As I was thinking about the very real possibility that we may lose net neutrality protections soon, it occurred to me that it may not necessarily mean the death of equal access for customers. Just because ISPs would have the ability to heavily influence or even completely determine what you can see and can't see, doesn't necessarily mean it's in their interest to do so. I imagine most people would want neutrality so I would think that would present an appealing opportunity for some current ISPs, or for new entrants into the business. Unless all ISPs are on board with imposing limitations, there's no way they can prevent people from getting equal access. Or, would the main carriers be able to limit ISPs who use their networks, thus making it easier for a small group of big companies to control the content we see?
Quote:
With net neutrality in place this creates barriers for new and smaller ISPs from entering the market and creating competition. This competition will prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling certain content as most consumers won't stand for that and will find a new ISP. This is why the big ISPs are in favor of net neutrality, similar to why Wal-mart is in favor of increasing minimum wage as it hurts small businesses.
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
How does Net Neutrality prevent smaller/newer ISP's from entering the marketplace? What is preventing those ISP's from joining the marketplace is the cost of entry. It is REALLY expensive to build a network of fiber, or lease enough satellite real estate to serve a large customer base.
And sorry, the big ISP's are fighting Net Neutrality, unless you think Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al don't qualify as big ISP's.
I suggest you read up on what it all really means, its a very misunderstood issue. I was a big supporter of net neutrality until I took the time to do some research on the pros and cons of it. Based on that, I am of the opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons. Nothing I can say here will change your mind, I'm not particularly interested in changing your mind either. If you really want to understand, do the research, it is worth the time. You may still disagree with me, but you will understand what I am saying better than me trying to explain it to you. This is not a skill I am particularly good at in this format.
Quote:
In comment 13700571 Hades07 said:
Quote:
With net neutrality in place this creates barriers for new and smaller ISPs from entering the market and creating competition. This competition will prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling certain content as most consumers won't stand for that and will find a new ISP. This is why the big ISPs are in favor of net neutrality, similar to why Wal-mart is in favor of increasing minimum wage as it hurts small businesses.
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
How does Net Neutrality prevent smaller/newer ISP's from entering the marketplace? What is preventing those ISP's from joining the marketplace is the cost of entry. It is REALLY expensive to build a network of fiber, or lease enough satellite real estate to serve a large customer base.
And sorry, the big ISP's are fighting Net Neutrality, unless you think Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al don't qualify as big ISP's.
I suggest you read up on what it all really means, its a very misunderstood issue. I was a big supporter of net neutrality until I took the time to do some research on the pros and cons of it. Based on that, I am of the opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons. Nothing I can say here will change your mind, I'm not particularly interested in changing your mind either. If you really want to understand, do the research, it is worth the time. You may still disagree with me, but you will understand what I am saying better than me trying to explain it to you. This is not a skill I am particularly good at in this format.
Dude....... I'm the VP of IT for my company. I have been fighting against eliminating net neutrality for almost two years. I have read practically everything there is to read on net neutrality.
Don't come off as me being ignorant when I didn't have totally wrong information in my posts, like the fact that big ISPs are for net neutrality (it's the complete opposite).
I know what I'm talking about. You? Not so much.
Quote:
in order to have a choice of broadband providers? I don't think I personally know anybody who's not monopolized.
EUROPE!
Yep according to Broadbandchoices.co.uk I've got the choice of 42 different providers at my address. Although in practice since there's only two main line providers (Virgin and BT Openreach) I only have one provider (Virgin who have a private cable network in the area) who can give me 300mb/s, the BT Openreach line tops out at 82mb/s. Any ISP can provide services via the Openreach line but it's FTTC and they've not updated my local cabinet yet (probably because Virgin is so common here)
I suggest you read up on what it all really means, its a very misunderstood issue. I was a big supporter of net neutrality until I took the time to do some research on the pros and cons of it. Based on that, I am of the opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons. Nothing I can say here will change your mind, I'm not particularly interested in changing your mind either. If you really want to understand, do the research, it is worth the time. You may still disagree with me, but you will understand what I am saying better than me trying to explain it to you. This is not a skill I am particularly good at in this format.
I understand it pretty well, I have a number of cable and ISP clients. You asked earlier why Comcast would spend money to create competition for itself, except that is not what net neutrality does. The Internet has always been a toll-free expressway, net neutrality helps protect that. Eliminating net neutrality puts tolls up on the freeway, but only for those consumers the ISP chooses. How that creates competition for the ISP is beyond me, but I am more than willing to hear you out.
do you know how an ISP works ? the fact that cable must be strung servers must be bought and painted -- which requires huge amount of money and regulatory approval? these small ISP don't exist and will never exist .. that is like saying smaller power companies will spring up and offer you cheaper electricity if it wasn't for government regulations.
by taking away Net Neutrality the online information will be controlled by corporations you are literally arguing for the very thing that will make your fevered nightmare come true .
whatever news outlets you use to get your information I suggest you turn them off. ..
