3 ms·

> New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss lea

• greggyb 12y ago
  First, offering an alternative solution is not a necessary component of arguing that a given proposal is objectively bad. Here's an excerpt from another point in this thread: >If regulation must occur, then I would prefer to see it happen in a manner that increases rather than decreases my choices. Forbidding a certain pricing strategy does not increase my choices. If regulation must occur, then I'd like to see something along the lines required sale of excess infrastructure capacity. This could happen in terms of utility pole access (the majority of which are not owned by telecoms to my understanding[0]), or through sale of excess bandwidth in an ISP's network. This is definitely an "if" for me though. It seems that the majority of ISP monopolies we see grew out of the exclusive cable franchises offered by many (most?) municipalities when cable TV was becoming a thing. Since public rights of way were/are (depending on current status of these franchises) and pole access can be granted without adding new regulations, and permission from the city is all that's needed to bury wire, it would seem that these are the best first steps. If it turns out that the advantage granted to incumbents by their past franchises are too great (i.e. we do not see improvements in ISP service/quality), then the idea above of mandatory leasing of excess infrastructure capacity starts to make more sense.
  • lbenes 12y ago
    First of all, I don't buy your argument that the proposal is bad. Your hypothetical situation where net neutrality could harm startups is so contrived it almost sounds like you are trolling. The odds of a future ISP competing by brokering a deal with the big content providers to undercut the established ISPs is never going to happen. The government failed to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. It's a bitter pill to swallow but the only solution is regulation. If you want to sunset net neutrality rules after 90% of Americans have a real broadband choice, fine. But until that day comes, internet startups and broadband customers alike need net neutrality regulations.
    • greggyb 12y ago
      The government did indeed fail to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. In most cases by municipal governments granting exclusive franchises to cable (television) providers who have become our ISPs. The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. Access to utility poles, granting rights-of-way to lay wire, or if positive action must be taken, enforcing excess bandwidth leases all address the issue much better. As I began the thread with, the rate-limiting argument that makes up the thrust of the argument of net neutrality is at best a red herring. Edit: Also, I did not suggest in my hypothetical that a startup ISP would broker a deal with major web companies, only that they might offer free bandwidth to consumers for those services as a loss leader. I further did not intend to suggest that without rate-limiting we would see no ISP startups. I was suggesting that disallowing the practice removes one tool (out of multiple tools) that a new entrant could use to effectively compete with an incumbent. Removing effective tools of competition can hurt consumers.
      • __david__ 12y ago
        > The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. I don't understand why it is an either-or proposition. Seems to me the correct action is to do both.