3 ms·
That would be fine if there were any competition to begin with. Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their competitors relati
by thomastjeffery 8y ago
That would be fine if there were any competition to begin with.
Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their competitors relatively more valuable. The problem is that there are no competitors!
What we are left with are incumbents who can devalue themselves via customer abuse without consequence, which simply boils down to customer abuse.
- kevin_b_er 8y agoAjit Pai has redefined "competitors" to include wireless. Poof! There's now more competitors.
- Grue3 8y agoBy your logic, no competitive market can ever arise because somebody is always the first, and incumbents can't possibly be competed with. Why isn't everything a monopoly? If lack of regulation allows for an incumbent to engage in anti-consumer behavior, it opens a huge door for a more consumer-friendly competitor to sweep the market.
- thomastjeffery 8y agoNo, my logic is that no one can compete with an already present oligopoly. Opening that door is fruitless, because it is still impossible for a small business to compete with the oligopoly. ISPs are already very difficult ventures. There is a huge upfront cost, including infrastructure and land rights, that incumbents have already either paid or had paid for by government aid. There has also been huge support from government for incumbents. New ventures are risky, so incumbents are almost always chosen for tax spending. And let's not blow this out of proportion: That door is not huge. It is barely significant in ideal circumstances. Infrastructure quality and price matter more than net neutrality to most consumers.