The Net Neutrality Thread

[hooky]

Outside of waging wars and causing widespread misery, what other ventures has the government successfully managed over any significant timeline?

I'll trust the private sector to do the right thing in a competitive market situation. The gov't has no competition and will not go out of business based on poor decisions, but a business will.

The gov't taking this over is just another chance to tax us, run it into the ground and gather campaign contributions in exchange for favors.

 

[Libertarian01]

Most libertarians are opposed to any further government control over the internet. This is one area where I find myself somewhat disagreeing.

IF ISP's competed in anything resembling a free market then this would be simple for me. No further government interference. But there hasn't been a free market in this sector for ages. It is made up purely of government-subsidized monopolies. They've been bribing government officials for exclusive access to our public property that allows them to deliver their service to us. They've been collecting billions of tax dollars and building up their infrastructure with it. And now they have their empires and their monopolies and can bend us over all they want. Is this capitalism?

No start-up can compete with this. This is not competition. This is not a free market. For what reasons should I oppose Net Neutrality?

Private property rights? I have a difficult time attributing private property rights to an empire built out of tax dollars on public property.

Federalism? Of all the economic sectors, few cross state lines more than the internet.

Limited government? If roads fall under the purview of the government then so should the cables that run alongside them.

Public utilities are a good comparison. Imagine that NIPSCO also owned Samsung. And they set their system up such that only Samsung appliances and devices would run on their electricity. They contract with the government for exclusive access to the roads and poles that provide our energy. There are no alternatives. Would you call that a free market?

There may be better solutions than net neutrality. I've heard some good ideas. And I've not completely figured this issue out in my head yet, I've heard good arguments in opposition to mine as well. Just offering a few thoughts.

To All,

I agree with Steve here 100%. There are areas of this country where each of the internet providers simply refuses to go, thus creating a defacto monopoly for the other. They have already divided up the market, so in reality there is no free market. Link: Why is American internet so slow? - The Week

Also, 19 states have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from offering broadband service. Link: Faster Internet? FCC could overturn state bans on cities' networks

I do not claim to know the answer to this dilemma. I believe it is a very simple concept on one hand but a very complex issue that will have very large collateral blowback no matter which way we go.

I do think the question can be rephrased as thus: "Who do you want with dictatorial power over your internet access, the federal government or large corporations?" Becauase someone IS going to have it!

Now in this case the government can pass rules to allow/impose the free market onto the industry by removing barriers to entry and forcing those with already existing infrastructure to share at cost with new competitors.

The internet should be treated as a utility because in reality that is what it is. Without access many businesses could not compete and citizens would not have the access they now need.

To my thinking the internet and cable providers have already shown us how they will treat us. As others have posted the USA has some of the worst internet in the developed world with the highest prices for it.

With all that I have said I know I am very ignorant and have more discomfort than confidence in my thinking. I am concerned that either way we go it will end bad for the majority of Americans.

Regards,

Doug

 

[mrjarrell]

Just as a point, Comcast already operates under NN rules. It was imposed upon them by the government as part of their deal to buy NBC and will be in effect till 2018. Comcast doesn't seem to be suffering.

 

[evsnova74]

Nope, I can't speak for all libertarians, but my personal position is that ISP's should voluntarily adopt NN as a good customer service practice, (rather than doing what they wish and price tiering the internet to further gouge their customers). My personal take is that the FCC should remain neutral on it, even though they have the ability and power to regulate it, (as they already do). There is no free market in the internet in this country. There is only the corporate monopolies set up by the governments and their well paying telecom masters. The internet business is already regulated, adding a customer centric NN rule would not be the government taking over a "free market" that doesn't exist. I am more akin to GPIA7R on this issue. I don't have yet have an answer, but allowing the ISP's (who ARE NOT the backbone providers of the internet) to exert their pay to play plans on the consumers is bad service and would not only slow the internet, it would serve to destroy what internet freedom there is.

The ISP's have been in bed with the government from the beginning and now, when someone suggests something that is consumer positive they lose their minds. If we actually had a free market in internet service, I could get a little more upset about this, but there isn't one. ISP's have been more than willing to use government against consumers best interests, but someone suggests something that's pro-consumer? OMG!

Now where have I heard all that before? Oh right the healthcare bill debate. Maybe ted cruze isn't quite the idiot the oatmeal made him out to be? (At least on this subject, I'm no fan of cruze) Poptab nailed it IMO.

 

[evsnova74]

Just as a point, Comcast already operates under NN rules. It was imposed upon them by the government as part of their deal to buy NBC and will be in effect till 2018. Comcast doesn't seem to be suffering.

Excellent! So what's the problem then?

What exactly is the problem that's so dire that we need to pass a NN bill "to see what's in it" anyway? (Which btw is exactly how it will go down, you guys of all people trust that legislators will write a bill that actually has "the people's" best interests in mind?) All I keep reading about is fear mongering scenarios dreamt up by statist bloggers and some case involving Comcast and Netflix, but if Comcast is already operating under NN, then why exactly is this supposed problem so dire that we need to pass legislation now all the sudden?

Bringing up all this talk about the problems caused by govt sponsored monopolies (which I agree with BTW) is moving the goalposts. If NN would actually address that problem then I might be more in favor of it but so far from where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of similarities to the obamacare dealy. I think we need less State involvement rather than more.

 

[mrjarrell]

Now where have I heard all that before? Oh right the healthcare bill debate. Maybe ted cruze isn't quite the idiot the oatmeal made him out to be? (At least on this subject, I'm no fan of cruze) Poptab nailed it IMO.

It's been explained in this thread already that there is no free market in the internet in this country. What fact is there to disagree with? Or are you arguing just to argue? Espousing a position that the FCC should remain neutral is supporting government intervention? Maybe you better get another cuppa.

