And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
The act OF building infrastructure isn’t a waste, but basically everything given to it for that purpose is wasted.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
I think its quite clear that no private company was going to build out that system. Why would you run through Montana? And without that build out the US would be in a worse position than it is. The same is true of the internet. There was no real pressing reason for a private company to build that and make it open, but because it was a government project, it did happen. And it was open. The web ( i.e. the use of HTML over the already existing internet) is also a product of Government ( this time in Europe) as is networking protocols like TCP/IP, the military invested in GPS and on and on.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
You're saying the state of Montana would never have found value in connecting to the other states for the purposes of inter-state commerce? If that was the case and their people so decided to not have connecting roads, then they shouldn't have a highway system.
Also, it's not clear you actually understand either Net Neutrality OR Libertarian positions.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
I think its quite clear that no private company was going to build out that system. Why would you run through Montana? And without that build out the US would be in a worse position than it is. The same is true of the internet. There was no real pressing reason for a private company to build that and make it open, but because it was a government project, it did happen. And it was open. The web ( i.e. the use of HTML over the already existing internet) is also a product of Government ( this time in Europe) as is networking protocols like TCP/IP, the military invested in GPS and on and on.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
You're saying the state of Montana would never have found value in connecting to the other states for the purposes of inter-state commerce? If that was the case and their people so decided to not have connecting roads, then they shouldn't have a highway system.
Also, it's not clear you actually understand either Net Neutrality OR Libertarian positions.
I suppose if neighboring states could come together and agree on entry/egress points into their respective states, specifics on how they would be connected, and come together on use agreements so that one state's expensive interconnected highways aren't negatively impacted by another's, and avoid pissing off a neighboring states highway contractor or private highway owner...
Yeah eventually there would be some semblance of a relatively direct transportation network, with almost certainly various of speed limits, road rules, restrictions on commercial vehicles, travel costs, a wide range of road quality and maintenance based on a state's wealth and/or populace or willingness to cooperate.... sounds great! No doubt a wonderful embodiment of efficient interstate and coast to coast travel made possible by profit-maximizing private enterprise driven by various and sometimes competing agendas. Oh, wait, didn't we already have a good portion of that in the first half of the 20th century?
Sounds much like the haphazard state highway systems that private drivers and commerce navigated pre-interstate, only worse, with only directly profitable highways regularly maintained if it's left up to private enterprise to decide. Bring on ever bigger metros with more congestion, crime, population density, and demand on water and waste treatment resources in order to attract and maximize investment in travelways and fragile yet necessary infrastructure. Is that what you are really endorsing?
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
I think its quite clear that no private company was going to build out that system. Why would you run through Montana? And without that build out the US would be in a worse position than it is. The same is true of the internet. There was no real pressing reason for a private company to build that and make it open, but because it was a government project, it did happen. And it was open. The web ( i.e. the use of HTML over the already existing internet) is also a product of Government ( this time in Europe) as is networking protocols like TCP/IP, the military invested in GPS and on and on.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
You're saying the state of Montana would never have found value in connecting to the other states for the purposes of inter-state commerce? If that was the case and their people so decided to not have connecting roads, then they shouldn't have a highway system.
Also, it's not clear you actually understand either Net Neutrality OR Libertarian positions.
I suppose if neighboring states could come together and agree on entry/egress points into their respective states, specifics on how they would be connected, and come together on use agreements so that one state's expensive interconnected highways aren't negatively impacted by another's, and avoid pissing off a neighboring states highway contractor or private highway owner...
Yeah eventually there would be some semblance of a relatively direct transportation network, with almost certainly various of speed limits, road rules, restrictions on commercial vehicles, travel costs, a wide range of road quality and maintenance based on a state's wealth and/or populace or willingness to cooperate.... sounds great! No doubt a wonderful embodiment of efficient interstate and coast to coast travel made possible by profit-maximizing private enterprise driven by various and sometimes competing agendas. Oh, wait, didn't we already have a good portion of that in the first half of the 20th century?
