3 ms·
>>Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet serv
by CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users", and "ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users."
Regulations are always more complex than their supporters intend. Implementation requires additional rules for compelling compliance, and those additional ancillary rules become a hindrance to bottom-up innovation.
- falcrist 8y agoThose ancillary rules were mostly exceptions due to forbearance... not additional restrictions. I don't see how forbearance was a hindrance to innovation. Maybe you'd like to explain it to me.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoGenerally speaking, regulations require a registration/approval process to facilitate enforcement. Participation in that industry then becomes encumbered by the requirement to go through that process, which is bureaucratic red tape that inhibits innovation.
- falcrist 8y agoYes, but that doesn't apply in this case, since the regulations don't add to the approval process. The regulatory structure is there to provide legal support in case of major infractions by ISPs. Even monitoring is done by 3rd parties. There is no established connection between this kind of regulatory structure and innovation or investment. Monitoring of major ISPs didn't show a significant pattern of increased or deceased investment. AT&T spent less. Verizon spent more. Some minor ISPs reduced investment and even petitioned to remove the rules. Others expanded service more under the rules than they had before.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoI don't know enough about the particulars of this case to have an informed opinion, so you may be right. The reason I'm dubious is that what I've seen is regulations generally adding compliance overhead even for those not directly subject or for those already in compliance. Moreover, every additional regulation generally increases the need for an official registration/approval process for would-be market entrants, which precludes a transition to the type of barrier-less industry that I think would be optimal for innovation. That's the extent of my comment on this particular issue.
- falcrist 8y agoEven if it did create some kind of barrier to entry, I would argue that 1) It isn't significant next to the natural barriers inherent to wired telecom. 2) If it protects freedom of speech as the NN regs did, it's 100% worth it.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoThat is not my view on the likely relative importance of the deregulation benefits versus regulation benefits, though I can't provide any evidence to support my opinion.