4 ms·

The issue is, and this going to be a huge tug of war for a long time to come, is the role of ISPs; either as 'content providers' or as merely a utility provider

The issue is, and this going to be a huge tug of war for a long time to come, is the role of ISPs; either as 'content providers' or as merely a utility provider. One provides huge profits, one is a low margin business. Well then the answer is clear, the market has spoken: they are utilities. That's how they were setup, that's the bargain they made with We the People, and quite frankly, they don't offer content anyone wants (they aren't Netflix). "Ooh, I want pay per view and Mediacom/Cox/Comcast digital movies", said no one ever. If they want to provide content, they should not be allowed to anti-competitively discriminate against other content providers. This is exactly what Network Neutrality is about.

josh2600 14y ago
But how do you force a publicly traded company to become a utility when it's in their best interests not to?
- xyzzy123 14y ago
  The stick is regulation, and the carrot is money. Unfortunately, it's really hard to do once the govt. money is spent. I'm familiar with AU/NZ. Both are pumping significant public money into broadband infrastructure, and they took different approaches to enforcing fair network access. In AU, they created a new company (NBN co) to run the "utility" part. See: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn The government is paying the monopoly incumbent to switch users onto the new network. In NZ, our privately owned largest telco (Telecom NZ) semi-voluntarily split itself into two parts - a retail and a wholesale branch. The shareholders agreed to do this, because that meant the wholesale part (Chorus) would get a big govt. contract to lay fiber to the door. In theory, the split is "arms length", so other network providers can access the infrastructure on fair terms. Reference: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5858284/Telecom-split-first-in-world http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5858284/Telecom-s... It remains to be seen whether this is the right way to go about things, but both approaches do seem plausible.

josh2600 14y ago

But how do you force a publicly traded company to become a utility when it's in their best interests not to?

xyzzy123 14y ago
The stick is regulation, and the carrot is money. Unfortunately, it's really hard to do once the govt. money is spent. I'm familiar with AU/NZ. Both are pumping significant public money into broadband infrastructure, and they took different approaches to enforcing fair network access. In AU, they created a new company (NBN co) to run the "utility" part. See: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn The government is paying the monopoly incumbent to switch users onto the new network. In NZ, our privately owned largest telco (Telecom NZ) semi-voluntarily split itself into two parts - a retail and a wholesale branch. The shareholders agreed to do this, because that meant the wholesale part (Chorus) would get a big govt. contract to lay fiber to the door. In theory, the split is "arms length", so other network providers can access the infrastructure on fair terms. Reference: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5858284/Telecom-split-first-in-world http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5858284/Telecom-s... It remains to be seen whether this is the right way to go about things, but both approaches do seem plausible.