5 ms·

The Net Neutrality 'debate' is an example of politics I'm beginning to see all the time in the United States. A real problem is presented along with a single pr

The Net Neutrality 'debate' is an example of politics I'm beginning to see all the time in the United States. A real problem is presented along with a single problematic solution from which voters, with as much or little influence they actually have, and their representatives are asked to select the 'lesser of two evils'. The real discussion is not whether the country's big media duopoly should be forced to conduct their business model like a public utility or not, but whether a duopoly is healthy at all. If communication infrastructure requires few large investors and centralized ownership it is a natural monopoly and should be managed as such (and in fact resold on a market of small service providers a la the UK's internet and American power). If it does not, let anti-trust law hammers fall. Comcast and Time Warner consistently collect the very worst consumer reviews (Comcast was the worst of all corporations for year running). They are both larger and more predatory than Ma Bell was leading up to 1984.

warfangle 12y ago
> resold on a market of small service providers a la the UK's internet and American power And American wired telephone service (infrastructure owners must allow competitors to lease that infrastructure).
rayiner 12y ago
You have to put the telecom debate in the proper historical context. It's not some sui generis issue. It's part of a broader debate about how much involvement government should have in regulating services. There was a time when the government told trucking companies how much they could charge for a shipment. The overwhelming trend since then has been to deregulate industries if possible, or replace heavy-weight regulations (rate setting, etc) with lighter-weight ones. Full-on Title II represents 1970's-style regulation that neither party wants to go back to, which is why the debate is between no action at all or "Title II with heavy forebearance." People talk about regulating telecom like the power company, but the trend over the last 30 years has been to deregulate the power companies as much as possible. NB: The UK example is a poor one. British Telecom was originally a government entity, and was "privatized" under agreements that made clear that they would be subject to constraints. In contrast, since 1996, the telecoms have invested tens of billions of dollars in capital under the premise that the industry was deregulated.
- slantedview 12y ago
  Regulation, in this and many cases, is a way for the government to ensure that companies don't use the privileges granted to them by the government (such rights to lay cable lines) as an anti-competitive tool - which they naturally will try to do. The privileges have to come with restraints - else bad things happen.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The premise of your contention is false. Websites like Ars have perpetuated this misconception that the cable companies have exclusive rights to put wires in the ground.[1] But I have not been able to validate this idea with my research. Every franchise agreement I've read makes clear that it isn't exclusive. Which is exactly how Congress chose to deal with the possibility of companies abusing exclusive rights to put wires down on public rights of way--by making it illegal for municipalities to give them exclusive privileges. [1] E.g. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/snubbed-by-google-fiber-mad-at-comcast-baltimore-seeks-its-own-fiber http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/snubbe.... Ars talks about how Baltimore's franchise agreement with Comcast "effectively makes the company the exclusive cable television provider in the city." (Quoting the Baltimore Business Journal). If you actually read the 2004 franchise agreement, it clearly says it's not: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc... ("City hereby grants to Franchisee, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Franchise grant ordinance, a non-exclusive Franchise with the right, privilege and authority to construct, operate, repair, maintain, and reconstruct a Cable System on, over, under upon, across, and along the Public Ways within the Franchise Area in accordance with the City's specifications and this Agreement.")
    - belorn 12y ago
      In your research, how many other companies has built a Cable System in Baltimore? If its non-exclusive only on paper, and in practice a monopoly, what actually effects does it have on quality, service, and price?

warfangle 12y ago

> resold on a market of small service providers a la the UK's internet and American power And American wired telephone service (infrastructure owners must allow competitors to lease that infrastructure).

rayiner 12y ago

You have to put the telecom debate in the proper historical context. It's not some sui generis issue. It's part of a broader debate about how much involvement government should have in regulating services. There was a time when the government told trucking companies how much they could charge for a shipment. The overwhelming trend since then has been to deregulate industries if possible, or replace heavy-weight regulations (rate setting, etc) with lighter-weight ones. Full-on Title II represents 1970's-style regulation that neither party wants to go back to, which is why the debate is between no action at all or "Title II with heavy forebearance." People talk about regulating telecom like the power company, but the trend over the last 30 years has been to deregulate the power companies as much as possible. NB: The UK example is a poor one. British Telecom was originally a government entity, and was "privatized" under agreements that made clear that they would be subject to constraints. In contrast, since 1996, the telecoms have invested tens of billions of dollars in capital under the premise that the industry was deregulated.

slantedview 12y ago
Regulation, in this and many cases, is a way for the government to ensure that companies don't use the privileges granted to them by the government (such rights to lay cable lines) as an anti-competitive tool - which they naturally will try to do. The privileges have to come with restraints - else bad things happen.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The premise of your contention is false. Websites like Ars have perpetuated this misconception that the cable companies have exclusive rights to put wires in the ground.[1] But I have not been able to validate this idea with my research. Every franchise agreement I've read makes clear that it isn't exclusive. Which is exactly how Congress chose to deal with the possibility of companies abusing exclusive rights to put wires down on public rights of way--by making it illegal for municipalities to give them exclusive privileges. [1] E.g. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/snubbed-by-google-fiber-mad-at-comcast-baltimore-seeks-its-own-fiber http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/snubbe.... Ars talks about how Baltimore's franchise agreement with Comcast "effectively makes the company the exclusive cable television provider in the city." (Quoting the Baltimore Business Journal). If you actually read the 2004 franchise agreement, it clearly says it's not: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc... ("City hereby grants to Franchisee, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Franchise grant ordinance, a non-exclusive Franchise with the right, privilege and authority to construct, operate, repair, maintain, and reconstruct a Cable System on, over, under upon, across, and along the Public Ways within the Franchise Area in accordance with the City's specifications and this Agreement.")
  - belorn 12y ago
    In your research, how many other companies has built a Cable System in Baltimore? If its non-exclusive only on paper, and in practice a monopoly, what actually effects does it have on quality, service, and price?