[phkahler]

>> The right way to solve the internet problem is "unbundling"; that is, the people who own the last mile lease it out to companies that sell you internet, video and other services.

That's terrible. The ISP should give me "internet access" which includes everything out there. They should not get to pick and chose what I can get.

>> If Comcast customers were getting a bad netflix experience they could switch to an ISP that gives a good one.

This is called competition. It's what you get with net neutrality. Since every ISP has to give you everything equally, the only way they can compete is by building better infrastructure and compete on ping time and bandwidth. This is how it should be. Allowing them to prioritize certain services for a fee (regardless of who pays) means allowing them to stagnate - in fact paying them to stagnate - which is bad for everyone.

[pyre]

> This is called competition. It's what you get with net neutrality.

You are stating that "Net Neutrality" will magically create competing ISPs in places where only a duopoly of <Cable Company> and <DSL Company> currently exist. Please explain to me how net neutrality will somehow affect things like local municipalities granting ISPs local monopolies. Or how "net neutrality" will allow new-comers to overcome the initial regulatory and capital investment hurdles to setting up a new ISP.

What you're missing is the "unbundling" is talking about forcing (e.g.) Comcast to lease it's "last-mile" lines out to competing ISPs. This means that competing ISPs don't need to invest in "last-mile" infrastructure. (If you don't understand what "last-mile" means, it would behoove you to look it up).

Net neutrality does play a part here in that if Comcast partners with Netflix, they could provide a better Netflix experience than a smaller ISP without bargaining power, but the lack of ISP competition is arguably a bigger problem and calling out "Net Neutrality" as the solution to all Internet connectivity woes doesn't help.

[phkahler]

>> Please explain to me how net neutrality will somehow affect things like local municipalities granting ISPs local monopolies. Or how "net neutrality" will allow new-comers to overcome the initial regulatory and capital investment hurdles to setting up a new ISP.

It doesn't. Local monopoly support from the government is a big problem, but it's also not the only problem. I actually have 3 options at my home and it doesn't seem to be causing an increase in service or a reduction in prices.

That said, as video moves to the internet and as the ISPs lose differentiation, we can hope for actual competition on access to what FCC regulation will make a commodity service. But I'm not entirely convinced that will happen either.

[toast0]

> This is called competition. It's what you get with net neutrality. Since every ISP has to give you everything equally, the only way they can compete is by building better infrastructure and compete on ping time and bandwidth. This is how it should be. Allowing them to prioritize certain services for a fee (regardless of who pays) means allowing them to stagnate - in fact paying them to stagnate - which is bad for everyone.

Access to everything equally is not physically possible; if we pretend it is physically possible, it's not logistically possible: no ISP is going to peer with all networks at all peering points; and no regulator is going to compel an ISP to peer with all networks at all peering points.

Unbundling is easy to define, and easy to regulate, and offers a way to get competition where it's most effective. Unfortunately, it seems to be not easy to put in place. The basic idea with unbundling is that last mile delivery is cost intensive, and has high barriers to entry, etc: a market solution isn't going to work: instead require that the last mile providers offer wholesale access to get packets to a centralized point (or points) where other providers can deliver the connectivity to rest of the networks. This actually makes sense: once you're at a carrier hotel, you have a large number of options to interconnect; getting from a central last-mile provider building to a carrier hotel is managable, but getting from each home to a specific building is capital intensive.

[jackmaney]

> no regulator is going to compel an ISP to peer with all networks at all peering points.

Then we need new--and more stringent--regulation.

[toast0]

You can't really regulate an impossible solution though.

Unbundling has a clear model that works (or is at least workable), look at the US between 1996 and 2004, or most of Europe now.

[rayiner]

Growth in internet speeds was way faster from 2004-present than from 1996 to 2004. In 1996, my parents had 28.8 kbps dial-up. In 2001, they got 256 kbps DSL. That's 10x over 5 years. In 2006, they got 50 mbps fiber. That's 200x over 5 years. See: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/sep11/cloonan_01a....

[DubiousPusher]

For various reasons, ISPs tend not to build competing infrastructure. Many municipalities grant time limited monopolies to Telecoms to get them to accelerate infrastructure construction. Also, after an ISP lays its lines and pays for them, it can make all future pricing decisions on the margin, meaning, it can price its service just above the cost of maintaining it. Another company will find it very difficult to incur the cost of construction and keep its price competitive.

I don't know enough about unbundling to say if I support it or not but I believe it has been pretty popular in countries that have adopted it.

[neohaven]

> That's terrible. The ISP should give me "internet access" which includes everything out there. They should not get to pick and chose what I can get.

That is not what last mile means.

[jackmaney]

> Since every ISP has to give you everything equally, the only way they can compete is by building better infrastructure and compete on ping time and bandwidth.

And customer service.

[JoeAltmaier]

and reliability.