4 ms·

It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have competit

by rlpb 12y ago

It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have competition. Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them specifically. I don't see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is healthy competition. There is no problem elsewhere, is there?

atonse 12y ago
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to competitors.
- adventured 12y ago
  That's not going to happen. Comcast is one of Obama's - and the Democrats in general - closest corporate sponsors. And were the Republicans to win the Presidency, I can't see them pushing for a formal classification either. They think Comcast is a private company competing in a market, when it's actually a government protected and sanctioned monopoly just like AT&T and Verizon.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    What substantial government sanctioned monopoly does Comcast have? Can we point to something concrete rather than hand waving? It's been illegal to grant monopoly franchises to cable companies since the mid 1990's. I don't know of a single market where Comcast is the only cable company because it has a sanctioned monopoly. There are a lot of places where Comcast has a de-facto monopoly because nobody else is willing to build high-speed service in a given area. But almost anywhere that's the case, it's because of telco-unfriendly regulations, not telco-friendly ones. The people who rant about telcos can't get their story straight. They say Comcast has a legally protected monopoly, but then attack Verizon for not building fiber to the huge swath of places where the local governments are dying to get a competitor to the local telco. Their arguments are based on a false premise: that building fiber is profitable enough to justify the investment, and the government and telcos are getting in the way. The falsity of this premise is amply demonstrated when you look at places like New York, where the government has shoved the cable companies out of the way, but still has to drag Verizon kicking and screaming to build all this supposedly lucrative infrastructure.
    - narrowrail 12y ago
      Here is a link to the info regarding a franchise agreement renewal in a small Colorado town: http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/FranchiseAgreements/CableFranchiseInformation/2013ComcastCableFranchiseRenewal/tabid/766/Default.aspx http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/Fran... There are .pdf's with the official agreement and some attempt at simplifying the info contained within on the page itself. I haven't read it yet myself, but I'm curious if it reflects the claims you make.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        The franchise agreement you linked, for the city of Louisville, Colorado, exemplifies the claim I'm making. Section 2.4 - franchise is non-exclusive. Section 2.2(B) - non-discriminatory requirements to access rights of way. Section 2.6 - city reserves right to grant other franchises, so long as if it does so on more favorable terms than the existing franchise, then the existing franchise can be modified. The FAQ on the page you linked has the most interesting information, however: > Comcast's Franchise with City of Louisville: > Comcast - the nation's largest cable television provider - is currently the primary source of cable television services in Louisville, serving approximately 4,500 subscribers. They currently operate in Louisville under a non-exclusive franchise agreement [Footnote] effective since April 2006. The agreement allows Comcast to use the City's ROW in return for the payment of certain rental fees - known as franchise fees - and other benefits for Louisville and its residents. > Footnote: Should another cable provider want to offer cable service in Louisville the City would offer that company the same franchise opportunity that Comcast now has. To date, no other service providers have asked for a franshise.
  - mtbcoder 12y ago
    On the other hand, Obama does not need to worry about his own re-election and it seems like quite a few Democrats threw him under the bus in the past election.

by rlpb 12y ago

atonse 12y ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to competitors.

adventured 12y ago
That's not going to happen. Comcast is one of Obama's - and the Democrats in general - closest corporate sponsors. And were the Republicans to win the Presidency, I can't see them pushing for a formal classification either. They think Comcast is a private company competing in a market, when it's actually a government protected and sanctioned monopoly just like AT&T and Verizon.
- rayiner 12y ago
  What substantial government sanctioned monopoly does Comcast have? Can we point to something concrete rather than hand waving? It's been illegal to grant monopoly franchises to cable companies since the mid 1990's. I don't know of a single market where Comcast is the only cable company because it has a sanctioned monopoly. There are a lot of places where Comcast has a de-facto monopoly because nobody else is willing to build high-speed service in a given area. But almost anywhere that's the case, it's because of telco-unfriendly regulations, not telco-friendly ones. The people who rant about telcos can't get their story straight. They say Comcast has a legally protected monopoly, but then attack Verizon for not building fiber to the huge swath of places where the local governments are dying to get a competitor to the local telco. Their arguments are based on a false premise: that building fiber is profitable enough to justify the investment, and the government and telcos are getting in the way. The falsity of this premise is amply demonstrated when you look at places like New York, where the government has shoved the cable companies out of the way, but still has to drag Verizon kicking and screaming to build all this supposedly lucrative infrastructure.
  - narrowrail 12y ago
    Here is a link to the info regarding a franchise agreement renewal in a small Colorado town: http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/FranchiseAgreements/CableFranchiseInformation/2013ComcastCableFranchiseRenewal/tabid/766/Default.aspx http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/Fran... There are .pdf's with the official agreement and some attempt at simplifying the info contained within on the page itself. I haven't read it yet myself, but I'm curious if it reflects the claims you make.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      The franchise agreement you linked, for the city of Louisville, Colorado, exemplifies the claim I'm making. Section 2.4 - franchise is non-exclusive. Section 2.2(B) - non-discriminatory requirements to access rights of way. Section 2.6 - city reserves right to grant other franchises, so long as if it does so on more favorable terms than the existing franchise, then the existing franchise can be modified. The FAQ on the page you linked has the most interesting information, however: > Comcast's Franchise with City of Louisville: > Comcast - the nation's largest cable television provider - is currently the primary source of cable television services in Louisville, serving approximately 4,500 subscribers. They currently operate in Louisville under a non-exclusive franchise agreement [Footnote] effective since April 2006. The agreement allows Comcast to use the City's ROW in return for the payment of certain rental fees - known as franchise fees - and other benefits for Louisville and its residents. > Footnote: Should another cable provider want to offer cable service in Louisville the City would offer that company the same franchise opportunity that Comcast now has. To date, no other service providers have asked for a franshise.
- mtbcoder 12y ago
  On the other hand, Obama does not need to worry about his own re-election and it seems like quite a few Democrats threw him under the bus in the past election.