Sounds much like the haphazard state highway systems that private drivers and commerce navigated pre-interstate, only worse, with only directly profitable highways regularly maintained if it's left up to private enterprise to decide. Bring on ever bigger metros with more congestion, crime, population density, and demand on water and waste treatment resources in order to attract and maximize investment in travelways and fragile yet necessary infrastructure. Is that what you are really endorsing?
The United States is a 'legal union' between the individual states and in their union the Federal government is answerable to them and, above all else, to the Constitution. I fail to see how the Federal government creating a dependency situation for the states by the way of exacting more and more taxes on states to maintain a shoddy interstate freeway system helps to strengthen Federal adherence to said Constitution.
The individual States don't answer to the Feds, the Feds answer to the States and the People in the States.
You know, just as a side note... I seem to recall your arguments being far more intellectually rigorous years ago. What is going on? These comments place you in alignment with statists. Am I wrong?
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
I think its quite clear that no private company was going to build out that system. Why would you run through Montana? And without that build out the US would be in a worse position than it is. The same is true of the internet. There was no real pressing reason for a private company to build that and make it open, but because it was a government project, it did happen. And it was open. The web ( i.e. the use of HTML over the already existing internet) is also a product of Government ( this time in Europe) as is networking protocols like TCP/IP, the military invested in GPS and on and on.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
You're saying the state of Montana would never have found value in connecting to the other states for the purposes of inter-state commerce? If that was the case and their people so decided to not have connecting roads, then they shouldn't have a highway system.
Also, it's not clear you actually understand either Net Neutrality OR Libertarian positions.
I’m saying that private enterprise wouldn’t. Also, they didn’t.
If you want to claim that I don’t know about net neutrality then please explain why you think that and what you think is erroneous in my thought process. It’s a pretty simple concept.
I also notice you are not really addressing the larger issues I am bringing up re crony capitalism. One sentence replies about what you think I don’t know isn’t much of an argument v
The asshat Republicans and their bullshit made up marketing terms that are really an affront to any well informed and intelligent person. Meant solely to mislead the public as they shovel cash to large corporations through their actions, and in return receive boatloads of money for their own campaigns. This horseshit term - “Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom” - is one of the most egregious ever as the proposal represents the exact opposite! It’s right up their with the moronic, and toxic, “Clean Coal”. As funny as it was, it was also frightening that the moron who is president who bragged about the new coal mine opening in Pennsylvania, and how they were going to dig up the coal and clean it giving us “clean coal”. Unfortunately stupidity and ignorance abounds in this country.
What happens when public policy is written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists. I oppose this change by the FCC. It does not serve the interest of the general public, nor does it protect the general public from corporate shenanigans.
Verizon’s statement amounts to: trust us. Kill the regulations and protections and trust us not to be greedy about Internet fast lanes and “pay to play” access to content. Whoops, Apple didn’t pay Verizon a tithe, so we’re going to slow down your downloads from iTunes Store to a crawl. Apple Music is buffering? Aww, maybe sign up for music streaming from one of or “preferred partners” who’ve paid us for the privilege. Never trust the wolves to watch over the flock.
Why are you forgetting that there always be someone else to offer better plans and undercut that overly greedy company? That is how disruptions occur. Uber was not mandated by the gov-t, but it surely disrupted taxi industry for good. Don't like uber? Fine, don't use it.
I think others have already responded to you, but let me add my thoughts. If I understand your basic argument, it’s something like: “free markets always lead to outcomes that support the interest of consumers.” Correct me if I’m wrong about what you meant to say.
OK, you also mentioned Uber like it was some example of that. Really? In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers. Both companies threatened to leave town if the ordinance passed, plunging ride-sharing customers back to the era of early 00s. And both shutdown their services in Austin when the ordinance passed. You’d think (according to the free market theory) that if one of those companies left the other would gladly take over as the unchallenged monopoly in that market. But that’s not what happened: both acted in self-interest and fought against the interests of consumers, thinking that if they threatened to leave, it would make their customers think twice about voting for the measure. And they did leave to punish their customers for voting for the ordinance. That’s your free market in action. The free market did not create an outcome that protected consumers’ wishes.
