6 ms·

>would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet And I could pick and choose my p

by clammer 16y ago

>would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet And I could pick and choose my provider. The problem with regulating "monopolies" is that it does more to ensure their monopoly position and stifle competition than it does to "protect" the consumer. This is a short-term vs. long-term debate. Net neutrality will be good in the short term, but very bad for long term development of the Internet and access to it.

clammer 16y ago
Yeah, I figured no one here would like my point of view on this one.
- raimondious 16y ago
  I'd like to know why you have the opinion you do — how is it good for the Internet in the long term? I don't see how this is possible.
  - clammer 16y ago
    Because it creates a more rules for ISPs. The more regulated a market is, the larger barrier to entry which perpetuates the monopoly. Eventually, when smaller upstarts come along, the monopoly points at them and says, "Hey, these guys aren't playing by the rules" and then the government makes these upstarts comply with expensive regulations. For instance, VOIP and 911. When you could get VOIP for nothing (or next to it) the big telecoms pointed to these new providers and said "We have to support 911, why don't they?". In this case, the government jumped in to help the telecoms keep a foot hold on their monopoly. See: http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_services http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_service... This pattern repeats itself in almost all legislation attempting to regulate monopolies. In the end, it only serves to stifle competition and remove consumer choice from the market.
    - pyre 16y ago
      The issue is that there are already huge barriers to entry if one wants to become an ISP.
    - rortian 16y ago
      Read your econ. Regulation is hardly the only barrier to entry in a market. The huge barrier to entry for cable, water, electricity, and telecommunications (for now excluding cellular) is building the infrastructure. There are good reasons why most of these are heavily regulated. It's funny you say ISPs because in the dial-up age there were a ton of them. They were working on top of the highly regulated phone system. Fast forward to the broadband age, which sadly was give a lot of free reign under the regulation-averse Bush administration, and there are very few 'ISPs'. Instead most markets are given a bad choice between oligopolistic cable companies and a baby bell or AT&T itself. These companies have way too much market power, people routinely get cable tv in order to get a decent internet monthly rate, and regulation could have huge benefits for consumers as well innovative businesses like Google.
      - clammer 16y ago
        Read my post. I never said it was the only barrier. Not sure why you put words in my post that weren't there. There really isn't a problem right now with good Internet service. NN solves a problem that doesn't exist, yet wil have long term effects on the market in ways we may not fully understand today. Do you get a discount for biying cable and Internet together, yes, but I also get a discount for buying my life, home owner, and car insurance from the same company. I'm unclear on why a bundled discount is a bad thing for consumers.
        rortian 16y ago
        Insurance, a heavily regulated industry with many competitors, huh. You suggest that regulation always hurts competition and that is simply not true. Bundling is an interesting topic and in some cases it not necessarily malicious. However, unlike your insurance company, cable companies have a ton of pricing power. I don't know why you think NN problems haven't existed. Comcast tried to block bit torrent connections, the FCC shut that practice down, but just recently the courts said the FCC could not stop that from happening.

by clammer 16y ago

clammer 16y ago

Yeah, I figured no one here would like my point of view on this one.

raimondious 16y ago
I'd like to know why you have the opinion you do — how is it good for the Internet in the long term? I don't see how this is possible.
- clammer 16y ago
  Because it creates a more rules for ISPs. The more regulated a market is, the larger barrier to entry which perpetuates the monopoly. Eventually, when smaller upstarts come along, the monopoly points at them and says, "Hey, these guys aren't playing by the rules" and then the government makes these upstarts comply with expensive regulations. For instance, VOIP and 911. When you could get VOIP for nothing (or next to it) the big telecoms pointed to these new providers and said "We have to support 911, why don't they?". In this case, the government jumped in to help the telecoms keep a foot hold on their monopoly. See: http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_services http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_service... This pattern repeats itself in almost all legislation attempting to regulate monopolies. In the end, it only serves to stifle competition and remove consumer choice from the market.
  - pyre 16y ago
    The issue is that there are already huge barriers to entry if one wants to become an ISP.
  - rortian 16y ago
    Read your econ. Regulation is hardly the only barrier to entry in a market. The huge barrier to entry for cable, water, electricity, and telecommunications (for now excluding cellular) is building the infrastructure. There are good reasons why most of these are heavily regulated. It's funny you say ISPs because in the dial-up age there were a ton of them. They were working on top of the highly regulated phone system. Fast forward to the broadband age, which sadly was give a lot of free reign under the regulation-averse Bush administration, and there are very few 'ISPs'. Instead most markets are given a bad choice between oligopolistic cable companies and a baby bell or AT&T itself. These companies have way too much market power, people routinely get cable tv in order to get a decent internet monthly rate, and regulation could have huge benefits for consumers as well innovative businesses like Google.
    - clammer 16y ago
      Read my post. I never said it was the only barrier. Not sure why you put words in my post that weren't there. There really isn't a problem right now with good Internet service. NN solves a problem that doesn't exist, yet wil have long term effects on the market in ways we may not fully understand today. Do you get a discount for biying cable and Internet together, yes, but I also get a discount for buying my life, home owner, and car insurance from the same company. I'm unclear on why a bundled discount is a bad thing for consumers.
      - rortian 16y ago
        Insurance, a heavily regulated industry with many competitors, huh. You suggest that regulation always hurts competition and that is simply not true. Bundling is an interesting topic and in some cases it not necessarily malicious. However, unlike your insurance company, cable companies have a ton of pricing power. I don't know why you think NN problems haven't existed. Comcast tried to block bit torrent connections, the FCC shut that practice down, but just recently the courts said the FCC could not stop that from happening.