3 ms·

> A future in which ISPs are owned by local governments, small businesses, nonprofit community groups, and the people they serve are the path forward and the on

by rdtsc 9y ago

> A future in which ISPs are owned by local governments, small businesses, nonprofit community groups, and the people they serve are the path forward and the only realistic way of ending big telecom’s stranglehold on America. I'd like that. These day internet access is more like a utility. It helps people telecommute, do banking, grocery shopping even, pay bills, etc. If municipalities can handle providing water and sewage they should be lay some cable or provide a wireless solution in a more rural area. At least there should be some provision where the big telecom companies cannot go around suing and bullying municipalities. Maybe have a Federal ban on states banning municipal ISPs. If Verizon or Comcast want to come in and sell super-premium FIOS packages with fast transfer rates, they should be able to, but they shouldn't be able to squash or fight against the municipal internet. The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will probably never happen in a lot of areas. It has been enough years already, fiber technology is here, wireless as well, but hasn't helped enough. Time to stop pretending and using it as an excuse.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will probably never happen in a lot of areas. It has been enough years already, fiber technology is here, wireless as well, but hasn't helped enough. Time to stop pretending and using it as an excuse. It's important to remember that the FCC is our nation's censor, and will be far more cozy to government censorship of the internet than what we're used to. You're right that free market competition hasn't been as strong as it could/should be in the ISP market, but I doubt that the FCC piling on a bunch of regulations, increasing the barrier to entry even further is going to help. I fear whatever benefits we see will be only temporary and that overzealous FCC regulators will stifle internet innovation the same way it stifled telecommunications for over a century, resulting on Bell. TLDR: I'm generally for net neutrality, but I think the FCC taking over regulating the internet is going to have a lot of unintended consequences.
- apple4ever 9y ago
  Exactly this. In fact, even if you support NN, you should oppose Title II NN. It literally does the opposite of what NN supporters think, plus it allows strong government regulation of the internet. I’m oppose to NN on principle (because it goes against the basic operation of the Internet and restrict innovation), but I’d much rather see a modern law passed than A law written 80 years used to implement it.
betterunix2 9y ago
"The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will probably never happen in a lot of areas." Actually, we know exactly how to create a competitive market: line sharing rules. We used to have line sharing requirements for DSL and there were dozens of competing services in most cities. The situation we face today is the result of those rules being eliminated during the Bush administration.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Right. Line sharing works for electricity. When I first used DSL, I could choose among many ISPs. All delivered through the same legacy copper.
collinmanderson 9y ago
I'm hoping that if the big ISPs start giving poor service, it will help local non-profit ISPs stay competitive because they're providing better service.

by rdtsc 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

>The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will probably never happen in a lot of areas. It has been enough years already, fiber technology is here, wireless as well, but hasn't helped enough. Time to stop pretending and using it as an excuse. It's important to remember that the FCC is our nation's censor, and will be far more cozy to government censorship of the internet than what we're used to. You're right that free market competition hasn't been as strong as it could/should be in the ISP market, but I doubt that the FCC piling on a bunch of regulations, increasing the barrier to entry even further is going to help. I fear whatever benefits we see will be only temporary and that overzealous FCC regulators will stifle internet innovation the same way it stifled telecommunications for over a century, resulting on Bell. TLDR: I'm generally for net neutrality, but I think the FCC taking over regulating the internet is going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

apple4ever 9y ago
Exactly this. In fact, even if you support NN, you should oppose Title II NN. It literally does the opposite of what NN supporters think, plus it allows strong government regulation of the internet. I’m oppose to NN on principle (because it goes against the basic operation of the Internet and restrict innovation), but I’d much rather see a modern law passed than A law written 80 years used to implement it.

betterunix2 9y ago

"The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will probably never happen in a lot of areas." Actually, we know exactly how to create a competitive market: line sharing rules. We used to have line sharing requirements for DSL and there were dozens of competing services in most cities. The situation we face today is the result of those rules being eliminated during the Bush administration.

mirimir 9y ago
Right. Line sharing works for electricity. When I first used DSL, I could choose among many ISPs. All delivered through the same legacy copper.

collinmanderson 9y ago

I'm hoping that if the big ISPs start giving poor service, it will help local non-profit ISPs stay competitive because they're providing better service.