5 ms·

Internet is a utility, and it is controlled predominantly by 6 companies. There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutral

Internet is a utility, and it is controlled predominantly by 6 companies. There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority. Until the oligopoly is broken up, and everyone has competitive access to the internet, we need some way to ensure that net neutrality happens. Without net neutrality, businesses using the internet itself , and even free nonprofit services will be unable to compete with large corporations like Facebook, Google, etc. because they won't be able to afford to pay ISPs for the right to reach customers without unreasonable bandwidth constraints.

rsync 9y ago
"There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority." You're answering a question I didn't pose. I wasn't even specifically speaking about net neutrality - something I am sympathetic to. I was lamenting the fact that the level of discourse is lower than I'd hope it to be. Knee jerk "that guys not on my team" responses aren't helping to encourage me.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > You're answering a question I didn't pose. I am clearing up some points you seem to have misunderstood or glossed over. > > > "In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" > > It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. > > A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. Since, as you pointed out, a business prioritizes profits over customers, there needs to be an incentive for these businesses to prioritize their customers. That incentive is either competition or regulation. The first choice is not currently workable, since competition between ISPs is impractical. This is the same problem that net neutrality exists to prevent, just in a different problem space: Without a free market, competition is unfeasible. > Knee jerk "that guys not on my team" responses aren't helping to encourage me. Could you elaborate on what you see as a "knee jerk response"? I am not seeing any here.
  - waterhouse 9y ago
    > The first choice is not currently workable, since competition between ISPs is impractical. Could you explain why that is?
    - thomasfortes 9y ago
      Would you like to have 30 different companies digging your street to lay cables? Or 10 energy cables over your street because energy competition would be great? Even in a perfect world, infrastructure is a natural monopoly. The government could handle all the big scale infrastructure and let small players handle the last mile, but that's not the case and even if it was, people would still complain.
      - waterhouse 9y ago
        If people accept 1 company doing it, would 2, or even 3 or 4, be so bad? Whatever rules limit it currently could be relaxed instead of eliminated completely; competition-wise, going from 1 to 2 is a much larger step than going from 5 to 10. Regarding power—as a matter of fact, I've had some power outages recently. I think 2 would provide some nice redundancy.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        New businesses do not necessarily need to own the infrastructure. They just need bandwidth. Competing businesses could even work together to improve existing infrastructure. The problem is that existing monopolies do not dissipate without external pressure, because it is not to their benefit. We have 6 monopolies now, and we need to actively break them up. Short of that, we need to regulate them.
        jlillyreed 9y ago
        Existing businesses have many incentives to not give bandwidth on their infrastructure to their competition - especially at competitive prices

rsync 9y ago

"There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority." You're answering a question I didn't pose. I wasn't even specifically speaking about net neutrality - something I am sympathetic to. I was lamenting the fact that the level of discourse is lower than I'd hope it to be. Knee jerk "that guys not on my team" responses aren't helping to encourage me.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> You're answering a question I didn't pose. I am clearing up some points you seem to have misunderstood or glossed over. > > > "In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" > > It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. > > A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. Since, as you pointed out, a business prioritizes profits over customers, there needs to be an incentive for these businesses to prioritize their customers. That incentive is either competition or regulation. The first choice is not currently workable, since competition between ISPs is impractical. This is the same problem that net neutrality exists to prevent, just in a different problem space: Without a free market, competition is unfeasible. > Knee jerk "that guys not on my team" responses aren't helping to encourage me. Could you elaborate on what you see as a "knee jerk response"? I am not seeing any here.
- waterhouse 9y ago
  > The first choice is not currently workable, since competition between ISPs is impractical. Could you explain why that is?
  - thomasfortes 9y ago
    Would you like to have 30 different companies digging your street to lay cables? Or 10 energy cables over your street because energy competition would be great? Even in a perfect world, infrastructure is a natural monopoly. The government could handle all the big scale infrastructure and let small players handle the last mile, but that's not the case and even if it was, people would still complain.
    - waterhouse 9y ago
      If people accept 1 company doing it, would 2, or even 3 or 4, be so bad? Whatever rules limit it currently could be relaxed instead of eliminated completely; competition-wise, going from 1 to 2 is a much larger step than going from 5 to 10. Regarding power—as a matter of fact, I've had some power outages recently. I think 2 would provide some nice redundancy.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      New businesses do not necessarily need to own the infrastructure. They just need bandwidth. Competing businesses could even work together to improve existing infrastructure. The problem is that existing monopolies do not dissipate without external pressure, because it is not to their benefit. We have 6 monopolies now, and we need to actively break them up. Short of that, we need to regulate them.
      - jlillyreed 9y ago
        Existing businesses have many incentives to not give bandwidth on their infrastructure to their competition - especially at competitive prices