re: Isn’t repealing net neutrality just going back to how it was for decades?

quote:

---

RogerTheShrubber

---

A whole lot of lol's and blah blah's, not a whole lot of substance.

There is ONE reason Pai is getting rid of NN rules: because the ISPs are paying him a frickload of money to do it. And you want to talk about crony capitalism.

Yeah, net neutrality was a profit play for large data users to get the same rate as someone surfing the next. A frick job for the normal joe

quote:

---

am dumbfounded that you seemingly cannot comprehend the topic.

---

Cause you make it out like a doomsday sceanrio and none of it is as big as you make out to be

You are talking about toll booths to make your point

quote:

---

Internet infrastructure also takes up space, though granted not as much. However, it's not so much a lack of space that is the problem, but rather the cost.

Let's say as a rough estimate that it costs $100k to run lines through a neighborhood of 100 houses. Let's also estimate that the margins on service are $40/month/house, so that if all 100 homes are signed up, it'll take about 2 years to recoup the investment for one provider. Now let's throw in a competitor, which also has to invest the same $100k to run their own lines. If they provide similar service at a similar price, they should get about half the customers. So now we have a neighborhood with infrastructure that was twice as expensive as necessary, and two companies that now need 4 years to recoup their investments.

Now make it a dozen companies and 24 years. Do you see how this is not ideal for these companies? Don't you think at some point (very soon) we will see either consolidation or deals made to stay off each other's territory? That's just the only thing that makes sense.

Competition among utilities doesn't make sense. If you want to force competition, then we must force them to share infrastructure and compete on top of it.

The only possible saving grace here may be wireless connectivity, but personally I wouldn't count on it. There is only so much spectrum to go around.

---

I understand that problem but the internet has become such an integrated part of life that there is a very high demand for it. If companies could get in there, they would. Even if the options go from 3 to 13, that's significant competition that could drive down costs over time and provide more and better services. When there are only two or three options, competition is limited and positive changes for the consumers happen more slowly. If there is illegal collusion, that only exacerbates the problem, and it should be dealt with by the government by using its current regulatory powers.

Increased competition is going to lead to innovation. We're talking about physical hard lines and infrastructure but increasing competition will eventually lead to wireless connections that don't require digging in the mud and running lines or other less costly alternatives. That's one of the arguments against NN, in fact; it doesn't foster innovation. Open up the market and watch innovative newcomers solve the problems. A free market is the solution, not the problem.

quote:

---

Yes, anyone who doesn't see it your way knows nothing on the topic.

---

I didn't say that, nor was I including you in "many others".

quote:

---

Yet you seem to know nothing about the regulations you support

---

I told you already, but I'll repeat: I don't support any particular regulation or implementation of NN enforcement. I only care that the principles of NN are enforced.

quote:

---

With NN existing, there's no incentive for any other changes to take place

---

Not true. Comcast is an awful company ripping people off. Most people hate their ISP. Everyone is looking for better customer service. If state and local governments allow more competition, the ISP market will improve.

Ending Net Neutrality would inhibit competition because the ISP's could simply cut off their rival's sites and throttle any blogs or news sites that publish positive reviews of their competition. Hard to switch ISP's when you can't access the competition.

quote:

---

In fact, the ignorant masses will just make another huge fuss about it like they are today if another attempt to repeal NN occurs even after the barriers to entry are removed, as if Comcast is a greater enemy to the free people than the government.

---

Maybe they make a fuss about it because Comcast actually IS a greater enemy to the free people than the government. However, in a world where 60 companies, rather than 6, control 90% of the market, those fears of Comcast destroying the internet will be a lot less serious. It's easy for 6 companies to collude, especially when no more than two occupy the same geographical space at any one time. It's really hard for 60 companies to collude.

quote:

---

In the short term I'm not too worried about that. Economics say that with few regulatory barriers to entry, profitable markets attract competition.

---

Net Neutrality isn't a barrier to entry.

quote:

---

It will have a multi-trillion dollar effect on our economy over the next few years. It will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. I'll be sure to post here every time I hear about a company closing shop due to arbitrary pay-to-play fees from ISPs, and every time a company moves overseas or never comes here to begin with due to a better business environment in other countries.

---

Moar fearmongering please

This kust as lame as landshark saying it would cost 10k more per year

quote:

---

You requested that I dumb it down as much as possible. I guess I didn't go dumb enough for you.

---

I think you went full tard and you should never do that

quote:

---

Yes, I know.

---

Then we sort of have to recognize that it is not always possible to have perfectly competitive markets for every good or service that exists by simply removing regulatory barriers.

Large regionally representative ISP's/cable companies have enormously high barriers to entry and ongoing expenses, and to pay for those costs, especially in less highly populated areas, requires a large market share to be profitable. And once one provider captures a market it is incredibly hard for competitors in many markets to ever break in and become a major direct competitor because there is a high price advantage when first to market. Let alone several providers that can provide the necessary level of competition so no single seller can influence the market price.

There is also the issue of scarcity of resources. Theoretically every new competitor is going to have to create its entire own network, a major infrastructure and resource redundancy. That leads to a very inefficient use of land and resources.

Most Americans currently have 1 or fewer providers that deliver definition high speed broadband in an area. And its only that good because we subsidize a lot of markets to even get providers in certain areas.

I am all for removing the poisonous industry promoted regulations that shut down competition where it is reasonable to form. To remove state laws in many places that make municipal investments in broadband all but impossible. But we have to keep in mind that it isnt some magical panacea. That even if we went a step further like i would like, where we would make it legal for any competitor that wants to enter a market to piggy back on existing poles and pipes, there is likely still going to be a need for some consumer protection laws to ensure one of the countries most valuable resources for its citizens and its economy is not subject to malfeseance by its gatekeepers.