If that's the problem, then why don't we tackle that problem? Legislation should be geared entirely towards solving problems, not their second-tier consequences.
Utility companies usually enjoy both natural and state-granted monopolies for many reasons. The state grants them monopolies because cities don't want multiple companies laying conduits or having disputes over access to existing conduits. Imagine the difficulty of having 10 different cable companies, each wanting to lay cable throughout the city!
Even without state intervention, utility companies tend to become local monopolies, duopolies, or non-competitive oligopolies because of the high barriers to entry. This makes it difficult for startups to compete with the incumbents.
In this case, legislation is much more effective at handling the second-tier consequences of utility companies (e.g. the natural tendency away from competition) than handling the problem itself (the high barriers to entry)
I know this is America, but from a conceptual standpoint, my natural reaction to that is to think that Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state. It solves the practical problem of multiple companies wanting to dig the same holes to put the same pipes; solves the liberal problem of forcing companies to comply with an arbitrary way to pursue business; solves the problem of neutrality since by virtue of freedom a state-maintained Internet would be neutral.
It raises the problem of the state controlling Internet. But 1. They already can pass laws to outlaw some parts of the Internet if they want to and 2. ISPs are so big I'm not sure them controlling Internet is more reassuring.
This is just a suggestion. I didn't process all the implications.
> Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state.
Some cities and counties have tried this and were immediately sued by the incumbent operators. Cable and Telco have multidecade long contracts with local municipalities. Having a government just up and attempt to start doing their own thing is arguably a breach of contract/illegal.
I mean, they sue regardless of if they have contracts or not.
Comcast et al. sued Longmont, CO up the road from me when they first started their municipal internet, and tried to get the state senate to retroactively change the law in their favor. Luckily that didn't go anywhere.
Ehh I feel like this is a little murky. I am having a hard time finding a precedent, and IANAL so maybe one can chime in here, but illegal contracts are unenforceable. Therefore if laws regarding Internet regulation were to change such that contracts between telecomms/municipalities are rendered illegal, then I would think they become void.
> Legislation should be geared entirely towards solving problems, not their second-tier consequences.
Sure, I agree. But the choice we're facing right now is between "solving second-tier consequences" and "solving literally nothing".
Breaking the local monopolies held by ISPs isn't currently on the table - Congress largely isn't interested, and more importantly Pai's FCC has repeatedly refused to enforce the laws we do have. In fact, the situation is widely getting worse as ISPs lobby for bans on municipal internet.
There are arguments about how we should solve the main problem here - telecoms, like utilities, are arguably a natural monopoly situation. But until we make progress on that, the net neutrality question is simply "do we give even more power and profit to an abusive monopoly?"
Redundant physical networks using the same technology are a vast waste of capital.
It's the same reason we don't use separate networks of water or electricity. Internet really is the same thing, there are exactly 2 things that matter (assuming it's working) bandwidth and latency though you can easily degrade service via network design etc.
Unfortunately, this results in monopolies which means either public utilities or wasting capital on redundant networks. Globally you see a wide range of approaches to the problem, the US seems to be basing things off of it's healthcare system aka mixing public funds with private enterprise.
Well, that's why so many people were against the FCC removing these rules in the first place: it doesn't solve any problem (and will probably create more).
ISP's spend a lot of money lobbying congress to make sure that problem never gets tackled.
The NN policy wasn't stopping any ISPs from lobbying anybody. If you're saying we need to incentivize politicians against taking corporate money, I agree.
Well the only thing ISPs would fight against more strongly than Net Neutrality would be any attempt to enforce competition.
If we wanted real competition, we would have to do what they do in the UK and other places; force ISPs to sell access to their fiber, and require shared access to utility poles and access points.
If we don't do that, we aren't going to get real competition; it is not economically feasible (in most places) for a new ISP to run cable/fiber to every subscribers house (the 'last mile'). In addition, this is economically inefficient - if multiple companies run fiber to a house, all but one would be unused at any given time (since a single house is most likely only going to subscribe to one ISP at a time).
So basically we have two choices - force ISPs to share infrastructure or enforce net neutrality. If we can't even muster the political will to enforce net neutrality, what do you think the odds are that we could enforce shared infrastructure?
Because there's been almost 3 decades of lobbying and corp control to snuff out competition. Good luck getting local any local help. I live in Tennessee and right now Marsha Blackburn is running for a Senate seat and she gargles the corporate balls. See here if you think I'm bluffing: https://blackburn.house.gov/voterecord/
If you can shop for ISPs as easily as picking which store to pick up that gallon of milk from the 30 convenience stores, groceries, or international markets on your commute home... we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's exactly what the ISPs want though. If we try to tackle all of these loopholes then they get to draw this out in a thousand different court cases which they can easily afford.
OR how about we attack them directly because it's obvious that they have malicious intentions.
