Comment by joeyaiello | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joeyaiello | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality.

I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it).

As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue".

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure.

For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account.

Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.

A large portion of the costs of building last-mile infrastructure come from regulations imposed by local governments.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...

which may serve more big investors building yet more sprawling suburbs than regular people

Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.

> the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi

Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

> Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?

Either that or it hires private individuals and pays them to do it. What is your point? In either case, the govt is making the resource-allocation choice.

Your point is well taken, but if memory serves, the specific technologies listed were developed by private corporations and industry consortiums. Would be interested to see a fact checked history on this, however.

> Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys

Except, all the evidence throughout history has shown this never to be the case. It never, ever works. It's what the big companies want you to believe to you'll buy into whatever ideology they're selling. It's libertarian nonsense with no basis in reality. It's a Koch brothers talking point - they literally live by that mantra.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com