I’m just saying it looks to me like the free market is creating solutions to ISP problem if you will. Could it be faster, I suppose.
Of course, they act in their own self interest. That doesn’t surprise me at all. I think there is a real case for splitting the larger ISPs the same way Bell Systems was split years ago (lot of good it did…)
This is where I am conflicted as well. I think you can make a good argument for Title II incorporation, but say bye bye to innovation if that happens.
It depends on the criteria to qualify as a “solution.”
Also, as these are specific locations at which smaller ISPs have managed to buy their way into the market, I’d say for a very very large percentage of the population, there is no solution with no solution in site.
I’m beyond happy to be wrong if that’s the case, but a common theme I’ve seen with these wanna be ISPs is that they all seem to serve an adorably low number of people.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb, but if I had to guess I’d say these companies would be overjoyed the serve a city with the kind of population that allows you to grow your company instead of serving less people than your average McDonalds. Higher population would mean more money, cheaper cost to deliver, etcetc
@anon50325502
Please don’t take this as a complete response. This article misses a few points but it’s got the framework down
Good observation. Probably a fiscal move more than anything. They deregged the utilities here and costs went way down… I am going to assume that the administration is hoping for a similar effect.
Difference is, we’re dealing with information not power or water. So it’s hard to say what the effect will be if any.
I love this because that’s pretty much exactly what small towns and farmlands do…make their own solutions to a lot of things. (Leaving aside the “small town America is dying conversation”)
Just because we make our own bullets, liquor, milk, eggs, honey, fix our own cars/houses, cut our own grass etc… I just had a mental image of hillbilly’s rigging up an ISP. The internet beat me to it.
My home state:
This could be the way to ensure NN stays in place: enough individual states pass their own NN rules and it will make it nearly impossible for ISPs and telcos to run their networks differently in each state. (Of course, this will likely be heading to the SCOTUS.)
And because I see the same arguments that have been addressed before - “We didn’t have NN before Obama, so why do we need it now?” - this is a good history lesson (there were “rules” or “guidelines” before).
In short, a lack of NN is antithetical to competition.
At the same time, broadband providers had both incentives and the means to block, throttle, or threaten some applications or sites. First, some of the new internet applications, like “voice over IP” telephone service or streaming video, competed directly with the carriers’ telephone or video offerings. Second, the phone and cable providers wanted to use their control over access to extract more money, either from the new internet sites (so called “termination fees”) or from customers.
Imo a lot of the “NN is killing the market” crowd stems from this recent discovery that all regulatuons, in any form, have negative side effects on the market in total.
“Remove 2 regards for every 1 created” anyone?
So recent Adam Smith wrote about it in WoN
Bumping. I was really hoping we’d see movement on this before the midterms so the GOP could feel even more pain, but here’s to hoping for 2020
How much throttling and inconvenienced consumers is going on? Most people don’t even have this on their radar.
If net neutrality passes does that mean YouTube/Twitter etc… can’t ban anyone?
Probably about the same ratio as before, but internet consumption continues to climb, which makes throttling more noticeable.
Sure they do. With the ever growing push to streaming services people feel it pretty consistently in heavily populated areas. I have a dedicated line from a neighborhood junction box, so I barely feel it. My sister lives in an apartment complex with 25+ buildings and she can’t stream 480p YT from the hours of 6-11 most nights and all weekends.
Of course not lol. Banning people was obviously allowed when NN was in place before
Is that throttling or bad infrastructure? If she lived in California under this new law would everyone on that apartment complex have grounds to sue? Seems like a lawyers wet dream.
“Go to speedtest.net. is your speed lower than X? You may be entitled to compensation!”
I’m just not a fan of more regulations getting between companies and their customers. That always ends with higher costs, less service and less innovation. The internet’s freedom is what has made it so cool thus far.
It doesn’t really matter does it? If you pay to procure a certain speed, and ISPs use the one off ‘speed may be reduced during peak hours’ to justify any and all outages/slowdowns, it’s still robbing the consumer.
Fwiw, she has internet style cable that will happily display HD (internet streamed) TV at the drop of a hat, at all times of day.
Throttling probably, bad infrastructure probably not.
By way of this deregulation, ISPs (which are almost exclusively owned by the big media companies) are free to throttle/censor/limit any potential competition should they enter the market.
I’ve always been curious about how stopping fast lanes and removing barriers to entry were stiffling innovation.
This does not compute. Definitely not with ‘put the power of the internet into the hands of big media’ output that is the NN repeal
So your position is that ISPs procured regional government sponsored monopolies (likely through corruption), and just one more government regulation is going to make them serve customers better?
Except that isn’t what this California law does, at all.
I don’t want to speak for @Basement_Gainz, but you don’t win when you cede your regulatory power to the entity with the biggest weapons.
Duh. This scene in Animal House taught me that.
Net neutrality would promote competition in these markets, creating the opposite of those things.
Yeah, this ground has been covered multiple times on this thread already. This is not a left/right issue.
I think a manmade damn can stop a manmade river, yes.
Good thing we got rid of that pesky NN and opened the door for state level shenanigans. That was kinda a key point of the article I mentioned.