Dude, you're way off on this. Having net neutrality or eliminating net neutrality will do nothing to foster competition. You really need to learn more about this... Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars to create more competition for itself???
I don't think you understand what net neutrality is.
Quote:
Dude, you're way off on this. Having net neutrality or eliminating net neutrality will do nothing to foster competition. You really need to learn more about this... Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars to create more competition for itself???
I don't think you understand what net neutrality is.
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I'm sorry, but you DON'T understand. You don't understand better than me, nor do you understand better than most. You need to read up on this and do some research rather than reading whatever pamphlet Comcast is handing you.
Quote:
In comment 13700607 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700571 Hades07 said:
Quote:
With net neutrality in place this creates barriers for new and smaller ISPs from entering the market and creating competition. This competition will prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling certain content as most consumers won't stand for that and will find a new ISP. This is why the big ISPs are in favor of net neutrality, similar to why Wal-mart is in favor of increasing minimum wage as it hurts small businesses.
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
How does Net Neutrality prevent smaller/newer ISP's from entering the marketplace? What is preventing those ISP's from joining the marketplace is the cost of entry. It is REALLY expensive to build a network of fiber, or lease enough satellite real estate to serve a large customer base.
And sorry, the big ISP's are fighting Net Neutrality, unless you think Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al don't qualify as big ISP's.
I suggest you read up on what it all really means, its a very misunderstood issue. I was a big supporter of net neutrality until I took the time to do some research on the pros and cons of it. Based on that, I am of the opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons. Nothing I can say here will change your mind, I'm not particularly interested in changing your mind either. If you really want to understand, do the research, it is worth the time. You may still disagree with me, but you will understand what I am saying better than me trying to explain it to you. This is not a skill I am particularly good at in this format.
Dude....... I'm the VP of IT for my company. I have been fighting against eliminating net neutrality for almost two years. I have read practically everything there is to read on net neutrality.
Don't come off as me being ignorant when I didn't have totally wrong information in my posts, like the fact that big ISPs are for net neutrality (it's the complete opposite).
I know what I'm talking about. You? Not so much.
Quote:
I suggest you read up on what it all really means, its a very misunderstood issue. I was a big supporter of net neutrality until I took the time to do some research on the pros and cons of it. Based on that, I am of the opinion that the pros far outweigh the cons. Nothing I can say here will change your mind, I'm not particularly interested in changing your mind either. If you really want to understand, do the research, it is worth the time. You may still disagree with me, but you will understand what I am saying better than me trying to explain it to you. This is not a skill I am particularly good at in this format.
I understand it pretty well, I have a number of cable and ISP clients. You asked earlier why Comcast would spend money to create competition for itself, except that is not what net neutrality does. The Internet has always been a toll-free expressway, net neutrality helps protect that. Eliminating net neutrality puts tolls up on the freeway, but only for those consumers the ISP chooses. How that creates competition for the ISP is beyond me, but I am more than willing to hear you out.
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Eliminating net neutrality will create zero competition on its own. It just ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Quote:
In comment 13700671 Hades07 said:
Quote:
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Deregulation of it increases competition. If I said it will, then I mis-spoke, what I meant was it will increase the opportunity. Most are of the opinion that even if the opportunity is there, nobody will be able to significantly enter the market. So you end up with the same big companies controlling the internet access with no regulation and no competition. I am of the opinion that deregulation is the only way to get competition in the market, however unlikely; and with an opportunity someone will take it. This competition is the only way to have the consumer control on the market, not government or monopoly control.
Can you please give a specific example or hypothetical example of how net neutrality rules have dissuaded or would dissuade the entry into the market of a small ISP vs. how they'd be able to enter more easily without the rules?
Quote:
In comment 13700709 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700671 Hades07 said:
Quote:
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Deregulation of it increases competition. If I said it will, then I mis-spoke, what I meant was it will increase the opportunity. Most are of the opinion that even if the opportunity is there, nobody will be able to significantly enter the market. So you end up with the same big companies controlling the internet access with no regulation and no competition. I am of the opinion that deregulation is the only way to get competition in the market, however unlikely; and with an opportunity someone will take it. This competition is the only way to have the consumer control on the market, not government or monopoly control.
