4 ms·

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

by 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....
      - rectang 9y ago
        > Congress could (and in my opinion, should) completely preempt these things, but that's a hard sell. It's always easier to do what big telecom wants. So we have action on "deregulating" Net Neutrality which allows the telecoms to further leverage their local monopoly power, but no action which might actually put those monopolies in danger of real competition.
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.

by dilap 9y ago

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....
    - rectang 9y ago
      > Congress could (and in my opinion, should) completely preempt these things, but that's a hard sell. It's always easier to do what big telecom wants. So we have action on "deregulating" Net Neutrality which allows the telecoms to further leverage their local monopoly power, but no action which might actually put those monopolies in danger of real competition.

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.