The startups and non-profits that tried to fill the void left by Uber and Lyft leaving Austin never attained the mindshare or popularity of Uber and Lyft combined. Some 60% of former Uber and Lyft customers simply stopped using ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft were a duopoly, much like the limited or non-exist competition in residential broadband.
Here’s another examine more germane to the topic of net neutrality: in my apartment complex, I’m only allowed to have ONE cable/internet/phone provider. One. A local monopoly. Yes, regulations exist to prevent that, but loopholes also exist to allow it (I checked). Is that consumers want? Of course not. Is the free market providing it? Hmm... other apartments are doing the same thing. Cable companies are paying apartment owners a cut in order to gain exclusive monopolies to those properties. They’re all doing it in my local market. I should be able to pick where I want to live and have my choice between the few ISPs providing service to my city.
The nature of ISP service is that, due to infrastructure requirements, you’re lucky to have more than one or two for a particular market. A free market of one or two that would gladly gang up against the consumer (the way Uber and Lyft did in Austin) is not going to lead to outcomes that protect consumer interests.
Uber and Lyft both left Austin because of a hostile business climate. That doesn’t suggest collusion or monopoly of some kind or other. Why shouldn’t businesses leave a city, state or country if the business or regulatory climate becomes unworkable?
Criminal background checks for drivers makes it a hostile business environment?
The asshat Republicans and their bullshit made up marketing terms
Like “net neutrality.”
that are really an affront to any well informed and intelligent person.
Like “global warming.”
Meant solely to mislead the public
Like “The Patriot Act.”
as they shovel cash to large corporations through their actions, and in return receive boatloads of money for their own campaigns.
Which, of course, democrats don’t do.
…as the proposal represents the exact opposite!
Like the “New Deal.”
It’s right up their with the moronic, and toxic, “Clean Coal”.
So do you not know anything about the process of maintaining the environment during a coal operation? Here’s an excerpt.
One type of air treatment consists of a caustic “bath” or spray that neutralizes the sulfur in the exhaust. This also will knock out particulates and also will remove most of the metals (mercury being the primary target). Most air treatment systems are multiple stage systems. The flue gas is constantly monitored for particulates, SOx (Sulfates) and NOx (nitrates, which contribute to smog.) These emission rates are set by the EPA. There can also not be a “visible” plume. This doesn’t include water vapor plumes. Any persistent plume that you see would be a result of particulates in the air. So anything that comes out of the stack is regulated. There are process upsets that do cause actual “releases”. These are subject to fines under the Clean Air Act. Whenever you see a darker plume or a white plume that doesn’t go away it’s a release that must be reported. If your friends ask about what happens to the pollutants that get scrubbed, these are also regulated. Any waste water released is also subject to strict regulation. Regulations set up by the Clean Water Act. Most of the water released from these facilities must be “non-contact” cooling water. Any water must be tested before it is released. If the levels do not meet the CWA requirements (which, incidentally, are stricter than the standards for you drinking water) then the water must be collected and sent for treatment and disposal. Slurries of the remainders of caustic and sulfate solution are usually disposed of as “solid” waste, which is also subject to EPA regulations. If the mercury (or other) pollutant levels are high enough, the waste must be sent to a permitted hazardous waste landfill. These landfills are doubly lined and have a leachate (liquids) collection system in the liner and are subject to groundwater monitoring. That’s a snapshot of the “cradle to grave” system. At each step of the process, the process is controlled by the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the associated EPA solid and hazardous waste regulations (RCRA, Landban, etc.)
Clean Air Act: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president. Clean Water Act: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress. RCRA: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress, and signed into law by a Republican president.
So maybe you should tell your people to be a little less lax with the regulations. But then again, we know the left doesn’t actually care about the environment, while traditionalists make it one of their primary tenets.
Criminal background checks for drivers makes it a hostile business environment?
You know, if you were actually interested in discourse I’d think you’d want to reply to what he said and not what you have deluded yourself into believing. Someone with the ability to think critically would be able to follow this simple chain of events.
You: In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers. Spam: Uber and Lyft both left Austin because of a hostile business climate. You: Criminal background checks for drivers makes it a hostile business environment?