Can you please give a specific example or hypothetical example of how net neutrality rules have dissuaded or would dissuade the entry into the market of a small ISP vs. how they'd be able to enter more easily without the rules?
#196 IS NET NEUTRALITY GOOD? Ben Shapiro and Cassie Jaye | Louder With Crowder - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I'm watching the video you provided, but FYI this article doesn't actually appear to have anything to do with Net Neutrality. It's just saying "Big Business" isn't bad.
I would rather take the advice of Sir Tim Berners-Lee
If you don't know who he is ..
You are on BBI because of him .
Opinion: In Defence of Net Neutrality | Sir Tim Berners-Lee - ( New Window )
NN is by definition is a regulation on ISPs. Do you know how lobbying works? Do you know what an ISP is? Do you know what a Supply/Demand curve is?
What information are you missing?
Quote:
In comment 13700730 Hades07 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700709 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700671 Hades07 said:
Quote:
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Deregulation of it increases competition. If I said it will, then I mis-spoke, what I meant was it will increase the opportunity. Most are of the opinion that even if the opportunity is there, nobody will be able to significantly enter the market. So you end up with the same big companies controlling the internet access with no regulation and no competition. I am of the opinion that deregulation is the only way to get competition in the market, however unlikely; and with an opportunity someone will take it. This competition is the only way to have the consumer control on the market, not government or monopoly control.
Can you please give a specific example or hypothetical example of how net neutrality rules have dissuaded or would dissuade the entry into the market of a small ISP vs. how they'd be able to enter more easily without the rules?
Here, Ben Shapiro does a much better job of explaining than I ever could, sorry. I do believe this is the right video, if not, let me know and I will see about finding the right one. I don't have time to watch and check it right now though. #196 IS NET NEUTRALITY GOOD? Ben Shapiro and Cassie Jaye | Louder With Crowder - ( New Window )
I think the person actually talking about Net Neutrality in this video is Steven Crowder, not Ben Shapiro. He sort of drifts off into a general discussion of the evils of government intervention during the second half of the segment, but before that he raises two issues:
1. Detrimental impacts on small ISPs.
2. Raises cost of transmission across the board by forcing ISPs to charge one price rather than being able to adjust to their business needs.
For the first, some searching seems to indicate there are actually two potential issues: increasing costs for small ISPs and discouraging new infrastructure construction because of an inability to recoup costs. The search results for the effects of the regulations on small ISPs look mixed:
Small ISPs Say FCC’s Net Neutrality Order is Bad for Business
30 small ISPs urge Ajit Pai to preserve Title II and net neutrality rules
The FCC says net neutrality destroys small ISPs. So has it?
For infrastructure investment, there does appear to have been a downswing, but the impacts are unclear (i.e., is a small downswing bad enough to justify removing the regulatory regime):
Broadband Myth Series, Part 1: What Financial Data Shows About the Impact of Title II on ISP Investment
The transmission issue has a lot literature on both sides, but it all appears to be hypothetical/speculative. I haven't been able to find anything that scientifically analyzes the effect on cost. This article mentions that costs have declined, but it doesn't provide any evidence that this was helped or hurt by the Net Neutrality regulations in force (Broadband speeds have soared under net neutrality rules, cable lobby says). There are obviously other issues at play here, but I just wanted to address the ones referenced in the video you linked.
1. End net neutrality
2. ???
3. Lots of competition
Seriously, ending net neutrality is just a payday opportunity for cable companies who have contributed mightily to congress to get this chance. My own congressperson, in favor of ending it, takes among the most from the cable companies. Big surprise.
I'm not an expert and admittedly am relying upon Wikipedia for background, but it looks like these rules have existed in some form for awhile now.
Net neutrality in the United States - ( New Window )
The current status quo effectively is the middle ground. Technology, resource advantages and the natural pull of ad revenues give big companies natural edges in delivering content. So the pull to the extreme is from the side that's looking for a dramatic change, yet can't really articulate the immediate need or benefits.
It definitely pisses me off considering how much I pay them monthly. They deny it, but the facts are there and easy to corroborate, and after researching it a bit, I've found thousands of other Comcast subscribers reporting the same behavior. It wasn't always this way. Last Winter my speeds were the same regardless of if I was using an encrypted connection. But shortly after the change in Oval Office politics, they apparently started throttling connections they could not easily monitor.
If we can get a "wifi signals cause cancer" in here, that would complete the trifecta.
The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
Agree with you.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Quote:
I think the more likely scenario is they still distribute HBO to anyone that wants it, but just charge providers like Amazon even more to allow customers to access it, and thus those costs are passed on to the average consumer.
