“So, who, now can go in and get those same rights of way?”
Anyone can get rights of way from a locality (paying of course the cost of tearing up streets, etc.). In cable, its harder to get a franchise, but that would be changed by the pending legislation.

“…there’s no competition for broadband here” I can’t speak to your area, but cable modem service is nearly ubiquitous, and 77 percent of all households with telephones now have DSL access. In addition, there’s also satellite service, fixed wireless, broadband over powerline, and other technologies. Though now on the margin, these technologies play a real role, and promise to play a bigger one soon. I’d also note that the potential for any of these services to expand is lessened, not increased by regulation.

“..the point is that the broadband situation is MASSIVELY different than a search engine’s.” Except for the the word “massively” in capital letters, I don’t really disagree. I’m not arguing that the markets are the same. Or that the search engine market is less competitive. But the difference isn’t market share, although that is endlessly cited (not from you I realize). And its not historical legal monopolies that are now gone. But, of course, there certainly are differences in terms of ease of entry — how much it costs to enter the market.

But even here the situation is not as black and white as its portrayed — there ARE new entrants into the broadband space — even Google is rumored to be considering entering the field via the upcoming AWS auction. And new technologies that don’t require a shovel to install may change the upfront cost equation. Meanwhile, the cost of building a Google-class search engine is far from trivial.
The differences are questions of degree, not kind. There’s seems to be an unwritten (well, sometimes written) assumption that the physical layer is per se not competitive. But that can’t be assumed. That’s why I prefer a case-by-case antitrust law model to address any problems, rather than the new regulation being proposed.

Note, by the way, that I didn’t say the converse — that there is an assumption that the content layer is always competitive, or that it should not be regulated. While it seems remote now, I do believe that content providers could before too long find themselves facing the business end of regulation. Many of the advocates of net neutrality are already arguing for limits on AOL fees. France (though hopefully not a harbinger of future US policy)is using net neutrality principles to impose limits on Apple. Yes, I could be wrong, but its a possibility the folks in Mountain View should be putting into their political algorithms.

“So, who, now can go in and get those same rights of way?” Anyone can get rights of way from a locality (paying of course the cost of tearing up streets, etc.). In cable, its harder to get a franchise, but that would be changed by the pending legislation.

“…there’s no competition for broadband here” I can’t speak to your area, but cable modem service is nearly ubiquitous, and 77 percent of all households with telephones now have DSL access. In addition, there’s also satellite service, fixed wireless, broadband over powerline, and other technologies. Though now on the margin, these technologies play a real role, and promise to play a bigger one soon. I’d also note that the potential for any of these services to expand is lessened, not increased by regulation.

“..the point is that the broadband situation is MASSIVELY different than a search engine’s.” Except for the the word “massively” in capital letters, I don’t really disagree. I’m not arguing that the markets are the same. Or that the search engine market is less competitive. But the difference isn’t market share, although that is endlessly cited (not from you I realize). And its not historical legal monopolies that are now gone. But, of course, there certainly are differences in terms of ease of entry — how much it costs to enter the market.

But even here the situation is not as black and white as its portrayed — there ARE new entrants into the broadband space — even Google is rumored to be considering entering the field via the upcoming AWS auction. And new technologies that don’t require a shovel to install may change the upfront cost equation. Meanwhile, the cost of building a Google-class search engine is far from trivial. The differences are questions of degree, not kind. There’s seems to be an unwritten (well, sometimes written) assumption that the physical layer is per se not competitive. But that can’t be assumed. That’s why I prefer a case-by-case antitrust law model to address any problems, rather than the new regulation being proposed.

Note, by the way, that I didn’t say the converse — that there is an assumption that the content layer is always competitive, or that it should not be regulated. While it seems remote now, I do believe that content providers could before too long find themselves facing the business end of regulation. Many of the advocates of net neutrality are already arguing for limits on AOL fees. France (though hopefully not a harbinger of future US policy)is using net neutrality principles to impose limits on Apple. Yes, I could be wrong, but its a possibility the folks in Mountain View should be putting into their political algorithms.

That’s a misleading response as well. First, yes, I would like to see the numbers on how many assets are post-1996 — because the numbers I’ve seen are quite different. But, more importantly, whether or not it’s the physical assets, it’s the rights of way that are important.

And, yes, I agree that the question is competition going forward — so I ask you who else can compete in this market? The rights of way that are used were gov’t granted.

To Patrick’s point, the cable guys did build their networks privately, but they did have to get gov’t franchises, which kept out the competition.

So, who, now can go in and get those same rights of way? What new upstart can effectively compete in the market?

Either way, the point is that the broadband situation is MASSIVELY different than a search engine’s. There’s much more competition in the search engine space, and none of it involves rights of way that involve gov’t grants or franchises. It’s easy to see a new search engine coming in and taking away business should Google start treating its users badly. That’s not true in the broadband space. You claim there’s “competition.” Yet, every day we see stories of people who note there’s no competition at all. I’m in the heart of Silicon Valley and there’s no competition for broadband here.

Yet there are about 20 different search engines out there, each of which I can go to and use should one cause me problems.

So, explain to us how that’s a analogous situation? Explain how there’s any related point at all in this bogus amendment?

The telcos were given GOVERNMENT GRANTED monopoly rights of way and subsidies IN EXCHANGE for certain guarantees. This helped keep out any competition.

Go ahead and show us where Google got that sort of deal. Go ahead and show us what gov’t granted monopoly was given to Google that blocks out others from entering the space.

This argument makes you look silly. I don’t support net neutrality regulation, but your argument here is not well thought out at all — and as a supposed expert in the area — does not speak very highly of your ability to understand the actual issues at play.

I’m against it so long as it has the audio and broadcast flag requirements in it. (Sununu has two amendments pending, one to remove both, one to remove just the audio flag.)

…And how many search engines were built under federal subsidy and use regulation to exclude competitors?

I’d be as happy as the next person to oppose NN if phone and cable operations were not government created monosonies who maintain position via regulation.

Put another way, do you believe Google would exist if the Bells had realized in, say, 1992 what a big deal something like it would become?