 

[mrjarrell]

Excellent! So what's the problem then?

What exactly is the problem that's so dire that we need to pass a NN bill "to see what's in it" anyway? (Which btw is exactly how it will go down, you guys of all people trust that legislators will write a bill that actually has "the people's" best interests in mind?) All I keep reading about is fear mongering scenarios dreamt up by statist bloggers and some case involving Comcast and Netflix, but if Comcast is already operating under NN, then why exactly is this supposed problem so dire that we need to pass legislation now all the sudden?

Bringing up all this talk about the problems caused by govt sponsored monopolies (which I agree with BTW) is moving the goalposts. If NN would actually address that problem then I might be more in favor of it but so far from where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of similarities to the obamacare dealy. I think we need less State involvement rather than more.

No "bill" is involved in the issue. Only an FCC regulation. And Comcast is not the only company in existence. As I, (and others) have said, I do not have the overall answer and would prefer that the FCC remain neutral on the issue for now. I think it would behoove you to actually do some reading on the subject and get better informed than you currently are. It's not a cut and dried issue, as you and the telecom puppet Cruz seem to think it is.

 

[evsnova74]

No "bill" is involved in the issue. Only an FCC regulation. And Comcast is not the only company in existence. As I, (and others) have said, I do not have the overall answer and would prefer that the FCC remain neutral on the issue for now. I think it would behoove you to actually do some reading on the subject and get better informed than you currently are. It's not a cut and dried issue, as you and the telecom puppet Cruz seem to think it is.

Fair enough, I still stand behind the last statement I made regardless of what form the State action takes.

 

[evsnova74]

It's been explained in this thread already that there is no free market in the internet in this country. What fact is there to disagree with? Or are you arguing just to argue? Espousing a position that the FCC should remain neutral is supporting government intervention? Maybe you better get another cuppa.

No I was simply speaking to the parallels one can draw between NN and the ACA debacle. Of course I agree that there is no free market when it comes to either subject.

 

[mrjarrell]

FCC chairman rejects President's call for Title II ISP regulation | Electronista

Looks like the FCC chair has decided to let the president know where they stand.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Verizon's CFO on net neutrality: 'I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision'

Verizon's chief financial officer on net neutrality: 'I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision' - @ReutersTech - breakingnews.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/t-pause-f...-net-neutrality-rules-134516021--finance.html

 

[MisterChester]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/t-pause-f...-net-neutrality-rules-134516021--finance.html

This just hurts their case. If they are going to inhibit innovation, that gives us less of a reason to side with them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Ah, corporate blackmail and hostage taking. Typical for them when they may not get their way. Keep up with this sort of behaviour and they WILL find themselves regulated to death. The consumers will demand it.

 

[hooky]

Why would a business spend money to build in an environment that is unsettled due to the threat of more regulation? Regulation that is undefined for the most part to boot.

 

[JTScribe]

I'd love nothing more than to drop Comcast. Today.

But there are no alternatives. It's nearly a monopoly on the market.

A neutral competitor comes along with decent speeds? I'd drop that day, and I'd imagine many others would too. That may be the "uproar" Comcast/ATT/et al needs to get their **** in line.

But I guarantee you - Even the government has worse customer service than Comcast. You don't want that.

It's a monopoly because of government regulation. So the answer is more government regulation? Nonsense.

The government could have spent the money they invested in Solyndra and other boondoggles into a nationwide fiber network and then recouped the costs by leasing it on a long-term basis. One article I read discussing Google Fiber suggested you could create a nationwide fiber network for ~150 billion. Not really all that much, and doing so would open up the market to competition. Something similar was done in the 30's with the Rural Electrification Administration.

Karl Denninger's take:

Obama Is A Goon -- And A Fool in [Market-Ticker]

 

[steveh_131]

It's not a monopoly because of government regulation. It's a monopoly because of the nature of the service. It can not be accomplished without the use of public property, and there isn't room for more companies to use that property.

If they are providing their service using finite property owned by the public then I really have no issue with voters having a say in how that property is used.

Should they be allowed to censor gun related activities, such as this forum? What if that was comcasts next idea? Would you guys support them in censoring our forum from flowing through public property?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's not a monopoly because of government regulation. It's a monopoly because of the nature of the service. It can not be accomplished without the use of public property, and there isn't room for more companies to use that property.

If they are providing their service using finite property owned by the public then I really have no issue with voters having a say in how that property is used.

Should they be allowed to censor gun related activities, such as this forum? What if that was comcasts next idea? Would you guys support them in censoring our forum from flowing through public property?

I'll admit I'm no expert on the laws and regulations governing communication utilities but the area of concern you're talking about, isn't it mostly confined to the local, community level? What is being proposed is at the federal level. This isn't confined to infrastructure residing along city right of ways, this also applies to the capital equipment entirely owned and operated by the various ISPs.

Wanna bet that once this really starts to gain traction, the big ISP companies folks are wanting to put on a leash won't climb into bed with whatever committee that writes the regs? It's happened before, many times in the past, when an industry senses an movement towards regulation being advocated that they'll try to use it to protect and enhance their business. It's much better to be in on the rule writing than to have to live with the results created by others.

 

[mrjarrell]

Amazing who's actually for Net Neutrality. And who's now against it (now that Obama's for it).

The Conservative Case for Net Neutrality - The Atlantic

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Verizon's CFO on net neutrality: 'I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision'

Verizon's chief financial officer on net neutrality: 'I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision' - @ReutersTech - breakingnews.com

Randall Stephenson has already announced American Telephone & Telegraph's refusal to roll out their new fiber service in over 100 cities due to not being able to foresee the rules governing their significant infrastructure investment. In fact, AT&T is already ready to sue if the FCC comes down on ISPs as Title II.