See, someone paying attention would notice that by not stating anything about the ordinance, Spam was refuting your claim that the ordinance was the (sole) reason for them leaving. Yes, he should have provided further evidence to substantiate this refutation, but come on.
I totally forgot about saving this article (I assume it’s an article; it had citations) back when this nonsense all started.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players. The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.
The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears. If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers. If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.
In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do. Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”
Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.
As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.
Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral
Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.
Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.
Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.
Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.
Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.
After the President’s announcement Monday morning on net neutrality, Mercatus research fellow Brent Skorup, who specializes in telecom issues, provided initial reaction.
“It does not require a law degree to question the wisdom of imposing eighty-year-old rules intended for the government-blessed monopoly telephone network on the competitive, dynamic Internet. If the FCC—an independent regulatory agency—does what the President envisions, the change will represent a stark reversal of decades of deregulatory Internet policy pursued by Congress and FCC commissioners of both political parties. The application of Title II—sometimes called utility or common carrier regulation—would result in value-destroying government oversight of the Internet. Among other damaging effects, broadband Internet would be subject to rate regulation, taxes, and fragmented regulation by state commissions. Further, many advocates who cheer this announcement have made no secret that their aims stretch beyond economic regulation of the Internet. They also seek government oversight of media, websites, and political speech online. To that end, Title II instantly politicizes the Internet and puts significant power over this dynamic technology in the hands of unelected FCC officials, lobbyists, opportunistic industry players, and well-funded activists.
“Market participants in Silicon Valley and at technology companies would increasingly rely on their risk-averse regulatory compliance officers instead of their creative engineers and designers. The complex Title II proceedings that ensue will be largely invisible and unintelligible to the public and their representatives in Congress. It would be a mistake to apply Title II’s stultifying provisions to one of the few bright spots in U.S. economy—technology and Internet services. The President’s announcement is puzzling because the political consensus is that the 1934 Communications Act should be retired in favor of modern, flexible laws that place consumers—not industries—at the forefront. Title II would impair the creative destruction that makes the U.S. technology sector a boon to consumers and the envy of the world.”
Though the economy has improved only in fits and starts over the past few years, one bright spot remains constant: The technology and communications industry. Part of this success is because Silicon Valley and the tech sector aggressively develop popular consumer products before bureaucrats and lawmakers have time to delay them. Wisely, or perhaps coincidentally, Congress has treated the Internet with benign neglect. However, there is a well-funded contingent in the net neutrality movement seeking to increase Federal Communications Commission oversight of the Internet. These net neutrality proponents are – to paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr. – standing athwart the history of technology yelling, “Stop!” Their backward-looking approach would revive large parts of telephone regulations from the 1934 Communications Act. Their goal is to persuade the FCC to reinterpret the law and apply monopoly-era telephone regulations to today’s broadband providers. Net neutrality advocates conjure up a bogeyman that ostensibly threatens startups and consumers. Their cramped worldview does not see tremendous possibilities in lightly regulated broadband and they oppose the FCC’s current hands-off approach to the Internet.
I totally forgot about saving this article (I assume it’s an article; it had citations) back when this nonsense all started.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players. The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.
The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears. If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers. If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.
In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do. Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”
Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.
As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.
Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral
Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.
Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.
Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.
Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.
Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.
After the President’s announcement Monday morning on net neutrality, Mercatus research fellow Brent Skorup, who specializes in telecom issues, provided initial reaction.
“It does not require a law degree to question the wisdom of imposing eighty-year-old rules intended for the government-blessed monopoly telephone network on the competitive, dynamic Internet. If the FCC—an independent regulatory agency—does what the President envisions, the change will represent a stark reversal of decades of deregulatory Internet policy pursued by Congress and FCC commissioners of both political parties. The application of Title II—sometimes called utility or common carrier regulation—would result in value-destroying government oversight of the Internet. Among other damaging effects, broadband Internet would be subject to rate regulation, taxes, and fragmented regulation by state commissions. Further, many advocates who cheer this announcement have made no secret that their aims stretch beyond economic regulation of the Internet. They also seek government oversight of media, websites, and political speech online. To that end, Title II instantly politicizes the Internet and puts significant power over this dynamic technology in the hands of unelected FCC officials, lobbyists, opportunistic industry players, and well-funded activists.
