9 ms·

It is quite simple realy. If I pay x€ for y GB/Month, the ISP should not dictate what over the top services I spend that budget on, nor favor its own services (

It is quite simple realy. If I pay x€ for y GB/Month, the ISP should not dictate what over the top services I spend that budget on, nor favor its own services (or those of 'partners') by selective exclusion of that traffic from limits that other are held to, or by hindering traffic from the non-partnered services in any way. Now for the 'complicated' part. In practice it is not difficult to create a situation where everything is degraded. You just under-provision on a choke point. If you then sell alternative routes, or allow edge caches beyond the choke point, you technically didn't 'hinder' any traffic, you just provided such a lousy service to begin with that any not otherwise enabled service provider doesn't stand a chance of offering a decent experience on your network. But just pointing to a technical situation where it is hard to write a general 'rule' that in any arbitrary case can unequivocally objectively and automatically say whether a certain criterion was fulfilled, and then saying that because it is hard or even impossible to specify the whole regulation should be scrapped, that is disingenuous. The spirit of the regulation can be perfectly fine, even though case-by-case judgement may be required to determine compliance. Those that will say 'but you can vote with your wallet', I can see where you come from, but the reasoning is flawed. In practice telecoms is not an open market, and many households have near 0 meaningful choice. Strong economic network effects are inherent, and lasting competition has only been present under very strict regulation.

dilap 9y ago
Yeah, healthy competition and choice of providers seems like the real solution to me. Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. NN just feels like a distraction, driven by incredibly manipulative and overhyped propaganda.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Hmm... competition/choice and NN are actually conflated. Without NN, incumbents can raise barriers (e.g. zero-rating, etc) such that upstarts have no way to compete.
  - dilap 9y ago
    Competition in ISPs, I mean. I don't see how zero-rating would hurt that. (From what I've observed casually in Mexico zero-rating is a pretty benign thing, basically giving super-cheap plans to people who don't care about the internet-at-large.)
- rectang 9y ago
  Deregulatory actions are only ever used in service of entrenching telecom monopolies. The part where we actually get meaningful competition never happens. Even though I wish for minimal regulation, I can't trust the deregulatory side to provide it. Because that side is infected by people like Ajit Pai who filter out any deregulatory actions which might threaten the monopolists.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    What additional deregulation would you like to see in the U.S.?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rectang 9y ago
      For starters: Removal of state and local laws favoring incumbent telecoms over municipal broadband, Google fiber, or other market entrants. If "deregulation" advocates were actually serious, they would have pursued those actions first. Instead, they pick the old telecoms as winners.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        The majority of states (comprising the vast majority of the population) have little to no restrictions on municipal broadband. Here in Maryland, for example, there is no such law and the governor is actively promoting municipal broadband. But few municipalities are pursuing that option. I'm not aware of any states which have laws "favoring incumbent telecoms over ... Google fiber, or other market entrants." Can you point to anything specific? > If "deregulation" advocates were actually serious, they would have pursued those actions first. They did! Two years before Congress deregulated the industry in 1996, it made it illegal for local governments to grant exclusive cable franchises. Then in the 1996 deregulation, it required non-discriminatory access to utility poles and ducts. The biggest impediments to deployment these days are at the state and local level: permitting requirements, onerous franchise license terms, etc. Congress could (and in my opinion, should) completely preempt these things, but that's a hard sell. Municipalities use these franchises as a vehicle for all sorts of social agendas ("wire up public buildings!" "wire up disadvantaged neighborhoods!"), and as a revenue source (taxing 5% of gross revenue). Google got most of these things waived in Fiber cities, but it was a move strongly opposed by the public-interest types: https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says....
- endemic 9y ago
  > Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. Sounds great; I'd just like to have the new solution in place before dismantling the old one.
ksk 9y ago
>Strong economic network effects are inherent, and lasting competition has only been present under very strict regulation. Any examples?
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  Local loop unbundeling
  - ksk 9y ago
    And yet, I don't have a single DSL provider in my area. Any actual real world examples of industries where "lasting competition" exists as claimed by the OP?

dilap 9y ago

Yeah, healthy competition and choice of providers seems like the real solution to me. Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. NN just feels like a distraction, driven by incredibly manipulative and overhyped propaganda.

r00fus 9y ago
Hmm... competition/choice and NN are actually conflated. Without NN, incumbents can raise barriers (e.g. zero-rating, etc) such that upstarts have no way to compete.
- dilap 9y ago
  Competition in ISPs, I mean. I don't see how zero-rating would hurt that. (From what I've observed casually in Mexico zero-rating is a pretty benign thing, basically giving super-cheap plans to people who don't care about the internet-at-large.)
rectang 9y ago
Deregulatory actions are only ever used in service of entrenching telecom monopolies. The part where we actually get meaningful competition never happens. Even though I wish for minimal regulation, I can't trust the deregulatory side to provide it. Because that side is infected by people like Ajit Pai who filter out any deregulatory actions which might threaten the monopolists.
- rayiner 9y ago
  What additional deregulation would you like to see in the U.S.?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rectang 9y ago
    For starters: Removal of state and local laws favoring incumbent telecoms over municipal broadband, Google fiber, or other market entrants. If "deregulation" advocates were actually serious, they would have pursued those actions first. Instead, they pick the old telecoms as winners.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The majority of states (comprising the vast majority of the population) have little to no restrictions on municipal broadband. Here in Maryland, for example, there is no such law and the governor is actively promoting municipal broadband. But few municipalities are pursuing that option. I'm not aware of any states which have laws "favoring incumbent telecoms over ... Google fiber, or other market entrants." Can you point to anything specific? > If "deregulation" advocates were actually serious, they would have pursued those actions first. They did! Two years before Congress deregulated the industry in 1996, it made it illegal for local governments to grant exclusive cable franchises. Then in the 1996 deregulation, it required non-discriminatory access to utility poles and ducts. The biggest impediments to deployment these days are at the state and local level: permitting requirements, onerous franchise license terms, etc. Congress could (and in my opinion, should) completely preempt these things, but that's a hard sell. Municipalities use these franchises as a vehicle for all sorts of social agendas ("wire up public buildings!" "wire up disadvantaged neighborhoods!"), and as a revenue source (taxing 5% of gross revenue). Google got most of these things waived in Fiber cities, but it was a move strongly opposed by the public-interest types: https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says....
endemic 9y ago
> Solve that and NN doesn't matter, plus you solve a bunch of other problems as well. Sounds great; I'd just like to have the new solution in place before dismantling the old one.

ksk 9y ago

>Strong economic network effects are inherent, and lasting competition has only been present under very strict regulation. Any examples?

PeterStuer 9y ago
Local loop unbundeling
- ksk 9y ago
  And yet, I don't have a single DSL provider in my area. Any actual real world examples of industries where "lasting competition" exists as claimed by the OP?