13351482:bieberhole69. said:
As much as I hate government intervention in the economy I feel like this is for the better. Internet is now a necessity, not a luxury.
For those saying it discourages competition, you have to realize that ISPs do not compete in a perfectly competitive marketplace. There are very high barriers to entry, and if multiple companies were building the same broadband infrastructure into the same home they would be forced to charge enormous amounts of money to cover costs, which would result in higher costs for everyone.
Therefore, the government should regulate internet as a natural monopoly, much like they do for other utilities. This is basic economics taught in any entry-level economics course.
A few points: in the states, we have what are essentially lines of demarcation where charter does not compete with TWC, Comcast doesn't compete with Charter, etc. etc. mix and match those as you like with cable guys. Their competition (as they define it) are from 3 national groups (i.e., not regionally restricted groups): the national telecom operators (AT&T, Centurylink, Verizon), the Satellite television guys (Dish, DIRECTV), and the newly emerging Over the Top (OTT) players: Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. There are reasons to debate this, but this is what they say is their real competition. This is their "reasoning" for not expanding nationally in all markets, for example. Additionally, most cable co's are very, very wary of breaking a subscriber threshold larger than 30% of all broadband / video subscribers, for various reasons.
What I think you are forgetting are a few things:
1) in other markets (such as the UK and some of Europe), certain telecoms (BT, the still state owned incumbant in the UK example) is required BY LAW to allow other companies to provide broadband on their existing broadband pipes. This is called as operating as an FVNO (or MVNO), which means Fixed (Mobile) Virtual Network Operator. This encourages competition and cheaper prices.
2). The barriers to entry are negated by increased competition in a mature business market. The saturation point of broadband customers is likely peaking. Consumers will gravitate towards the best service at the lowest price. This gives the advantage to the most efficient operator at the lowest price. Which is good for consumers. The increased costs at the "last mile" are more negligible than you think. Think google fiber.
The Obama administration is doing some good things on this front. Namely, they have made it legal, by executive order, for municipalities to build their own fiber networks. This is great, because it encourages competition at a local level for broadband. This used to be ILLEGAL in a large swath of the country. Incredible what lobbying can accomplish.
This is a super complicated issue with varying shades of grey. no doubt. It is the convergence of one's political beliefs on expression, equal treatment, government intervention / regulation, corporate vs. state owned enterprises, basic human liberties, capitalism, public funding for private investment, and a whole slew of other topics (for example, it should shock you that lower income neighborhoods are drastically underserved when it comes to broadband. why?).
Research, read, learn, vote, speak up.
