3 ms·

Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 pla

Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 players in most markets? A decade? The Internet will already be useless by then if Net Neutrality is eliminated.

mseebach 12y ago
One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted. The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition. Your second statement is just wrong...
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Competition isn't the end goal; what we really want is the service and prices to be at least as good as what a competitive market would yield. Google Fiber may not be all the way there, but it's close enough to be a great interim option.
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      Yes, Google fiber looks great right because they are only in a couple of markets. Building out nation wide would cost a lot of money and time... Google already runs most people's cell phones, search, browser, email, mapping service, etc. so it seems to me being one's ISP also potentially could be really bad.
Alupis 12y ago
The alternative you seem to propose is potentially dangerous legislation that will effectively be permanent and the model for a lot of other countries. And you are not taking into account that any large-scale legislation will not take affect immediately and will likely be a ramp-up style similar to the Healthcare Laws spread out over 5-8 years. In that same timespan, a lot can be done to help foster new players in the ISP market and spur a lot of fierce competition. I think option 2 is the better option to really get better service with lower prices. Nothing that has been regulated has ever been done better than the free market. USPS (that is changing now that they are privatish), DMV, POTS lines, Utility companies (power, water, gas), etc. We have seen time over time over time that when a market gets heavily regulated, innovation almost completely stops and things settle to a "just barely good enough". Do most US citizens have a choice of power companies? Nope. Land Line telephone providers? Nope. etc. Whens the last time your power company called you and said we're going to slash prices on all power because company X is slashing prices and we really value your business? Never.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong... All regulation is not "bad" or you must be totally ignorant on the history of regulation in the US and having some regulation does not mean being "heavily regulated". Nothing that has been regulated has ever done better then the free market? One example you give, the USPS is certainly not becoming better because of being privatized. You must be under 25... At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents. It WAS THE MODEL for the rest of the world. Now? They raise first class postage like every six months and keep entering into more deals with direct marketers to distribute even more junk mail to us. Not better... Hey, totally government controlled nor a "free market" is going to be the answer. Any solution will take time and one thing we can't do right now is end Net Neutrality which will only make things worse. I have said this like 10x now in this thread...
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > You must be under 25 Great to see you fall to personal attacks in attempt of proving your point. You are wrong btw... The point I'm making and the point you're missing is that any regulations/legislation is not going to change anything overnight. It will take years, no matter what it done. Perhaps longer with legislation due to the speed of government. A slowly rolled out, 5-8 year legislated plan is a lot worse than a slowly ramped up 5-8 year private business competition and proliferation. When businesses compete, the consumer wins. When businesses get regulated but still have no competition, the consumer loses. You seem to be completely glossing over this very important point. We need more competition -- not more regulation. One does not simply regulate their way into competition. > At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents There are realities here you are not addressing. Dramatic increase in gasoline prices -- dramatic decrease in volume of mail, to name a few. This is why the USPS system is struggling today, and the reason they've been allowed to mostly "go private". The old system was also heavily subsidized by the US Gov't, which isn't happening anymore. If you look at package mail transport (since only USPS can deliver letters to mailboxes), the competition is fierce between USPS, FedEX and UPS. Often times, UPS/FedEX are a lot cheaper to send a package through. (I know because I work for an distribution company w/ warehouse). We've seen some initiatives from USPS to recapture the package shipment market since they went privatish with their "if it fits, it ships campaign", but they still have a long ways to go. This is a great example where private companies in competition have way outbeat the regulated portions in the same industry. You're "we should regulate today to save tomorrow" attitude holds no water here. Contrary, we should develop today to save tomorrow; develop more competition.

mseebach 12y ago

One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted. The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.

01Michael10 12y ago
Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition. Your second statement is just wrong...
- wtallis 12y ago
  Competition isn't the end goal; what we really want is the service and prices to be at least as good as what a competitive market would yield. Google Fiber may not be all the way there, but it's close enough to be a great interim option.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Yes, Google fiber looks great right because they are only in a couple of markets. Building out nation wide would cost a lot of money and time... Google already runs most people's cell phones, search, browser, email, mapping service, etc. so it seems to me being one's ISP also potentially could be really bad.

Alupis 12y ago

The alternative you seem to propose is potentially dangerous legislation that will effectively be permanent and the model for a lot of other countries. And you are not taking into account that any large-scale legislation will not take affect immediately and will likely be a ramp-up style similar to the Healthcare Laws spread out over 5-8 years. In that same timespan, a lot can be done to help foster new players in the ISP market and spur a lot of fierce competition. I think option 2 is the better option to really get better service with lower prices. Nothing that has been regulated has ever been done better than the free market. USPS (that is changing now that they are privatish), DMV, POTS lines, Utility companies (power, water, gas), etc. We have seen time over time over time that when a market gets heavily regulated, innovation almost completely stops and things settle to a "just barely good enough". Do most US citizens have a choice of power companies? Nope. Land Line telephone providers? Nope. etc. Whens the last time your power company called you and said we're going to slash prices on all power because company X is slashing prices and we really value your business? Never.

01Michael10 12y ago
Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong... All regulation is not "bad" or you must be totally ignorant on the history of regulation in the US and having some regulation does not mean being "heavily regulated". Nothing that has been regulated has ever done better then the free market? One example you give, the USPS is certainly not becoming better because of being privatized. You must be under 25... At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents. It WAS THE MODEL for the rest of the world. Now? They raise first class postage like every six months and keep entering into more deals with direct marketers to distribute even more junk mail to us. Not better... Hey, totally government controlled nor a "free market" is going to be the answer. Any solution will take time and one thing we can't do right now is end Net Neutrality which will only make things worse. I have said this like 10x now in this thread...
- Alupis 12y ago
  > You must be under 25 Great to see you fall to personal attacks in attempt of proving your point. You are wrong btw... The point I'm making and the point you're missing is that any regulations/legislation is not going to change anything overnight. It will take years, no matter what it done. Perhaps longer with legislation due to the speed of government. A slowly rolled out, 5-8 year legislated plan is a lot worse than a slowly ramped up 5-8 year private business competition and proliferation. When businesses compete, the consumer wins. When businesses get regulated but still have no competition, the consumer loses. You seem to be completely glossing over this very important point. We need more competition -- not more regulation. One does not simply regulate their way into competition. > At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents There are realities here you are not addressing. Dramatic increase in gasoline prices -- dramatic decrease in volume of mail, to name a few. This is why the USPS system is struggling today, and the reason they've been allowed to mostly "go private". The old system was also heavily subsidized by the US Gov't, which isn't happening anymore. If you look at package mail transport (since only USPS can deliver letters to mailboxes), the competition is fierce between USPS, FedEX and UPS. Often times, UPS/FedEX are a lot cheaper to send a package through. (I know because I work for an distribution company w/ warehouse). We've seen some initiatives from USPS to recapture the package shipment market since they went privatish with their "if it fits, it ships campaign", but they still have a long ways to go. This is a great example where private companies in competition have way outbeat the regulated portions in the same industry. You're "we should regulate today to save tomorrow" attitude holds no water here. Contrary, we should develop today to save tomorrow; develop more competition.