4 ms·

Not sure I totally agree with everything but I thought this was very insightful. The whole argument around net neutrality has gotten very "cultish" and partisan

Not sure I totally agree with everything but I thought this was very insightful. The whole argument around net neutrality has gotten very "cultish" and partisan when really the issue deserves deep analysis. Followup post is also good. https://stratechery.com/2017/light-touch-cable-and-dsl-the-broadband-tradeoff-the-importance-of-antitrust/ https://stratechery.com/2017/light-touch-cable-and-dsl-the-b...

matt_the_bass 9y ago
I concur. One counter argument I've heard that I think has some weight too is that there are very limited ISP options in the us. So consumers can't really vote with their feet. One (potential) reason to keep current regulations is to provide some power to the consumer without lowering the bar for more isp competition. Maybe there should be some focus on lowering this bar and increasing ISP competition? For the record I have mixed opinions ions about both sides of the debate and I'm not sure what side I'm on. <Sarcasm>Is there a 3rd option?<\sarcasm>
- Finnucane 9y ago
  If there were actually competitive markets for ISP services, we would be having a different conversation. Not that the ISPs could ever just be trusted to 'do the right thing' as Pai seems to believe (we have regulations precisely because corporations cannot be trusted to do the right thing), but it would be harder for ISPs to unilaterally restrict services. Practically speaking, the only option now is muni broadband.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Agreed. Though Muni broadband is prohibited in many locations. That's a shame.
  - rcarrigan87 9y ago
    The interesting point in the article though is that anti-trust laws already have enough teeth to regulate bad ISP behavior. I'm not sure if this is totally true or if the wait and see approach and then regulate makes sense, but it is hard to regulate the future.

4 ms·

Not sure I totally agree with everything but I thought this was very insightful. The whole argument around net neutrality has gotten very "cultish" and partisan

by rcarrigan87 9y ago

matt_the_bass 9y ago
I concur. One counter argument I've heard that I think has some weight too is that there are very limited ISP options in the us. So consumers can't really vote with their feet. One (potential) reason to keep current regulations is to provide some power to the consumer without lowering the bar for more isp competition. Maybe there should be some focus on lowering this bar and increasing ISP competition? For the record I have mixed opinions ions about both sides of the debate and I'm not sure what side I'm on. <Sarcasm>Is there a 3rd option?<\sarcasm>
- Finnucane 9y ago
  If there were actually competitive markets for ISP services, we would be having a different conversation. Not that the ISPs could ever just be trusted to 'do the right thing' as Pai seems to believe (we have regulations precisely because corporations cannot be trusted to do the right thing), but it would be harder for ISPs to unilaterally restrict services. Practically speaking, the only option now is muni broadband.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Agreed. Though Muni broadband is prohibited in many locations. That's a shame.
  - rcarrigan87 9y ago
    The interesting point in the article though is that anti-trust laws already have enough teeth to regulate bad ISP behavior. I'm not sure if this is totally true or if the wait and see approach and then regulate makes sense, but it is hard to regulate the future.