Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2018 at 7:47 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | Infrastructure is expensive. Even for Google. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 0:48 | comment | added | Jerbot | @wizzwizz4 Allow parallel infrastructure on public rights-of-way. If you require that a company assures physical installation does not affect other utilities, does not unduly blight public spaces, and will not be abandoned without being removed, you have a good start on your requirements. | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | @SuperJer That sounds like a better plan, but that's the first I've heard of it. How could they allow competition without stealing the infrastructure from the companies that own it? | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 22:53 | comment | added | Jerbot | You might think competition would make this an impossible business plan. It would, if we had that. I totally agree. However with net neutrality regulation, we're asking the people who are responsible for the restriction of competition to add more restrictions to fix it, when instead, they could just as easily allow competition again. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | zero298 | You might think competition would make this an impossible business plan. It would, if we had that. A thousand times this. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 9:37 | comment | added | Chill2Macht | @WeckarE. Of course it's bad. Pareto efficiency is only achieved in efficient markets. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for efficient markets is the presence of sufficient competition. ISP markets are oligopolistic and are therefore inherently incapable of achieving Pareto efficiency without external intervention, i.e. regulation. Given the economies of scale and infrastructure costs inherent in providing ISP services, one should expect that the market will always be oligopolistic. Therefore regulation of said market will always be necessary, because otherwise the profit-seeking | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 9:44 | comment | added | Benjol | @CandiedOrange, maybe having a proper market first would be a good idea? From the sounds of it, the major problem for lots of the US is no competition. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:08 | comment | added | candied_orange | @WeckarE. I'm saying a well regulated market is preferable to a peasant uprising where we kill all the rich people and make a musical about it. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 7:49 | comment | added | Weckar E. | You are saying for-profit companies looking for ways to make more profit is bad? Why should you get to decide how they spend their money? You don't see them looking in your wallet? | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 18:41 | comment | added | Jan Doggen | That is indeed one of the (can I say 'emotional'?) arguments for net neutrality: ISP should not double-dip. They already get consumers money for providing a connection. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 11:29 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 21:20 | history | answered | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 3.0 |