Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 players in most markets? A decade? The Internet will already be useless by then if Net Neutrality is eliminated.

One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted.

The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.

Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition.

Your second statement is just wrong...

Competition isn't the end goal; what we really want is the service and prices to be at least as good as what a competitive market would yield. Google Fiber may not be all the way there, but it's close enough to be a great interim option.

Yes, Google fiber looks great right because they are only in a couple of markets. Building out nation wide would cost a lot of money and time...

Google already runs most people's cell phones, search, browser, email, mapping service, etc. so it seems to me being one's ISP also potentially could be really bad.

The alternative you seem to propose is potentially dangerous legislation that will effectively be permanent and the model for a lot of other countries.

And you are not taking into account that any large-scale legislation will not take affect immediately and will likely be a ramp-up style similar to the Healthcare Laws spread out over 5-8 years.

In that same timespan, a lot can be done to help foster new players in the ISP market and spur a lot of fierce competition. I think option 2 is the better option to really get better service with lower prices.

Nothing that has been regulated has ever been done better than the free market. USPS (that is changing now that they are privatish), DMV, POTS lines, Utility companies (power, water, gas), etc. We have seen time over time over time that when a market gets heavily regulated, innovation almost completely stops and things settle to a "just barely good enough". Do most US citizens have a choice of power companies? Nope. Land Line telephone providers? Nope. etc. Whens the last time your power company called you and said we're going to slash prices on all power because company X is slashing prices and we really value your business? Never.

Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong...

All regulation is not "bad" or you must be totally ignorant on the history of regulation in the US and having some regulation does not mean being "heavily regulated".

Nothing that has been regulated has ever done better then the free market? One example you give, the USPS is certainly not becoming better because of being privatized. You must be under 25... At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents. It WAS THE MODEL for the rest of the world. Now? They raise first class postage like every six months and keep entering into more deals with direct marketers to distribute even more junk mail to us. Not better...

Hey, totally government controlled nor a "free market" is going to be the answer. Any solution will take time and one thing we can't do right now is end Net Neutrality which will only make things worse. I have said this like 10x now in this thread...

> At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents.

Is this your version of, "back in my day a candy bar was a nickle"?

Because the last time a stamp was 10 cents was 1975.. which would be 43 cents today.

It's called inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag...

You say with inflation the price of a first class stamp should be 43 cents? It's 49 cents right now...

Thanks, your link seems to prove my point... Approximately, in the first 100 years of the postal service the price went form 2 cents to 10 cents which is a 5x increase. In the year 1971, which is when the government stopped managing the postal service (this is close to our year of 1975) the price has increased another 5x to today but that has only been 39 years.

Inflation has only been one factor in the changing price of first class postage over the years but thanks for your comment...

On that same page, you'll see an inflation adjusted chart of postage prices since the postage service started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag...

The light purple is the inflation adjusted price (2008 prices); and the dark purple is the nominal price.

That is remarkably flat (inflation adjusted).

Fact is, it's been roughly 45 cents to mail a letter since the postal service began.

Sure, there were times when it was cheaper.. but it was ~43 cents in 1890; 40 cents in 1975 (2008 prices); and 45 cents today (49 cents is 45 cents in 2008 prices.. which is what the chart uses).

I guess my argument has not been clear...

I am glad you are good at reading Wikipedia charts but ONCE AGAIN inflation has never been the only factor in first class stamp pricing then or now. Sure, over the long term the cost of anything will tend to match inflation. I have been mainly talking about recent short term pricing of stamps...

The original argument (by Alupis) was that the government privatizing the postal system has been making things better for consumers (compared to when it was a government agency). It has not... There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. The reason has been pension mandates by the government (due to politics) and the decline of first class mail usage.

