4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - greggyb 12y ago
    I have yet to see a convincing argument that prohibiting rate-limiting will increase competition among ISP providers. Further, I think it's fairly obvious what I think of our government's likelihood to get any regulation regarding ISPs right. I prefer to limit the surface area of potential mistakes. Finally, I haven't seen evidence of significant rate-limiting in areas with multiple ISPs. If this is the case, then increased competition on its own gets us both what we see as the ideal solution, whereas making rate-limiting illegal only gets you part of the way to what you want. I am using personal pronouns conversationally, not in belief that you and I are the only people with either of these positions.

by lbenes 12y ago

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.
- greggyb 12y ago
  I have yet to see a convincing argument that prohibiting rate-limiting will increase competition among ISP providers. Further, I think it's fairly obvious what I think of our government's likelihood to get any regulation regarding ISPs right. I prefer to limit the surface area of potential mistakes. Finally, I haven't seen evidence of significant rate-limiting in areas with multiple ISPs. If this is the case, then increased competition on its own gets us both what we see as the ideal solution, whereas making rate-limiting illegal only gets you part of the way to what you want. I am using personal pronouns conversationally, not in belief that you and I are the only people with either of these positions.