4 ms·

Figure out how to break the monopoly on decent broadband that these companies have. If I had a viable alternative, I'd have switched away from Comcast as soon a

by jerrac 12y ago

Figure out how to break the monopoly on decent broadband that these companies have. If I had a viable alternative, I'd have switched away from Comcast as soon as they made NetFlix pay extra. There's an Ars Technica article about how hard it is to start a new ISP. We could address some of the roadblocks to starting an ISP. That'd help some. Does the conflict of interest between streaming video and cable tv have any legal effects? Maybe anti-trust laws? Ultimately, power given to the government is seldom taken back. I prefer the dangers of our current system to giving the government more power.

MalcolmDiggs 12y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO all of these proposed legislative efforts are band-aids. The real problem is that the market isn't even remotely competitive or healthy. I don't think I would mind a universe where there are lots of providers, some of whom are net-neutral and some of whom aren't. On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it).
- jerrac 12y ago
  Why would any site agree to pay for faster connections when there are competitors that don't force them to pay? Just make a note on your site saying that ISP A slows us down because we won't pay them their ransom. Then the user would go find a better provider. Basically, a decent market would make the whole issue go away. > On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it). Um, if you want the best service, you pay for it. That's reality. Internet service is not unlimited. Anything that isn't unlimited is subject to supply and demand. That's why costs vary. So, I don't think that scenario qualifies as a social issue.
  - iancarroll 12y ago
    A decent market simply might not exist, and if TWC+Comcast becomes a thing the statement becomes a lot stronger.
  - MalcolmDiggs 12y ago
    I think you make some interesting points. But a clarification re the last one: The reason I think it's potentially a social issue is: In that situation you have a small group of people effectively curating the internet (deciding which sites are useable and which sites are not) for a large portion of the population. More to the point, you're potentially giving a private business' stakeholders the right to decide which media outlets are accessible for certain people, which news sites are useable, etc. Is it possible that this power will be used in a completely benign fashion? Sure, it's possible. But I think it's also worth considering the possibility that these decisions would end up amounting to censorship of certain views. Your argument about market-choice is a fair one, except that cost is a limiting factor for large portions of the population. We're NOT talking about even-handed limitation of supply in accordance with your ability to pay. We're NOT talking about cost as the outcome of supply and demand; we're talking about choice and access to unfiltered information as the outcome of whether or not you can happen to be rich or poor. If that's not a social issue, I don't know what is.

by jerrac 12y ago

MalcolmDiggs 12y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO all of these proposed legislative efforts are band-aids. The real problem is that the market isn't even remotely competitive or healthy. I don't think I would mind a universe where there are lots of providers, some of whom are net-neutral and some of whom aren't. On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it).

jerrac 12y ago
Why would any site agree to pay for faster connections when there are competitors that don't force them to pay? Just make a note on your site saying that ISP A slows us down because we won't pay them their ransom. Then the user would go find a better provider. Basically, a decent market would make the whole issue go away. > On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it). Um, if you want the best service, you pay for it. That's reality. Internet service is not unlimited. Anything that isn't unlimited is subject to supply and demand. That's why costs vary. So, I don't think that scenario qualifies as a social issue.
- iancarroll 12y ago
  A decent market simply might not exist, and if TWC+Comcast becomes a thing the statement becomes a lot stronger.
- MalcolmDiggs 12y ago
  I think you make some interesting points. But a clarification re the last one: The reason I think it's potentially a social issue is: In that situation you have a small group of people effectively curating the internet (deciding which sites are useable and which sites are not) for a large portion of the population. More to the point, you're potentially giving a private business' stakeholders the right to decide which media outlets are accessible for certain people, which news sites are useable, etc. Is it possible that this power will be used in a completely benign fashion? Sure, it's possible. But I think it's also worth considering the possibility that these decisions would end up amounting to censorship of certain views. Your argument about market-choice is a fair one, except that cost is a limiting factor for large portions of the population. We're NOT talking about even-handed limitation of supply in accordance with your ability to pay. We're NOT talking about cost as the outcome of supply and demand; we're talking about choice and access to unfiltered information as the outcome of whether or not you can happen to be rich or poor. If that's not a social issue, I don't know what is.