First class mail service has never been overly profitable which is why I argued a essential service like that is better run by the government (especially since the post office is not totally an independent enterprise anyway) and not a private profit-driven organization. The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) if they were still running the post office which means stamp prices would not have keep pace with inflation (over the last 100 years) incidentally. They would most likely have addressed the pension mandate and taken other measures to keep stamp prices more stable (to not piss off the consumers aka voters). It is also doubtful they would be making deals with direct marketers to flood us with more junk mail.

> There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. ... The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history)

A stamp in 2001 was 34 cents. That would be 45 cents in 2013 money.

The same price as a stamp in 1890.

And while you blame USPS for adjusted prices for inflation, it's actually mandated by the government. USPS prices are tied to the CPI-U index by Congress.

So clearly the government is happy to raise prices, since they've mandated this, and they've kept a stamp at roughly 45 cents for over 100 years.

The fact (or not) that stamp prices have been increasing along side inflation is irrelevant and is still not (and shouldn't be) the only factor in raising prices! What don't you understand about raising prices "because of inflation" for an essential, constitutionally mandated service is not good for consumers aka citizens?

My whole point(again) is that first class mail delivery should be handled by the government and NOT privatized. The government is supposed to handle certain things for it's citizens. Let's say in 1965 (when the postal service was running the postal service) paper costs, because of some crisis jumped 1000%. The government would not have raised the price of a stamp 1000%. A private postal service would have had to (not exactly because supply and demand is also in play) which I hope you understand.

Thank God we outlawed poll taxes and didn't privatize polling places. Adjusted for inflation, we would probably be paying $50 to vote on election day.

We won't get into why the government requires USPS prices be tied to the CPI-U or the pension fund mandates. Hint, union busting and lobbing money via UPS and FedEx.

This wasn't really even about the postal service but why the government needs to regulate ISPs. The Internet is now an essential service and citizens shouldn't be at the whim of monopolized private companies.

Well, this thread has been beat to death but thanks for playing...

Even though USPS isn't "managed" by the government, the government still meddles in its affairs: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

> You must be under 25

Great to see you fall to personal attacks in attempt of proving your point. You are wrong btw...

The point I'm making and the point you're missing is that any regulations/legislation is not going to change anything overnight. It will take years, no matter what it done. Perhaps longer with legislation due to the speed of government.

A slowly rolled out, 5-8 year legislated plan is a lot worse than a slowly ramped up 5-8 year private business competition and proliferation.

When businesses compete, the consumer wins. When businesses get regulated but still have no competition, the consumer loses. You seem to be completely glossing over this very important point. We need more competition -- not more regulation.

One does not simply regulate their way into competition.

> At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents

There are realities here you are not addressing. Dramatic increase in gasoline prices -- dramatic decrease in volume of mail, to name a few. This is why the USPS system is struggling today, and the reason they've been allowed to mostly "go private". The old system was also heavily subsidized by the US Gov't, which isn't happening anymore.

If you look at package mail transport (since only USPS can deliver letters to mailboxes), the competition is fierce between USPS, FedEX and UPS. Often times, UPS/FedEX are a lot cheaper to send a package through. (I know because I work for an distribution company w/ warehouse). We've seen some initiatives from USPS to recapture the package shipment market since they went privatish with their "if it fits, it ships campaign", but they still have a long ways to go. This is a great example where private companies in competition have way outbeat the regulated portions in the same industry.

You're "we should regulate today to save tomorrow" attitude holds no water here. Contrary, we should develop today to save tomorrow; develop more competition.

Saying "you must be under 25" counts as a personal attack? Dude, the Internet may be a little to intense for you. My apologizes if that really offended you...

I don't know what 5-8 year legislated plan you are talking about. My immediate concern is preserving Net Neutrality (the way the Internet has always worked) and that can be corrected right now with the reclassification of ISPs. That is only step one...

The USPS should have been split up... First class mail delivery (no profit) run by the government and a private entity for package delivery. They could have shared resources and faculties. Requiring UPS and FedEx to also do first class mail delivery would have been another idea. Just privatizing the USPS with the burden of first class mail delivery and thinking they will ever be able to compete with UPS and FedEx in the long run was stupid.