5 ms·

> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy. Why do th

> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy. Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition? I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place. Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.

RussianCow 9y ago
I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.
- btschaegg 9y ago
  Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption. But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.
  - noncoml 9y ago
    I think UK has pretty healthy competition between ISPs.
  - martinmunk 9y ago
    Denmark have reasonable competition. Exactly for the reason you assumed. A small ISP just rents the cabel.
  - shakna 9y ago
    Well, despite the appalling infrastructure in Australia, I had a choice of: * Exetel * Optus * Vodafone * Dodo * iiNet (the only one who provides fibre here) * Telstra At every residence I've occupied. 3 or more seems to the national norm. So far as I understand it, it's common for providers to rent their architecture to other providers, so long as they are using similar pricing. (The NBN is slightly different as the mostly-Telstra-controlled NBNCo gets to set minimum prices for some reason. It results in usually-identical pricing.)
etskinner 9y ago
Like sibling comment said, you have it backward. The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality", not "repeal of net neutrality -> more competition" Unfortunately, competition is hard to foster when the barrier for entry is so high as to discourage ISPs to build out wherever their competitions already provide service (which leads to effective monopolies).
- noncoml 9y ago
  > The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality" Are you sure? Ajit Pai's argument is here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-ne... Also: https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/ https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-compet...

RussianCow 9y ago

I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.

btschaegg 9y ago
Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption. But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.
- noncoml 9y ago
  I think UK has pretty healthy competition between ISPs.
- martinmunk 9y ago
  Denmark have reasonable competition. Exactly for the reason you assumed. A small ISP just rents the cabel.
- shakna 9y ago
  Well, despite the appalling infrastructure in Australia, I had a choice of: * Exetel * Optus * Vodafone * Dodo * iiNet (the only one who provides fibre here) * Telstra At every residence I've occupied. 3 or more seems to the national norm. So far as I understand it, it's common for providers to rent their architecture to other providers, so long as they are using similar pricing. (The NBN is slightly different as the mostly-Telstra-controlled NBNCo gets to set minimum prices for some reason. It results in usually-identical pricing.)

etskinner 9y ago

Like sibling comment said, you have it backward. The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality", not "repeal of net neutrality -> more competition" Unfortunately, competition is hard to foster when the barrier for entry is so high as to discourage ISPs to build out wherever their competitions already provide service (which leads to effective monopolies).

noncoml 9y ago
> The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality" Are you sure? Ajit Pai's argument is here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-ne... Also: https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/ https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-compet...