I see a lot of shills posting their anti-Network Neutrality stuff here, so I wanted to chime in reminding folks of a few things:
Telco's were forced at one point to share phone lines. Remember all those DSL startups? Remember speakeasy? This was called local loop unbundling. What did the Telco's do? everything possible to break or interfere with these startup service provides. The telco's felt that it was "their lines". Customers were angry and eventually local loop unbundling was dismantled. Ironically - France, South Korea and other nations copied this idea for their high speed network providers - and it actually worked! You can get high speed internet in these countries from a variety of providers. Competition! If the FTC/FCC wasn't completely under regulatory capture, and telcos like AT&T were punished for this behaviour and competitors were allowed to provide services over last mile connections then yes, we might not need something like Network Neutrality.
Instead we have entrenched ISP monopolies and no competition. So we need consumer protections like TitleII and Network Neutrality. We also need community owned fiber networks springing up everywhere, which then over time could lessen the need for regulation as market forces would prevail. However, entrenched monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have to be shackled. It's the only way.
Accusations of astroturfing and shillage aren't allowed here unless you have evidence, and someone else having a different opinion doesn't count as evidence. Please don't post like this to HN.
For those who want to read further about HN's approach to this, there's another thread from today at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932 and links to much more from there.
Your post is good and I upvoted, but I had to fight the instinct to downvote when you automatically assume those with the opposite POV are "shills", implying they are not sincere contributors. We need more people who are entertaining a moderated dialogue that acknowledge the value of the principles on both sides of the aisle, as your post does: a role for commerce and a role for reasonable regulation. However, calling the other sides "shills" in the first sentence makes many who may benefit immediately dismiss the comment.
I would suggest the best way to fix ISP competition is to make wireless ISPs faster/cheaper/better/more reliable. This obviates the "last mile" problem that makes competition in landline businesses so untenable.
It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction - seeing so many posts flooding to the top that were "Pro Telco/Anti NN". I get angry when people say "regulation is bad - let market forces dictate." The point of my post was that 1. there are no market forces with these entrenched companies, and 2. they've already done everything they can to ensure their monopolies stand un-threatened. Therefore, their punishment is regulatory oversight. These companies (AT&T, Comcast etc) cannot have their cake and eat it too. Period.
If there were 4-6 choices of ISP in each town/area then sure - drop the NN/Title2 regulation and let them race each other to the bottom, just like the airlines. But they are terrified of that, because that sort of competition is _hard_.
Personally, I rank the well being of corporations well below individuals, towns, communities, the environment, space, etc. This might make me a weirdo, but I feel corporations have too much say in all aspects of our life.
Those who support monopolies can only be shills. There are no "approaches" here. Other option can be someone severely misinformed, which also can't be called an approach.
New Zealand too. The state of broadband was abysmal, since Telecom had a monopoly on the lines, so you'd pay a small fortune, and get a tiny (like 5 GB, small even for 2007) data cap. After the unbundling, we had a bunch of competition pop up and drive the prices down, and data caps up (these days, data caps are very uncommon, the opposite direction the USA is going).
These days, we've gone one step further, and the majority of lines are owned by wholesalers, who don't deal directly with the consumer.
France isn’t as nice as you picture it. In rural and semi-rural France, Orange still has the monopoly and the service is as atrocious as one would expect. With less regulation out here there could actually be more competition. The “competition” still consists or pretty much 3 companies. Trying to start your own ISP out here requires moving a mountain; it’s close to impossible. It’s a cabal.
Not arguing that it’s worse than the US, but I did have FIOS I’m Jersey City several years ago that was faster then than the so called “high speed” fiber is in French cities now. On paper, really fast connections exist, but they are based on geographic luck rather than the result of good policy.
What really needs to happen is that internet providers should be decoupled from TV providers. It might just be my tin foil hat not working but it feels like Netflix and iTunes gets throttled or has very temperamental connections, but watching some high def content from Orange just flies. Same exact wires. Orange has a huge incentive to prioritize their services. Yet supposedly, net neutrality is in France? I bet there is some fine print that allows Oranage to prioritize their content.
I am ranting because I have a business internet plan that has a full 0.75 Mbs upload speed and I pay more than did in Jersey City where I have a 200 Mbs upload speed – with worse service and a disasterous excuse for customer service.
Being “more like France” is rarely a good idea when it comes to technology. Hopefully, Macron will change that.
