[Shivetya]

Well the consumer (us) cannot seem to define what we want other than "everything" or point to how the 2014 change fixed issues that were common place. Where is the list of events that were fixed with the change that had not been previously identified and corrected as overreach by an ISP?

Take a look at those pushing "net neutrality" and understand why. I am not saying they are not without merit but both sides have merit but one side is funded by very large monied interest for one reason, they know they can use net neutrality to force what they want to relieve costs on their business interest and never have to pass it on because all onus will be on service providers.

Service providers who have since the prior rule changes have reduced roll out of higher speeds including some very big names (google is one). Why should they? Where is the payoff for adding throughput if its going to get regulated.

I remember the last time it was all regulated, my choice was ISDN provided I could get it or T1 provided I could get it or just suck it up and stay on dial up. With lack of regulation new players came in with higher bandwidth and made it available to me increasing competition. With regulation on service people magically expect higher speed broadban but totally ignore the fact there is no incentive to provided it and once regulated it will be mired in delay after delay and only show where powerful politicians want it.

What is also means if with regulation of service providers they will tell you exactly what services you may use the regulated network for. welcome to China

[syshum]

>or point to how the 2014 change fixed issues that were common place.

2014 Reclassification was a response to a legal order brought about by Verizon suing the FCC, from 2010 to 2014 NN was in place under Title I regulations, The Courts ruled the FCC exceeded its authority under Title I and if they wanted anything like the Open Internet Order the ISP had to be moved to Title II

Internet Service was also regulated under Title II from its inception until 2005 when it was reclassified by the FCC under Title I

As to violation here is a list, this is not all inclusive but is a good starting reference

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...

>> they know they can use net neutrality to force what they want to relieve costs on their business interest and never have to pass it on because all onus will be on service providers.

This assertion by the ISP that companies like Google are getting a "free ride" is moronic. It fails to identify who the consumer is of these companies, it is not Google or Netflix, it is the average homeowner or resident who pays and obscene amount of money for these companies to go out and pickup data from Internet Peering Points. Google and others also pay money to send data out to these peering points.

This idea that if Verizon and Comcast can start charging Google will be good for the consumer has no basis in reality or history. At best it will simply increase the already extreme profit margins for the companies. Companies with a Captive Consumer market do not "pass savings" along, why would they there is no other competitor around for the consumer to change to.

>>I remember the last time it was all regulated, my choice was ISDN provided I could get it or T1 provided I could get it or just suck it up and stay on dial up. With lack of regulation new players came in with higher bandwidth and made it available to me increasing competition

WOW, that is extreme revisionist history...

Had nothing at all do with advancement of Technology, no, it was all regulations that prevented everything

Jesus. are you for real

[sandworm101]

>>> With lack of regulation new players came in with higher bandwidth and made it available to me increasing competition.

Funny. In the UK, with it's massively regulated marketplaces, one has far greater choice in home broadband providers. The concept that all regulation by government hampers innovation and investment is a highschool-level understanding of economics, an Ayn Rand approach. In cases of monopolies, which includes ownership of private infrastructures (railroads, fiber etc), regulation can keep markets open and alive that would otherwise stagnate. In a great many circumstances government regulation can foster competition. But such wider understandings don't fit well with modern identity politics.

[indigochill]

The practical difficulty of government regulation as a means of maintaining competition is that when your government representatives are directly sponsored by the incumbents through campaign donations and lobbying, they're motivated to protect their sponsors.

However, when incumbents over-invest in the status quo, if a newcomer can change the game then they can disrupt the incumbent and take over the industry. For example, Blockbuster was once the dominant name in video rentals in the US. Then along came a little rent-by-mail service called Netflix. I suspect something similar will happen to ISPs once we figure out how to remove the current reliance on their physical infrastructure. I have no faith that American politicians will regulate for competition in that field at least while the current incumbents remain the top dogs.

For anyone curious about the actual spending on lobbying and donations, here are the numbers:

AT&T (#9 in lobbying spending in 2016): https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000076

Verizon: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000079

Comcast: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2016&id=D...

Charter: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2016&id=D...

[Osiris]

I was told that in Japan there is a strict separation between infrastructure and ISP services, which has allowed for a lot of competition between ISPs despite the fact that they all share the same infrastructure.

In capitalism, any market with a sufficiently high barrier to entry will always end in a monopoly in the absence of regulation.

[fmihaila]

> despite

Because.