually helps anything (although the smaller scale and unconventional ISPs that should be encouraged are harder hit by neutrality requirements and compliance obligations in general) I'm arguing that tilting at the network neutrality windmill doesn't actually deliver much to end users. There's about a million ways an ISP can suck and network neutrality, if you can even get it to happen, kinda-sorta fixes one of them. There's a real problem (shitty monopoly internet providers) that has a real solution (the entirely proven strategy of eliminating monopolies). PS: People in areas where the indoor plumbing water isn't safe to drink use competing water companies, mostly those bring-your-own-container 25c water vending machines you see in front of stores in low-income areas. If they waited for regulation to solve their problems they'd all be dead.

jogjayr 9y ago

Why can't we have both?

takeda 9y ago

I agree with most what you're saying, but I don't think NN necessarily goes against it. While competition is by all means good, I also DON'T WANT ISP controlling what I can access and how. I want ISP simply just provide the service, and Title II does just that.

nikdaheratik 9y ago

I don't understand how you claim that these actions are exclusive. More alternatives for the consumer are good. Regulations preventing unnecessary charges for the consumer, directly or indirectly are also good. If you are happy with your Internet service under the current system, then why do you want to change anything? More to the point, the people writing the regulations need to consider everyone in the U.S. not just the happiest Internet users. There already is a fairly large divide between people who can and can not access decent Internet service and this policy will only make that worse.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Why not both? Not to mention, there are areas of the country which absolutely could not support more than one provider. Why should they have to suffer non-neutral net?

bcoates 9y ago
Why not both: because debundling and/or demonopolizing cable involves moving against entrenched interests, and the pro-NN forces have just demonstrated they don't have the political strength to get neutrality alone, let alone "neutrality and". Competitive, non-neutral networks is something that much of the country already has, so it's a smaller, more regional fight you might actually win. You can try for neutrality after that if it means that much to you (but at that point nobody will care because NN is a non-issue in areas with a competitive provider landscape) Network neutrality is irrelevant to areas that can't support more than one provider, weird rural providers and satellite internet are already exempt from neutrality rules (iirc because they aren't "broadband" in the FCC sense). Those places will continue to have sucky internet until someone wires them out of charity.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]