You are right, there is no competition without choice. That has nothing to do with net neutrality. If this was the "encourage more local competition" act, then Farber probably wouldn't be worrying.

Setting aside innovation at the IP level, has your internet access improved over the years? Even in the Verizon/Time Warner duopoly I'm stuck in, I've gone from 768kb DSL to 10mb cable, to 75mb fios. Companies are driven existentially towards profits. When that doesn't mean creating value for the customer, then you typically don't have to look far to find rent seeking, monopolies, and misguided regulation.

I feel like many of the most fervent net neutrality supporters don't know what it means, and just feel like it is going lower their cable bill. Rude awakening ahead.

> You are right, there is no competition without choice. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Well, except it does. It has everything to do with NN. If you can't choose your ISP unless said ISP has agreements with, oh I don't know, the WB or Netflix or HBO (or whatever) then the competition has been stifled, or in terms your sponsors might understand better: freedoms have been curtailed. So, in short: Stop trying to mislead people.

Choice means more providers to choose from. Net neutrality is about the content on the wire. If it reduces congestion between Netflix and Comcast, great. But it still means people choose between slow DSL and expensive Cable. What will help is a third, fourth, and fifth options, and this doesn't help.

You don't need to be angry about it, no one is astroturfing, and no one spat on your mom. - grab a cold danish beer and enjoy one of your 5 broadband providers. Wish I had either option.

Why do you want to turn the internet into cable TV?

I don't. Watching TV on the internet is a waste of time. However, for some reason, Netflix congestion is perceived as such big problem that the government is taking over the internet.

What is the government taking over?

Why are there only one or two ISPs in your area? Because of regulation. Cable companies are government granted monopoly. The reason you don't have cable choice is that monopoly. Local phone service, similar thing, though regulations have opened up long distance access, only one company has the infrastructure. Wireless Broadband, similar thing, artificial scarcity created by regulation (spread spectrum would support hundreds of local services) and spectrum auctions literally selling regulated monopolies created out of thin air. And while they did offer multiple bands, they limited it to only 3 monopolies per a given area (and one company has the choice band while the other two have lesser bands.)

The only reason these companies have power to shape traffic is the federal and local governments have given them monopolies.

Your posts in this thread have had the woe-is-me scream of the right wing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being disingenuous when you're being wrong.

There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high. It's fantastically, stupefyingly expensive to run that much cable. There's a reason we as a country have paid for so much of it.

Wireless broadband and satellite are inferior goods and don't replace hardline connections. Even so, you seem to have this curious idea that spectrum usage isn't rivalrous...which is not exactly borne out by reality.

> There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high

Infrastructure and Internet service used to be separate businesses at one point, the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out. I had dozens of ISP choices when I signed up for DSL in 1998.

> the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out

This stinks of deregulation to me.

Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice.

EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?

We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers?

I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists of nothing more than the word "bullshit" and an assertion that I must be astroturfing. Labeling the argument without a counter argument and then labelling me.

Can't you do better?

Learn to read separate statements as separate. Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit.

In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular country).

(I readily acknowledge that my original post was perhaps a little hasty and inflammatory, but one gets tired of this shit.)

> "I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel...".

This has got to be the height of irony. See my posting history to see why you're Oh So very wrong.

Goodbye, I'll stop replying or acknowledging you from now on.

> Stop spewing bullshit.

> How's that astroturfing going for you?

Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News. Please stop.

While I can still reply and in retrospect: I sort-of agree. The astroturfing comment was out-of-line. I'm not sure "bullshit" can be construed as a personal attack, but... reprimand accepted nonetheless.