|
|
|
|
|
|
by jonhuber
3108 days ago
|
|
|
Net neutrality is the solution to a sub problem. Content companies having a monopoly on the last mile. We should really be pushing for structural separation and ownership rules of communications infrastructure, which I suppose is the end game of net neutrality anyways. Like roads, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have competition in the last mile space, two fibers/cables/etc running to the same dwelling. New Zealand and Australia have created infrastructure companies for creating a whole sale last mile network. Like deregulated electric or gas, the infrastructure provider is responsible for handling the physical connection while service provider provides the actual service over the infrastructure. In the case of internet in Australia, the NBN provides the fiber connection and the ISP provides network connectivity. It is even possible to have two ISPs over the single fiber. Got a terrible ISP. Churn and burn. However, if all the ISPs are terrible, then you probably still need net neutrality. Really, you need both. Structural separation, so at least there is some choice. Net neutrality rules, so companies can't monetize their customer. Disclaimer: Australia's NBN is a bit of a mess due to politics, but New Zealand did it right with UFB. |
|
|
Right: eliminating the synergies between owning content and owning ISPs makes it so there is little reason for a firm to want to be both an ISP and a content provider; it won't instantly cause existing combined entities to split up, but firms seeking to concentrate on lines of business with natural synergies will eventually head that way.