5 ms·
Google agrees that having an open internet has been beneficial to the development of the internet. But somehow this is not needed for wireless broadband because
by nanairo 16y ago
Google agrees that having an open internet has been beneficial to the development of the internet. But somehow this is not needed for wireless broadband because there already is a lot of competition? What???
- wmf 16y agoNo, they believe that regulation is not needed because they believe that competing wireless broadband providers will be forced to offer openness by the market.
- nanairo 16y agoBut if you were correct then the regulation would be irrelevant. It would only make a difference if wireless broadband providers will indeed take advantage of loose network neutrality regulations. On the other hand Google/Verizon agrees that we need to thank the openness of the Internet for the current amazing spread of the net. It seems a bit of a weak argument to be honest.
- jsz0 16y agoCompeting wireless providers? In the US we effectively have a duopoly of AT&T and Verizon. The fall off to T-Mobile/Sprint in terms of coverage is dramatic. There may be some spots where you have 4 good choices but for many of us it's AT&T or Verizon if we want acceptable service & speeds. Both AT&T and Verizon mimic each other's pricing structures and policies. We just need to look at Sprint who is trying to offer lower prices and faster speeds yet is still losing money. The duopoly owns the most valuable chip -- coverage. The other players are at a permanent disadvantage because they can't grow with inadequate coverage nor can they address the coverage problem with poor growth.
- yanw 16y agoDon't forget that Verizon in the other side in this negotiation.
- nanairo 16y agoYou are right, me bad. :)
- djmdjm 16y agoFor a start, the approach to wireless seems to be more "wait and see" than "never regulate", since the proposal tasks the GAO with monitoring the market for signs of failure. Wireless seems prima facie likely to be a more vibrant market anyway and therefore more likely to settle to a less consumer-hostile equilibrium - there aren't true monopoly wireless providers in the vast majority of regions like there are cable providers.
- nanairo 16y agoWhy would they be a more vibrant market? The fact that wireless licences are limited should actually make it less competitive. What's your argument?
- djmdjm 16y agoWireline broadband is limited in many areas by (near-)monopoly providers. It often isn't economic for multiple providers to chase each others' wires into the home. Wireless might be restricted by spectrum licenses, but there are usually a number of options.
- nanairo 16y agoSure. So you point out that wireline broadband is less competitive (in the USA) than wireless. But wireless with 3-4 competitors is hardly a free market either. I don't debate that wireline is less competitive (again, in the USA), I argue that wireless is not so different, and in particular so much more competitive, as to need no regulation.