Still Little To Do About a Bad ISP

theY4Kman writes "The Washington Post reinforces the grim situation on Net Neutrality and limited ISP choices faced by Americans: 'The FCC's research shows that 78 percent of American households have access to only two land-based broadband providers and that 13 percent have one. Don't expect that to improve. Many competing DSL services have left the market, spurred by the end of line-sharing in 2005 and other corporate consolidations. A few months ago, for instance, AT&T elected to close its WorldNet DSL service. Meanwhile, technologies that were once promoted as alternatives to phone and cable-based services have flopped. City-wide WiFi access ... turned out to be a business bust. The power-line broadband that then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell lauded as having "great promise" in 2004 fared no better: Last week, Manassas voted to unplug its pioneering service. ... We have a situation full of lawyerly jargon, with risks that can't be dramatized by putting a sick kid on a stage. I hope you like your Internet provider, because you may be stuck with it for a while.'"

Comments

Of course

[TheSpoom]

All of the shutdowns, buyouts, prohibitive laws, monopoly over the lines, and other occurrences that killed competitors had nothing at all to do with the incumbent providers...

Regulation would fix this. The cost of entry into the broadband market is so prohibitively high that only the largest companies (e.g. Google) can even consider laying down a new broadband access grid. Line sharing is supposed to allow for open competition. But as usual, the ability of companies to donate millions of dollars, through various means, to campaign committees means our representatives listen to them, not us, and not common sense when their lobbyists put forward an anticompetitive bill.

Fix Washington, fix this. Like just about everything else.

Re:Of course

[drinkypoo]

How quickly we forget. Regulation created this mess; I highly doubt that regulation will be able fix this mess.

Bad, incompetent, non-oversighted, half-assed regulation which was never intended to serve the customer created this mess. But it's impossible for these businesses to exist in the absence of regulation, so clearly some form of regulation is necessary. Since the courts have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in nailing down corporations for their false claims (like "unlimited" internet) it seems as though it is especially necessary. Corporations are granted access to public right-of-way in order to provide these communications services; it seems as though they should provide for our needs in communication. Today that means high-speed internet access, and providing it to every citizen ought to be a priority. Further, permitting competition supports the consumer. Line sharing ought to be mandated once again, and corporations which have used technologies which make it difficult ought to be considered to have shot their own foot.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

How quickly we forget. Regulation created this mess

Bad regulation did. Here in the Netherlands we have a lot of regulation, and there are at least a dozen providers I can choose from. 20 MBit downstream connections cost ~20 Euro per month, and some providers offer up to 50 MBit downstream/5 MBit upstream over TV cable.

Re:Of course

[Spad]

Regulation of a market only works if the regulation is free from the influence of those operating in the market; in this case, as with the Banking sector, regulation doesn't solve anything because any corporations with something to lose will simply lobby to shape the regulation to their liking.

Broadband regulation has, on the whole, worked pretty well in Europe - here in the UK, forcing BT into LLU has led to an extremely competitive broadband market and so far, every time BT have looked to take advantage of the situation, OFCOM have smacked them down. If the government hadn't stepped in, we'd be in pretty much the same situation that the US is in; Cable via Virgin Media (where available) or ADSL via BT.

Re:Of course

[drinkypoo]

Sorry, I don't have all the answers. The only thing I know for certain is that complete deregulation is not the answer. It's obvious that communications can't exist in the absence of regulation; the need to run wires and/or to not step on each other's slices of radio spectrum demands some level thereof. The land belongs to the people via the nation. The spectrum, likewise. If the corporations are to be granted their use, then that use must serve the people. My motivation not to tear down the ugly telephone poles is based on two things, their value to me, and society's punishment for damaging them. My motivation not to tear down the radio towers that make RF communications less available to me is that they indeed permit me to use them under terms which are not too onerous to me, and of course, that punishment thing again. So to reiterate, telecommunications interests cannot exist without regulation. Why should this regulation not serve the people? Do you really believe that past failures to intelligently and usefully regulate suggest that we should give up trying? If we do, then we end up without telecommunications, or with customers converted into consumers whose only purpose is to serve corporations, as has already happened with television; consumers are the product, and they are sold to advertisers who are the customers; they bring their custom to the television network, and purchase our eyeballs from them.

Or in short, deregulation is a myth; there are only degrees of regulation. We can argue over the degree, but arguing over the need is meaningless.