Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom

Re:Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom by Zigurd on Thursday November 13, 2014 @08:24PM (#8605304)

> People mention the "unbundling" requirement as if its a panacea, comparing it to what has been done in Europe, but ignore what makes that policy work in places like the U.K.--the company that owns the wires is a sanctioned monopoly, protected from competition, that is guaranteed return on investment through statutory means.

That's called a utility. Why not do it that way? Then you have a market among retailers. Then you don't need regulation because the one's that dick around with your streams can be selected out of the market.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom by icebraining on Thursday November 13, 2014 @08:55PM (#8605424)

What's the incentive for the utility to keep upgrading the wires?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom by rayiner on Thursday November 13, 2014 @09:30PM (#8605537)

The way it usually works is that the monopoly petitions the regulatory authority to build infrastructure, and then gets some guaranteed rate of return on the money they spend. There's lots of ways to do it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom by sp_nster on Thursday November 13, 2014 @10:22PM (#8605664)

Domestically, this is called a tariff. The local carriers file them with the local public utility commissions. They are all posted publicly and outline the service, capability, features and customer costs.

Someone here probably knows, but I am sure any service provider (LEC, CLEC, Municipality) has to file tariffs in order to get approval to deliver service.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Net Neutrality Is Just a Symptom by wmf on Thursday November 13, 2014 @09:14PM (#8605491)

Maybe that's an argument for fiber. Gigabit that never gets upgraded is still gigabit.

[ Parent | on HN ]