We Need A Broadband Competition Act, Not A Net Neutrality Act

from the get-out-the-wrecking-ball dept

Andy Kessler has put together a fantastic editorial for the Wall Street Journal explaining why Markey's attempt at legislating Net Neutrality won't do any good. As we pointed out when Markey first announced it, this plan seems to be focused on the symptoms, not the real problem (and, no, just having the FCC step in to slap the wrists of neutrality violators doesn't help either). The real problem, of course, is the lack of real competition in the broadband market. Kessler suggests that we shouldn't be focused on Net Neutrality, but should wipe out the bogus regulations that are currently restricting competition in the broadband market. That means not going through a painful localized franchising process or making it a pain to get the rights of way necessary to install equipment necessary for next generation broadband. It means actually opening up the market to competition, not creating subsidies and regulations that mean only the incumbents can play. Not that politicians are about to do anything like this, but it sure would be nice.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, ed markey, net neutrality, rights of way


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    4-80-sicks, 26 Feb 2008 @ 11:02am

    The fact that there are five ISPs or a million would not change that desire to triple dip.

    It may not change the desire, but it does change the ability. I'm going to use the ISP that doesn't triple dip. There's a lot more chance for that one (or five) to exist out of ten companies, than there is out of two.

    Then why do the neutrality laws with phones work so well?

    Are there actually laws? I don't know, but I think it's more like the market. If AT&T wants to triple dip as you're describing, I'm going to use Sprint or Qwest.

    And your argument could be used against criminal laws too. Why pass criminal laws? Why should murder be illegal? Let the market work out who should be alive and dead. Please explain why that's wrong without dipping into some subjective morality.

    What? What the hell?? I don't even know what to say. I didn't say there should be no laws. You have drawn my opinion about endless regulation of communications to a very illogical conclusion. Think about all the regulations and subsidies that allow AT&T (DSL) or Comcast (cable) to be my only choices for broadband and try to draw equivalents to criminal law. I dare you. Try to have a little rationality, please.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.