3 ms·

And how do you plan to increase competition? The current climate doesn't do that. The barriers to entry are far too great for realistic threats outside of compa

by lhc- 12y ago

And how do you plan to increase competition? The current climate doesn't do that. The barriers to entry are far too great for realistic threats outside of companies like Google that have money to burn. By regulating the ISP as common carrier, you are actively encouraging competition, by forcing them to lease out the last mile to smaller providers who can give real service and actually have to compete. Net Neutrality is aimed directly at providing more competition on the last mile, where our current providers have failed so badly.

nostromo 12y ago
Common carrier designation would freeze our current infrastructure in place for all time. There is no incentive for a company to lay high speed fiber if they are forced to rent that fiber to their competitors at cost. Why do you think we use cable for our internet and not phone lines? The phone system has been frozen in amber since the 80s. I'd be sad if the same thing happened to my internet pipe. And how do we increase competition? The federal government could overturn local and state laws that make ISPs so expensive to roll out.
- azinman2 12y ago
  An interesting point.. I had to lookup that cable broadband is an information service and thus not subject to it. CCD was also what helped break up the AT&T monopoly, so it's clear that eliminating that all together isn't a solution either because without it one company still dominated and stopped innovating/competition. If Obama and many on HN are advocating for net neutrality, which is requiring a shift in the laws, perhaps that also means that CCD is up for change as well. To me the heart of the matter isn't so much CCD is that ISPs would be treated as their name suggests -- simply a provider of Internet as a utility where packets go through unchanged. That they also own NBC or Hulu starts to complicate issues because their major potential is to multiply those businesses together while strangling alternatives. The opportunity is too great and allowing these mergers in the first place was a terrible idea. The other issue is how to get them to actually compete in a meaningful way. Where I live, in SF of all places, I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat. That or Google fiber, but it's still pretty nascent. The US is just so big that without a meaningful way for high speeds to get distributed at a local level it's too expensive for anyone to enter. Either we need completely new technologies that allow people to enter at low cost, or we get local gov't somehow involved in facilitating basic infrastructure like water or power.
  - sp_nster 12y ago
    > I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat San Francisco is a city where red tape, bureaucracy and the people will not allow another local access provider build. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Sues-San-Francisco-Over-UVerse-Cabinet-Delays-129087 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Sues-San-Francisco-Ov... If San Francisco decided to build a municipal fiber network, they would be sued into bankruptcy by the ISP’s.

by lhc- 12y ago

nostromo 12y ago

Common carrier designation would freeze our current infrastructure in place for all time. There is no incentive for a company to lay high speed fiber if they are forced to rent that fiber to their competitors at cost. Why do you think we use cable for our internet and not phone lines? The phone system has been frozen in amber since the 80s. I'd be sad if the same thing happened to my internet pipe. And how do we increase competition? The federal government could overturn local and state laws that make ISPs so expensive to roll out.

azinman2 12y ago
An interesting point.. I had to lookup that cable broadband is an information service and thus not subject to it. CCD was also what helped break up the AT&T monopoly, so it's clear that eliminating that all together isn't a solution either because without it one company still dominated and stopped innovating/competition. If Obama and many on HN are advocating for net neutrality, which is requiring a shift in the laws, perhaps that also means that CCD is up for change as well. To me the heart of the matter isn't so much CCD is that ISPs would be treated as their name suggests -- simply a provider of Internet as a utility where packets go through unchanged. That they also own NBC or Hulu starts to complicate issues because their major potential is to multiply those businesses together while strangling alternatives. The opportunity is too great and allowing these mergers in the first place was a terrible idea. The other issue is how to get them to actually compete in a meaningful way. Where I live, in SF of all places, I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat. That or Google fiber, but it's still pretty nascent. The US is just so big that without a meaningful way for high speeds to get distributed at a local level it's too expensive for anyone to enter. Either we need completely new technologies that allow people to enter at low cost, or we get local gov't somehow involved in facilitating basic infrastructure like water or power.
- sp_nster 12y ago
  > I surprisingly have very little choice when it comes to the internet. Comcast is basically the only real choice as they blow away DSL speeds, and then that's that. No one else serves me as a consumer. And this is San Francisco! I think this is why municipalities are starting to get into the ISP business, which seems to be the only credible way to start actually giving these guys some kind of threat San Francisco is a city where red tape, bureaucracy and the people will not allow another local access provider build. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Sues-San-Francisco-Over-UVerse-Cabinet-Delays-129087 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Sues-San-Francisco-Ov... If San Francisco decided to build a municipal fiber network, they would be sued into bankruptcy by the ISP’s.