freerange

SpamSandwich said:

suddenly newton said:

anton zuykov said:

suddenly newton said:

What happens when public policy is written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists. I oppose this change by the FCC. It does not serve the interest of the general public, nor does it protect the general public from corporate  shenanigans.

Verizon’s statement amounts to: trust us. Kill the regulations and protections and trust us not to be greedy about Internet fast lanes and “pay to play” access to content. Whoops, Apple didn’t pay Verizon a tithe, so we’re going to slow down your downloads from iTunes Store to a crawl. Apple Music is buffering? Aww, maybe sign up for music streaming from one of or “preferred partners” who’ve paid us for the privilege. Never trust the wolves to watch over the flock.

Why are you forgetting that there always be someone else to offer better plans and undercut that overly greedy company? That is how disruptions occur. Uber was not mandated by the gov-t, but it surely disrupted taxi industry for good. Don't like uber? Fine, don't use it.

I think others have already responded to you, but let me add my thoughts. If I understand your basic argument, it’s something like: “free markets always lead to outcomes that support the interest of consumers.” Correct me if I’m wrong about what you meant to say.

OK, you also mentioned Uber like it was some example of that. Really? In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers. Both companies threatened to leave town if the ordinance passed, plunging ride-sharing customers back to the era of early 00s. And both shutdown their services in Austin when the ordinance passed. You’d think (according to the free market theory) that if one of those companies left the other would gladly take over as the unchallenged monopoly in that market. But that’s not what happened: both acted in self-interest and fought against the interests of consumers, thinking that if they threatened to leave, it would make their customers think twice about voting for the measure. And they did leave to punish their customers for voting for the ordinance. That’s your free market in action. The free market did not create an outcome that protected consumers’ wishes.

The startups and non-profits that tried to fill the void left by Uber and Lyft leaving Austin never attained the mindshare or popularity of Uber and Lyft combined. Some 60% of former Uber and Lyft customers simply stopped using ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft were a duopoly, much like the limited or non-exist competition in residential broadband.

Here’s another examine more germane to the topic of net neutrality: in my apartment complex, I’m only allowed to have ONE cable/internet/phone provider. One. A local monopoly. Yes, regulations exist to prevent that, but loopholes also exist to allow it (I checked). Is that consumers want? Of course not. Is the free market providing it? Hmm... other apartments are doing the same thing. Cable companies are paying apartment owners a cut in order to gain exclusive monopolies to those properties. They’re all doing it in my local market. I should be able to pick where I want to live and have my choice between the few ISPs providing service to my city.

The nature of ISP service is that, due to infrastructure requirements, you’re lucky to have more than one or two for a particular market. A free market of one or two that would gladly gang up against the consumer (the way Uber and Lyft did in Austin) is not going to lead to outcomes that protect consumer interests.

Uber and Lyft both left Austin because of a hostile business climate. That doesn’t suggest collusion or monopoly of some kind or other. Why shouldn’t businesses leave a city, state or country if the business or regulatory climate becomes unworkable?

SpamSandwich said:

Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.

racerhomie said:

Good job FCC.
Let the competition commence.
The less regulation,the better.

SpamSandwich said:

Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.