Hacker News Reader

Comment by beernutz | Hacker News Reader

That argument would hold sway if being an ISP did not have such a huge barrier to entry. Having to run physical cables GREATLY reduces the pool of business that can afford to enter that market. This of course, reduces the number of competitors, and the market pressure to compete.

View on HN

So should we have "neutrality" in every market with large barriers to entry? Drug neutrality? Railroad neutrality? Automotive manufacturing neutrality?

Actually that seems like an interesting idea! If we did, maybe we could have non-proprietary car parts for instance? Better drugs? Fewer patent monopolies granted?

Am I missing something fundamental in your point?

No. You just have a much more expansive view of the role of governments in the markets than I do.

More important than the cost is the restrictions state and local governments have. Big ISPs have the right to lay down cable, it's nearly impossible for anyone except a huge ISP/Utility to get those rights.

But in a libertarian world the government wouldn't stop competing ISPs from competing. But yeah, half-libertarian policies like regulating ISPs to prevent competition but not regulating other aspects is problematic.

The libertarian response is that Congress doesn’t restrict speech. Telling people what they must or must not say violates this.

The First Amendment says nothing about markets or competition. If Congress thinks it can address improve the telecom markets, great. But the idea that the 1st amend doesn’t apply because some market is suboptimal is a non-sequitur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com