5 ms·

Regulation has a history of locking in incumbents, and locking out potential future competitors. It will be much harder for challengers to enter the market now

Regulation has a history of locking in incumbents, and locking out potential future competitors. It will be much harder for challengers to enter the market now because of the increased cost of compliance, something only the big incumbents can afford. What's worse is that the costs for Title II companies will be subsidized by government. So they may appear to have low prices, at least for awhile, but the real price will be hidden in a nebulous cloud of federal taxes. You won't even really know how much you're actually paying due to price distortions caused by corporate welfare. It's sad that people have such a short term memory about these corporate welfare cons, and just fall in lockstep with the propaganda. This will be very bad for consumers in the long run.

bougiefever 12y ago
Nothing but FUD. This is a huge win for consumers.
- xname 12y ago
  If ISPs lose, consumers cannot win.
TheCowboy 12y ago
Would you mind supporting your statement by explaining how this actually applies here? It comes across as generic anti-regulation-no-matter-what astroturfing, but would be more interesting if the details of your argument were fleshed out.
- programmarchy 12y ago
  What details would you like me to flesh out? Maybe I can offer an example. I'm sure you will be able to poke technical holes in this, but let's say a company comes up with a new technology (i.e. not cable) that can handle small packets very efficiently in a small locality. It's super cheap to do this, and it's great for networking small communities. But, video traffic really slows down the network so it's filtered out and thus it can't effectively treat all data equally. Instead of being able to quickly start up and offer their services, first they have to register with the FCC. Then they have to pay an inspection fee, and account for yearly audit fees. Plus, even though their prices are cheap, they're not much cheaper than cable because all the cable infrastructure is subsidized by taxpayers so their prices appear to be less competitive. All these extra costs to comply with the regulations add up to the point where the capital needed to even start this business is way too high and way too risky, so this technology just won't even have a chance of existing. It is effectively crowded out by the heavily subsidized and protected cable telecoms. For a real historical reference, take the railroads for example, where these types of regulations began. The railroad businesses got huge subsidies from the government in the form of land and tax breaks. This allowed the railroad companies to effectively cartelize the industry because it crowded out more decentralized forms of transportation like the small rail and networks of canal systems. Even though these localized, less capital intensive systems could have served people better than railroads, we'll never know it because of the opportunity cost of central planning: the railroads used the state to force the public to pay for and subsidize their infrastructure. These crowding out effects are the unseen consequences of regulation. Big business has a long history of using the power of the state to impose regulatory barriers on future competitors as a way to preserve their monopoly power. It started with the railroads, continued through the Progressive Era, and continues today with policies like "Net Neutrality". And they always use the same public relations con, too, appealing to the common good and fairness to get public buy in. They say that these policies will protect the consumers, but really in the end these policies will protect big business from competition. This creates artificial scarcity and allows big business to charge consumers higher prices. See my other post here [1] if you want a little more historical background on how this works. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998958
brucefancher 12y ago
It's amazing to me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people, who would recoil in horror if you suggested that the federal government should regulate software development, actually think that applying government regulations to the Internet that were originally written in the 30's for analog telephone service -- based on regulations written in the 1890's for railroads, will result in anything other than a complete clusterfuck. B-b-but John Oliver said it would protect consumers! I guess this is what happens when you have a generation too young to remember Ma Bell, who get their public policy guidance from comedians.

bougiefever 12y ago

Nothing but FUD. This is a huge win for consumers.

xname 12y ago
If ISPs lose, consumers cannot win.

TheCowboy 12y ago

Would you mind supporting your statement by explaining how this actually applies here? It comes across as generic anti-regulation-no-matter-what astroturfing, but would be more interesting if the details of your argument were fleshed out.

programmarchy 12y ago
What details would you like me to flesh out? Maybe I can offer an example. I'm sure you will be able to poke technical holes in this, but let's say a company comes up with a new technology (i.e. not cable) that can handle small packets very efficiently in a small locality. It's super cheap to do this, and it's great for networking small communities. But, video traffic really slows down the network so it's filtered out and thus it can't effectively treat all data equally. Instead of being able to quickly start up and offer their services, first they have to register with the FCC. Then they have to pay an inspection fee, and account for yearly audit fees. Plus, even though their prices are cheap, they're not much cheaper than cable because all the cable infrastructure is subsidized by taxpayers so their prices appear to be less competitive. All these extra costs to comply with the regulations add up to the point where the capital needed to even start this business is way too high and way too risky, so this technology just won't even have a chance of existing. It is effectively crowded out by the heavily subsidized and protected cable telecoms. For a real historical reference, take the railroads for example, where these types of regulations began. The railroad businesses got huge subsidies from the government in the form of land and tax breaks. This allowed the railroad companies to effectively cartelize the industry because it crowded out more decentralized forms of transportation like the small rail and networks of canal systems. Even though these localized, less capital intensive systems could have served people better than railroads, we'll never know it because of the opportunity cost of central planning: the railroads used the state to force the public to pay for and subsidize their infrastructure. These crowding out effects are the unseen consequences of regulation. Big business has a long history of using the power of the state to impose regulatory barriers on future competitors as a way to preserve their monopoly power. It started with the railroads, continued through the Progressive Era, and continues today with policies like "Net Neutrality". And they always use the same public relations con, too, appealing to the common good and fairness to get public buy in. They say that these policies will protect the consumers, but really in the end these policies will protect big business from competition. This creates artificial scarcity and allows big business to charge consumers higher prices. See my other post here [1] if you want a little more historical background on how this works. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998958

brucefancher 12y ago

It's amazing to me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people, who would recoil in horror if you suggested that the federal government should regulate software development, actually think that applying government regulations to the Internet that were originally written in the 30's for analog telephone service -- based on regulations written in the 1890's for railroads, will result in anything other than a complete clusterfuck. B-b-but John Oliver said it would protect consumers! I guess this is what happens when you have a generation too young to remember Ma Bell, who get their public policy guidance from comedians.