5 ms·

The competition thing already has been addressed my me and others a number of times in this thread. Google is not the cure all... The bigger they get the less i

The competition thing already has been addressed my me and others a number of times in this thread. Google is not the cure all... The bigger they get the less incentive they would be for them to drive down prices and speeds. We would need 3 to 4 players in most markets at least for real competition so we agree about that but... How long would this take? A decade? The reality RIGHT NOW is that their is no competition in 99% of the US. Ending Net Neutrality right now and hoping in a decade things change would be stupid.

Alupis 12y ago
Nobody says Google is the answer -- that was just one small example of a situation where someone upset the incumbent and caused decreased price and better service purely through competition with no additional government legislation. We need more of that from more companies. Perhaps a better solution is to government fund small ISP's (they exist, look for them) and help them develop their own infrastructure in major cities. It will not be an overnight solution no, but it's far better imo than permanent legislation that might just kill the innovation you seek to spur. Look at the state of DSL. It's delivered over POTS lines and falls under the legislation governing said lines. If an ISP runs lines to provide DSL service, they are required to lease the lines to whoever wants them (other isp's) for cost (not much profit made from this transaction). Suddenly everyone abandoned DSL in favor of Fiber and Cable services, and we've seen speeds exponentially grow in this area. POTS lines already exist to every home in the USA, why not use them? DSL2+ has greatly increased the speeds, but still few ISP's use it. It's because of the huge legislative hurdles they have to jump over just to provide the service (I have a friend who is a WISP in the bay area of CA, and this is the reason he gave me for why he's not currently also running DSL to homes in his service region). We risk doing the same if we regulate all internet carrying lines. I really think it's better to somehow grow a lot more ISP's that operate in great competition. I don't know the perfect solution or how to go about accomplishing this -- but I do know free competition almost always trumps legislation. What we don't have right now is free competition (we have monopolies/duopolies).
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  I don't know why you repeating yourself... We all know competition is the answer. I agree that the government partnering with small localized ISPs is a great idea to spur more competition but... The thinking that government regulation is always bad is wrong. There is no reason why the government can't classify ISPs as public utilities AND help create more players. Any solution would take time so what we can't do right now is allow Net Neutrality to end and make the situation worse.
- pjzedalis 12y ago
  Government should create ISP's to encourage them to lower their prices? I'll take Comcast's terrible pricing and service. Give me some of my taxes back. If me and a few buddies want to start an ISP then that's on us.

Alupis 12y ago

Nobody says Google is the answer -- that was just one small example of a situation where someone upset the incumbent and caused decreased price and better service purely through competition with no additional government legislation. We need more of that from more companies. Perhaps a better solution is to government fund small ISP's (they exist, look for them) and help them develop their own infrastructure in major cities. It will not be an overnight solution no, but it's far better imo than permanent legislation that might just kill the innovation you seek to spur. Look at the state of DSL. It's delivered over POTS lines and falls under the legislation governing said lines. If an ISP runs lines to provide DSL service, they are required to lease the lines to whoever wants them (other isp's) for cost (not much profit made from this transaction). Suddenly everyone abandoned DSL in favor of Fiber and Cable services, and we've seen speeds exponentially grow in this area. POTS lines already exist to every home in the USA, why not use them? DSL2+ has greatly increased the speeds, but still few ISP's use it. It's because of the huge legislative hurdles they have to jump over just to provide the service (I have a friend who is a WISP in the bay area of CA, and this is the reason he gave me for why he's not currently also running DSL to homes in his service region). We risk doing the same if we regulate all internet carrying lines. I really think it's better to somehow grow a lot more ISP's that operate in great competition. I don't know the perfect solution or how to go about accomplishing this -- but I do know free competition almost always trumps legislation. What we don't have right now is free competition (we have monopolies/duopolies).

01Michael10 12y ago
I don't know why you repeating yourself... We all know competition is the answer. I agree that the government partnering with small localized ISPs is a great idea to spur more competition but... The thinking that government regulation is always bad is wrong. There is no reason why the government can't classify ISPs as public utilities AND help create more players. Any solution would take time so what we can't do right now is allow Net Neutrality to end and make the situation worse.
pjzedalis 12y ago
Government should create ISP's to encourage them to lower their prices? I'll take Comcast's terrible pricing and service. Give me some of my taxes back. If me and a few buddies want to start an ISP then that's on us.