> Good thing that the subject of debate here is something very tiny and very light. Older wired technology requires right-of-way and permits. That scheme is effectively a natural monopoly, assuming there's only one provider. That doesn't necessarily mean the next time the ISP digs up their lines to replace them that competitors shouldn't be able to bury their wires at the same time as long as the cost was shared, even though the monopoly will fight like hell to prevent it, but local laws like that should be written in order to promote competition.
Yes, local laws like that should be written differently, but they're not, because they're lobbied (by the local ISP) not to.
> Newer wireless technology is much less cost/regulation prohibitive, and not much slower. This forces the incumbents to compete and provide a valuable service.
One might hope, but I'm not holding my breath for wireless ever competing with wired internet, on speed in relation to (no) caps.
> If local ISPs use their government-sanctioned monopoly to exhort consumers or the business who cater to them, let's crack down on that. That's a specific abuse that harms specific customers.
Yes, we should, but again, this isn't the case.
> In the case where a local ISP wants to finance an expansion or upgrade of the network with prioritized service for select customers, while not degrading what existing customers are paying for, I don't see the harm in that, especially in competitive markets, in which case the only reason for the upgrade is because the market, not a group of bureaucrats, demands it.
Again, it's a well sounding hypothetical, the only problem being it's never happened, nor do I expect it to ever do, because it will either degrade existing customers through stagnation (not following bandwidth inflation) or purposefully to push as many as possible to more expensive service.
In a non-proven utopia, net neutrality is unnecessary, which I agreed with earlier, but again, we're not there, and we disagree about us ever getting there.
Yes, local laws like that should be written differently, but they're not, because they're lobbied (by the local ISP) not to.
> Newer wireless technology is much less cost/regulation prohibitive, and not much slower. This forces the incumbents to compete and provide a valuable service.
One might hope, but I'm not holding my breath for wireless ever competing with wired internet, on speed in relation to (no) caps.
> If local ISPs use their government-sanctioned monopoly to exhort consumers or the business who cater to them, let's crack down on that. That's a specific abuse that harms specific customers.
Yes, we should, but again, this isn't the case.
> In the case where a local ISP wants to finance an expansion or upgrade of the network with prioritized service for select customers, while not degrading what existing customers are paying for, I don't see the harm in that, especially in competitive markets, in which case the only reason for the upgrade is because the market, not a group of bureaucrats, demands it.
Again, it's a well sounding hypothetical, the only problem being it's never happened, nor do I expect it to ever do, because it will either degrade existing customers through stagnation (not following bandwidth inflation) or purposefully to push as many as possible to more expensive service.
In a non-proven utopia, net neutrality is unnecessary, which I agreed with earlier, but again, we're not there, and we disagree about us ever getting there.