5 ms·

This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have

This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.

ikeboy 12y ago
I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.
- dublinben 12y ago
  >In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    So the solution should be to take away the regulations that made it so, not add on more as a patch. "Here, there's a problem because regulation has made the market not free enough." "I know, let's fix it with more regulation!" Also, freeness isn't binary, it can be more or less free. It's free enough that Google Fiber can exist. As long as it's possible to open something given enough money, there will be an upper limit on how much companies can screw their customers, which doesn't seem too high to me.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      What regulations do you think caused the current lack of competition? How can the FCC change them? The FCC is doing what it can within its legal jurisdiction to improve the actual reality of internet access in the US. The one dimensional perspective of 'more regulation bad, less regulation good' is completely unhelpful in this situation.
      - ikeboy 12y ago
        I support regulation in other places, I don't consider my position one sided that way. I have a high bar for the benefit that a regulation needs to pass before I agree with it, but I'm not against this only because it's regulation. See http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la... Some solutions would be to fix the laws allowing these lawsuits to go on like this, perhaps requiring the loser to pay the costs for frivolous suits like the ones described, or stop the FCC regulations that are the official cause of the lawsuit. Why doesn't the government go after the monopolies under anti-trust laws?
- 12y ago

ikeboy 12y ago

I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.

dublinben 12y ago
>In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  So the solution should be to take away the regulations that made it so, not add on more as a patch. "Here, there's a problem because regulation has made the market not free enough." "I know, let's fix it with more regulation!" Also, freeness isn't binary, it can be more or less free. It's free enough that Google Fiber can exist. As long as it's possible to open something given enough money, there will be an upper limit on how much companies can screw their customers, which doesn't seem too high to me.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    What regulations do you think caused the current lack of competition? How can the FCC change them? The FCC is doing what it can within its legal jurisdiction to improve the actual reality of internet access in the US. The one dimensional perspective of 'more regulation bad, less regulation good' is completely unhelpful in this situation.
    - ikeboy 12y ago
      I support regulation in other places, I don't consider my position one sided that way. I have a high bar for the benefit that a regulation needs to pass before I agree with it, but I'm not against this only because it's regulation. See http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la... Some solutions would be to fix the laws allowing these lawsuits to go on like this, perhaps requiring the loser to pay the costs for frivolous suits like the ones described, or stop the FCC regulations that are the official cause of the lawsuit. Why doesn't the government go after the monopolies under anti-trust laws?
12y ago