"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things.

The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainly there's no hope of fixing it by December 14th.

"bad electoral system."

First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig

Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Yeah, but after fixing the "smaller" issues, we tend to forget about the bigger issues. Also, we lose leverage, and the problem quickly becomes abstract.

I don't see this happening at all. The smaller issues help people understand the importance of the bigger ones.

There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false.

All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax breaks are provided.

Telecom is not a free market and never has been. Telecoms are not really private companies in any unfettered free market sense. They're closer to the status of majority-of-revenue government contractors like Lockheed or Raytheon. Add the revolving door they have with representatives and they're almost like state-owned industries.

Net neutrality is there to prevent a state-backed oligopoly from using its position to stifle competition in the free market. In other words it's a pro-free-market regulation that exists to protect the free market from interference by state monopolies.

I personally think it would be just as good to eliminate barriers to entry for broadband and wireless competition, but unfortunately on a pragmatic level (at least in the USA) this is orders of magnitude more difficult politically. So net neutrality is the best solution for now.

Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise.

I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality.

The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad and overbroad in its attempts to increase competition. Sure, a cable ISP shouldn't be allowed to block netflix. But net neutrality goes further than that and doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive. On the other hand, net neutrality doesn't stop your ISP from putting data caps or just increasing prices on users.

Reducing barriers to entry is far better for increasing competition.

> I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS.

That's lovely for you, but here's the whole picture: In the latest FCC Internet Access Services report, 13% of census blocks with housing units (that is, empty census blocks are not considered) have three or more broadband providers. 37% percent have only one option, and 21% have no provider at all. Having a choice is not the norm.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...

> In the latest FCC Internet Access Services report, 13% of census blocks with housing units (that is, empty census blocks are not considered) have three or more broadband providers. 37% percent have only one option, and 21% have no provider at all. Having a choice is not the norm.

You left out the percentage with two providers, which must be 29% (100-37-21-13), which means that 42% of housing units have a choice between two or more providers. That's not the norm, and it should be better, but given how much of the U.S. is empty space it's not utterly terrible.

> doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive.

Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.

Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth. Something akin to bitcoin transaction fees. If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.

Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works. Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers. It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

> Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth.

That's a really, really contrived example.

Firstly, it assumes that bandwidth is scarce, which it isn't in the access network.

Secondly, the incentives don't align. Everybody would bid maximum bid during prime time and zero at all other times, which is the same as not running an auction at all.

You either have the bandwidth to serve your customers during prime time or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Any other examples you'd like to try?

> If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.

No, it does not make sense. It's not Netflix that wants to stream video in real time. It's the broadband subscriber that sends a request to Netflix and asks for a stream to be delivered to them.

The subscriber already pays for the broadband and the ability to stream. It is not reasonable to ask them to pay more. Also, in this day and age, in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for an Internet connection classified as broadband not to be able to stream video.

> Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works.

No, it's really not.

> Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers.

This is incorrect. CDNs may pay ISPs to colocate on-net on their networks, or they may not. CDNs may just as well colocate for free or not colocate at all. An ISP may peer with a CDN or get access to a CDN via an IX.

Nothing says the CDN has to pay. In fact, the ISP might even pay the CDN for a node. Or the ISP may even not qualify for a CDN node.

CDNs have nothing to do with fast lanes. CDNs work because of physical proximity.

> It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

A lot of content is delivered via CDNs, but not necessarily on-net.

I agree that reducing barriers is better, but in the USA it's unworkable. It requires haggling with a patchwork of thousands and thousands of state, county, and city governments and even things like homeowners' associations.

Telecom networks also qualify as a natural monopoly to some extent. Allowing any startup to form a telecom and try to deploy their own infrastructure would look like this:

https://news.lovepattayathailand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017...

The lowest hanging fruit for real deregulation and opening of the broadband market would be to get the FCC to nuke analog TV and open the UHF spectrum for last mile Internet access with a policy that is very pro-competition. For example they could limit TX power in some bands to no more than what it takes to get ~5km range and require some kind of minimal few-hundred-per-year license to use them in a given geo-region. That would allow anyone to start a last mile wireless ISP using commodity hardware and a single fiber uplink such as to a data center. But since this FCC is the definition of regulatory capture I highly doubt this will happen either. Pai and his FCC is completely in the pocket of entrenched telecoms and this kind of move would threaten them more than any kind of net neutrality regulation.

It's cultural.

Both the people in charge and those who put them there worship the production of money. Policies are selected based on whatever provides maximum revenue without other considerations, with the belief that a thriving economy requires this strategy.

The problem is that they think the best thing is to figure out how to make ISPs more money to increase the economy. However, what they aren't thinking about is how having net neutrality allows for companies like google and facebook to happen. Those companies are doing way more for the economy than ISPs ever have.

Constitutional reform of that nature in most countries makes the current battle over net neutrality in the US look like a piece of cake by comparison.

If you live in a State that allows for some kind of “entrenched” statutes that are more difficult to change (the US Constitution is one such example), pushing for a right to net neutrality on that basis is probably the path of least resistance. Of course some nations, like the U.K., unfortunately have no such thing (all statutes repealable/changeable with simple majority).

Exactly. It is clear from this who lawmakers pay attention to and it is not the people.

I would like regulation around online advertising and web analytics. I really get the impression that half the traffic on a modern commercial is the stuff you don't see, some of which is utterly malicious, and much of which is spyware.

That is what I would fix instead.