3 ms·

Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber/copper/coax/wireless/whatever infrastucture including last-m

Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber/copper/coax/wireless/whatever infrastucture including last-mile connections between every node) were subject to net neutrality instead [1], such that "anyone" could start an ISP that offers differentiated services on top of the same infra. Of course, today the last-mile infra and the ISP on top are tightly coupled, and many states have enacted laws and regulations that restrict or forbid municipalities' efforts to build out a neutral infra [2]. I find it absurd that some politicians support both the repeal of net neutrality and the restricting of willing communities to build out their own infra at the same time. I could intellectually entertain either option but never both simultaneously. For a political cohort whose brand has long included local self-determination and rural self-reliance, it's bizarre to me to see them take positions that don't even appear to be logically consistent. It's difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind. [1] https://muninetworks.org/content/competition https://muninetworks.org/content/competition [2]. https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap

IronWolve 9y ago
True. Access (services) vs. censorship, you want to avoid the monopolies from restricting new access providers, but also don't want access providers from censoring the access. The right wants isp/telcos to be able to bundle and offer more speeds/services. Assuming it won't censor. The left assumes isp/telcos will offer services/bundles (tiers) but will censor its services/bundles. (Like it did with netflix.) As most places have a monopolistic type access (or worse, no access) thats the primary cause for concern. Nobody loves their cableco. If we had a plethora of choices for internet access, that would be the cure for censorship. But we don't. We are stuck at fighting censorship due to lack of access.
- so33 9y ago
  In Canada, the CRTC requires the big internet providers to resell their broadband to smaller ISPs. Even then it took a decade for big ISPs like Rogers to give up on onerous bandwidth caps (which would be about 100GB a month, and, usually, worse). Even with some competition and access, it can take a while for unfavorable conditions to resolve, partially because consumers don’t really care about things like censorship, lack of access, (or in my example) bandwidth limits. Markets are eventually consistent, but in terms of net neutrality I really don’t think we can afford to wait.
  - stult 9y ago
    It's not that customers don't care, but rather the transaction costs of switching (breaking contracts, dealing with CSRs, taking the time to shop around) slow the market response to competition.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>it's bizarre to me to see them take positions that don't even appear to be logically consistent. Ever consider that maybe they are more beholden to those who give them money than those who give them votes?
goialoq 9y ago
Right, repealing net neutrality would only make sense if we keep net neutrality
- mygo 9y ago
  ^ underrated comment
awj 9y ago
> It's difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind. Then ... don't. If someone's actions contradict their words, don't believe their words.
- wmeredith 9y ago
  To expand on this a little bit, they have their own interests in mind. Which go getting re-elected > getting rich. They'll take the bribe money as long as they think they can get re-elected. Sometimes because they can't get re-elected without it. Call your reps and let them know how you feel. If they think they won't get re-elected all the bribe money in the world doesn't really matter.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    You're right, but you're wrong. In the system you describe, "good" candidates who give a hoot about their constituents' wishes will always lose elections to other candidates who are happy to fund their campaigns with bribes. This system will not fix itself. The improvements we seek will not come from voting.
contravariant 9y ago
I frankly don't see the point in allowing the creation of companies who's sole purpose it is to break net neutrality.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
That's what we ended up with in New Zealand, the underlying infrastructure is owned by companies that lease it to the ISPs, so anyone with enough cash can rent some cabinet space and start an ISP. Before the unbundling, Telecom NZ basically had a monopoly on ADSL connections, connections cost a lot of money and had comically small caps (like 10 GB, which even in 2006 was not a lot). Now, in straight dollar terms, plans are cheaper, and uncapped plans are standard.

IronWolve 9y ago

True. Access (services) vs. censorship, you want to avoid the monopolies from restricting new access providers, but also don't want access providers from censoring the access. The right wants isp/telcos to be able to bundle and offer more speeds/services. Assuming it won't censor. The left assumes isp/telcos will offer services/bundles (tiers) but will censor its services/bundles. (Like it did with netflix.) As most places have a monopolistic type access (or worse, no access) thats the primary cause for concern. Nobody loves their cableco. If we had a plethora of choices for internet access, that would be the cure for censorship. But we don't. We are stuck at fighting censorship due to lack of access.

so33 9y ago
In Canada, the CRTC requires the big internet providers to resell their broadband to smaller ISPs. Even then it took a decade for big ISPs like Rogers to give up on onerous bandwidth caps (which would be about 100GB a month, and, usually, worse). Even with some competition and access, it can take a while for unfavorable conditions to resolve, partially because consumers don’t really care about things like censorship, lack of access, (or in my example) bandwidth limits. Markets are eventually consistent, but in terms of net neutrality I really don’t think we can afford to wait.
- stult 9y ago
  It's not that customers don't care, but rather the transaction costs of switching (breaking contracts, dealing with CSRs, taking the time to shop around) slow the market response to competition.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>it's bizarre to me to see them take positions that don't even appear to be logically consistent. Ever consider that maybe they are more beholden to those who give them money than those who give them votes?

goialoq 9y ago

Right, repealing net neutrality would only make sense if we keep net neutrality

mygo 9y ago
^ underrated comment

awj 9y ago

> It's difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind. Then ... don't. If someone's actions contradict their words, don't believe their words.

wmeredith 9y ago
To expand on this a little bit, they have their own interests in mind. Which go getting re-elected > getting rich. They'll take the bribe money as long as they think they can get re-elected. Sometimes because they can't get re-elected without it. Call your reps and let them know how you feel. If they think they won't get re-elected all the bribe money in the world doesn't really matter.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  You're right, but you're wrong. In the system you describe, "good" candidates who give a hoot about their constituents' wishes will always lose elections to other candidates who are happy to fund their campaigns with bribes. This system will not fix itself. The improvements we seek will not come from voting.

contravariant 9y ago

I frankly don't see the point in allowing the creation of companies who's sole purpose it is to break net neutrality.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

That's what we ended up with in New Zealand, the underlying infrastructure is owned by companies that lease it to the ISPs, so anyone with enough cash can rent some cabinet space and start an ISP. Before the unbundling, Telecom NZ basically had a monopoly on ADSL connections, connections cost a lot of money and had comically small caps (like 10 GB, which even in 2006 was not a lot). Now, in straight dollar terms, plans are cheaper, and uncapped plans are standard.