4 ms·

Deregulatory actions are only ever used in service of entrenching telecom monopolies. The part where we actually get meaningful competition never happens. Eve

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.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        > It's always easier to do what big telecom wants. I'm pretty sure that "big telecom" never wanted to have their exclusive franchises eliminated, to be forced to provide non-discriminatory access to poles and ducts, be forced to provide universal service, etc. But Congress did all those things in the 1996 act. The cynicism misconceives the situation. The real problem is building a coalition to take away authority from state/local governments. It's hard to get republicans to say that state/local governments shouldn't have authority over the permitting process used for building wires in their jurisdiction. That's a quintessentially state/local issue. And it's hard to get democrats to say that state/local governments shouldn't be able to use these processes to advance various social agendas. It's just a microcosm of a bigger problem, which is that while our federal government has joined with the rest of the world in deregulating large spheres of the economy, our state/local governments are hopelessly backwards, and for the most part Congress can't do anything about that. I was just in Tokyo and the loose zoning laws meant that even space under freeway overpasses was being utilized for stores and shops. You're just not allowed to do that sort of thing in the U.S.
        rectang 9y ago
        So, with efforts past and efforts abandoned having failed to produce meaningful competition among ISPs... our response is to enlarge the market space in which monopoly power can be abused? First: meaningful competition for the telecoms. Only then, does it make sense to even consider rolling back Net Neutrality. And if deregulation is powerless to introduce telecom competition, who can blame people for turning to more aggressive last mile unbundling instead?
    - 9y ago

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.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > It's always easier to do what big telecom wants. I'm pretty sure that "big telecom" never wanted to have their exclusive franchises eliminated, to be forced to provide non-discriminatory access to poles and ducts, be forced to provide universal service, etc. But Congress did all those things in the 1996 act. The cynicism misconceives the situation. The real problem is building a coalition to take away authority from state/local governments. It's hard to get republicans to say that state/local governments shouldn't have authority over the permitting process used for building wires in their jurisdiction. That's a quintessentially state/local issue. And it's hard to get democrats to say that state/local governments shouldn't be able to use these processes to advance various social agendas. It's just a microcosm of a bigger problem, which is that while our federal government has joined with the rest of the world in deregulating large spheres of the economy, our state/local governments are hopelessly backwards, and for the most part Congress can't do anything about that. I was just in Tokyo and the loose zoning laws meant that even space under freeway overpasses was being utilized for stores and shops. You're just not allowed to do that sort of thing in the U.S.
      - rectang 9y ago
        So, with efforts past and efforts abandoned having failed to produce meaningful competition among ISPs... our response is to enlarge the market space in which monopoly power can be abused? First: meaningful competition for the telecoms. Only then, does it make sense to even consider rolling back Net Neutrality. And if deregulation is powerless to introduce telecom competition, who can blame people for turning to more aggressive last mile unbundling instead?
  - 9y ago