5 ms·

What we need is more competition not more regulation.

rhizome 13y ago
Too bad competition went anti-customer and killed open peering 15 years ago.
sounds 13y ago
Agreed! The US's existing FTC regulations are plentiful and relevant. New "Net Neutrality" legislation that does not address existing regulations but seeks simply to impose government between Carriers and Customers doesn't help much.
necubi 13y ago
How do you propose we get competition without regulation?
sk5t 13y ago
Or, we could take the entirely reasonable step of declaring ISPs to be the common carriers that they obviously are.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That just changes the question from "why should we regulate ISPs" to "why should we regulate common carriers".
  - kumbasha 13y ago
    Fortunately we already have many decades of detailed legal answers to the latter question.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      It's not a legal question, so the legal answers are not relevant. We know that it is legal to do so, that doesn't mean we should.
thenmar 13y ago
How so? The capital investments are too high. Regulation is the only thing that has successfully created competition to monopolies in our economic history.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Regulation also created some of the most successful monopolies in our economic history: AT&T, for instance.
shmerl 13y ago
Sure we need it. It's hard to provide it though, because the cost of entry into ISP business is immense (for example Calyx failed to create a privacy oriented ISP: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute see also https://calyxinstitute.org https://calyxinstitute.org). Add on top of that various crooked laws bought by big ISPs which make it even worse (i.e. practically forbidding competition). So regulation wise there are things which can be fixed and improved.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Add on top of that various crooked laws bought by big ISPs which make it even worse (i.e. practically forbidding competition) But removing those laws is removing regulation, not adding it. Regulation is not just the "good" laws.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Removing bad laws and adding good ones aims at the same goal. Surely bad regulation should be removed. It's required, but it's not necessarily sufficient. Unregulated market usually doesn't work (i.e. it degrades into monopoly which is the opposite of the free market) when competition is way below a healthy level. For example as others pointed above, classifying ISPs as common carriers is an example of good law which should be added.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Unregulated market usually doesn't work (i.e. it degrades into monopoly which is the opposite of the free market) when competition is way below a healthy level. Can you give me an example of a market which has no specific regulations, where the State only enforces basic stuff (personal safety, property and contracts)? I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. Regulation is pervasive. When people claim that a certain market is unregulated, it usually means it lacks the regulations they find important, not that it's actually unregulated.
      - 13y ago
smtddr 13y ago
That's the thing with businesses like ISPs. The barrier to entry is insane and rigged and just a mess. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...
josho 13y ago
This Planet Money podcast does an excellent job explaining the current situation, why there is not more competition, and what other countries did that worked out well. [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mile http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-...
nemo 13y ago
You say that as though those things are exclusive, rather than complementary.

Too bad competition went anti-customer and killed open peering 15 years ago.

Agreed! The US's existing FTC regulations are plentiful and relevant. New "Net Neutrality" legislation that does not address existing regulations but seeks simply to impose government between Carriers and Customers doesn't help much.

necubi 13y ago

How do you propose we get competition without regulation?

sk5t 13y ago

Or, we could take the entirely reasonable step of declaring ISPs to be the common carriers that they obviously are.

icebraining 13y ago
That just changes the question from "why should we regulate ISPs" to "why should we regulate common carriers".
- kumbasha 13y ago
  Fortunately we already have many decades of detailed legal answers to the latter question.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It's not a legal question, so the legal answers are not relevant. We know that it is legal to do so, that doesn't mean we should.

thenmar 13y ago

How so? The capital investments are too high. Regulation is the only thing that has successfully created competition to monopolies in our economic history.

logicchains 13y ago
Regulation also created some of the most successful monopolies in our economic history: AT&T, for instance.

shmerl 13y ago

Sure we need it. It's hard to provide it though, because the cost of entry into ISP business is immense (for example Calyx failed to create a privacy oriented ISP: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute see also https://calyxinstitute.org https://calyxinstitute.org). Add on top of that various crooked laws bought by big ISPs which make it even worse (i.e. practically forbidding competition). So regulation wise there are things which can be fixed and improved.

icebraining 13y ago
Add on top of that various crooked laws bought by big ISPs which make it even worse (i.e. practically forbidding competition) But removing those laws is removing regulation, not adding it. Regulation is not just the "good" laws.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Removing bad laws and adding good ones aims at the same goal. Surely bad regulation should be removed. It's required, but it's not necessarily sufficient. Unregulated market usually doesn't work (i.e. it degrades into monopoly which is the opposite of the free market) when competition is way below a healthy level. For example as others pointed above, classifying ISPs as common carriers is an example of good law which should be added.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Unregulated market usually doesn't work (i.e. it degrades into monopoly which is the opposite of the free market) when competition is way below a healthy level. Can you give me an example of a market which has no specific regulations, where the State only enforces basic stuff (personal safety, property and contracts)? I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. Regulation is pervasive. When people claim that a certain market is unregulated, it usually means it lacks the regulations they find important, not that it's actually unregulated.
    - 13y ago

smtddr 13y ago

That's the thing with businesses like ISPs. The barrier to entry is insane and rigged and just a mess. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...

josho 13y ago

This Planet Money podcast does an excellent job explaining the current situation, why there is not more competition, and what other countries did that worked out well. [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mile http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-...

nemo 13y ago

You say that as though those things are exclusive, rather than complementary.