There's nothing stopping them from doing that today. IIRC, the HBO streaming on Amazon is $15/month.
I guess they'd have slightly more leverage to increase that if net neutrality ends, but I'm not sure consumers would be willing to go much higher than that.
Judging by what consumers are willing to pay for the draconian state of cellular phone voice and data plan contracts, I'd say there's room for them to squeeze more blood out.
Throw in cable TV. I have people are shelling out $400+ per month for cable, internet and cellular service. I have my family on Cricket Wireless....5 phones 5GB/Mo per phone of data....$100. Service has been fine(AT&T). What is getting expensive is internet access at home. We cut the cord 4 years ago and the cost of 75 GB internet and local TV access is up over $100 again.
I seriously tried to get his reasoning from him, but he would never say anything more than "I'm not good at explaining it". Somehow, he's good at telling us we're wrong, even those of us who interact with NN for a living.
It almost seems like he has a set of talking points about NN and knows nothing of the topic. But that could never happen!
They were unwritten guidelines in the early days of the Internet, but with the consolidation of ISP's into behemoth companies with little to no regional competition, the concern was that these ISP's wouldn't adhere to those guidelines.
About 30 websites generate about half the Internet traffic. Before net neutrality happened (about 2 years ago) the large websites and the ISP's got together and negotiated a solution to both their problems. They created things called peering. The large website (Google, Facebook etc) moved their routers/servers into the ISP's giving them direct access to the end user. Taking Google/Facebook etc traffic off the backbone. Thus freeing up that bandwidth for all the other traffic.
These companies did what all freely run businesses do. They both had an issue. They sat down and negotiated a solution that works for both. That's the free market doing what it does.
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
They haven't done it for two reasons:
1) All of the streaming services today (with the possible exception of Netflix) didn't really exist and/or didn't achieve such heights in popularity as they do now. Nowadays (and I forget the exact figure, so don't hold me to this), at least half of TV/movie viewers get their content through streaming resources.
2) Cable companies and entertainment companies weren't one and the same. Now there's a very real and dangerous reason to allow some content through freely and prohibit other content: direct competition/promotion and bargaining chips for delivery of content.
About 30 websites generate about half the Internet traffic. Before net neutrality happened (about 2 years ago) the large websites and the ISP's got together and negotiated a solution to both their problems. They created things called peering. The large website (Google, Facebook etc) moved their routers/servers into the ISP's giving them direct access to the end user. Taking Google/Facebook etc traffic off the backbone. Thus freeing up that bandwidth for all the other traffic.
These companies did what all freely run businesses do. They both had an issue. They sat down and negotiated a solution that works for both. That's the free market doing what it does.
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
I don't think you can draw the conclusions you're making from that article without addressing the other (arguably bigger) point it's making. That the ISPs are growing large enough to distort the market on their own. If I'm understanding the logic in the article, net neutrality is like a band-aid on a bigger problem that should more properly be addressed by regulations and/or legislation to foster competition among ISPs. So scrapping the former isn't an advisable policy move unless you also include the latter.
To address the ISP competition issues, the article proposes requiring free access among ISPs to all infrastructure. I'm not sure if they are advocating separating the infrastructure ownership from the ISPs or forcing large ISPs to allow smaller ones to have free access to their existing infrastructure. In either case, the article's point doesn't seem to be that we should just scrap net neutrality and let the free market decide.
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
Quote:
Truly. Unless you really think cable companies have your best interest at heart.The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Not true. Net neutrality was put in place about two years ago. They applied regulations written about telephone lines and applied it to the Internet.
Bingo! This is all a distraction.
Quote:
In comment 13700351 TJ said:
Quote:
in order to have a choice of broadband providers? I don't think I personally know anybody who's not monopolized.
EUROPE!
Yep according to Broadbandchoices.co.uk I've got the choice of 42 different providers at my address. Although in practice since there's only two main line providers (Virgin and BT Openreach) I only have one provider (Virgin who have a private cable network in the area) who can give me 300mb/s, the BT Openreach line tops out at 82mb/s. Any ISP can provide services via the Openreach line but it's FTTC and they've not updated my local cabinet yet (probably because Virgin is so common here)
And this what we in the States should be bitching about. 300mb/s! I have 10/2 and it costs me $60. I would love to have 42 options. Even if 40 of them where at 82mb/s.
local loop unbundling
right now Cable companies own the pipes and the regulators refuse to force them to allow anybody else to provide services over those pipes
if they did this then prices would drop and speeds would increase --