“Market participants in Silicon Valley and at technology companies would increasingly rely on their risk-averse regulatory compliance officers instead of their creative engineers and designers. The complex Title II proceedings that ensue will be largely invisible and unintelligible to the public and their representatives in Congress. It would be a mistake to apply Title II’s stultifying provisions to one of the few bright spots in U.S. economy—technology and Internet services. The President’s announcement is puzzling because the political consensus is that the 1934 Communications Act should be retired in favor of modern, flexible laws that place consumers—not industries—at the forefront. Title II would impair the creative destruction that makes the U.S. technology sector a boon to consumers and the envy of the world.”
Though the economy has improved only in fits and starts over the past few years, one bright spot remains constant: The technology and communications industry. Part of this success is because Silicon Valley and the tech sector aggressively develop popular consumer products before bureaucrats and lawmakers have time to delay them. Wisely, or perhaps coincidentally, Congress has treated the Internet with benign neglect. However, there is a well-funded contingent in the net neutrality movement seeking to increase Federal Communications Commission oversight of the Internet. These net neutrality proponents are – to paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr. – standing athwart the history of technology yelling, “Stop!” Their backward-looking approach would revive large parts of telephone regulations from the 1934 Communications Act. Their goal is to persuade the FCC to reinterpret the law and apply monopoly-era telephone regulations to today’s broadband providers. Net neutrality advocates conjure up a bogeyman that ostensibly threatens startups and consumers. Their cramped worldview does not see tremendous possibilities in lightly regulated broadband and they oppose the FCC’s current hands-off approach to the Internet.
Thanks for posting that. “Net Neutrality” has always been propaganda to promote Leftist political goals and this plainly exposes that.
Points one through five, and the new order, miss or ignore a giant point.
For most Americans there are no other broadband choices to pick from if you don't like who you have.Take what you can get, and you'd better like it -- because there are no other alternatives.
Without that choice, without that vaunted free marketplace you say we have, and other laws like telephone pole controlling factors holding up expansion of Google Fiber just about everywhere, and municipal broadband, the new order won't do what it promises to do.
There will be no free-market expansion, because AT&T, Verizon, and the rest of them do not will it so, and sue every time somebody wants to do something.
As with everything else, we'll see how it goes. You paint a rosy future of ISPs not blocking or throttling content because of a corporate battle or a dislike of a competitive technology -- and I have already proven to you that they do. I'm not sure why you think that all of a sudden that they're going to act in the consumers' best interest.
For most Americans there are no other broadband choices to pick from if you don't like who you have.Take what you can get, and you’d better like it -- because there are no other alternatives. Without that choice, without that vaunted free marketplace you say we have, and other laws like telephone pole controlling factors holding up expansion of Google Fiber just about everywhere, and municipal broadband, the new order won't do what it promises to do.
Exactly. This, like so many “issues” of our time, are entirely fabricated on both sides. For example, “Wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living!” is the issue, and the solution provided is “We should give everyone more money!”so the campaign is launched to raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 per hour, totally ignoring–on purpose–the fact that the Federal Reserve is responsible for a 98% reduction in the purchasing power of the US dollar since 1913. And then, because the “other side” also purposely ignores this, they call for lower taxes on businesses to off-set the obvious price increases that will inevitably happen after a minimum wage hike (which would increase the cost of living past wages yet again…), when the problem is taxation on the people–not businesses–and is solved, yet again, by abolishing the Federal Reserve.
People scream “We need net neutrality!” despite not knowing what that phrase means, while others (who are paid by the same group) scream “We need no Internet oversight!” and all the while the ACTUAL problem–government protected false monopolies and inter-ISP price and infrastructure collusion–is completely ignored and not addressed in the slightest. And then when the bill is passed (or not, or whatever) the end result is always more government control.
For most Americans there are no other broadband choices to pick from if you don't like who you have.Take what you can get, and you’d better like it -- because there are no other alternatives. Without that choice, without that vaunted free marketplace you say we have, and other laws like telephone pole controlling factors holding up expansion of Google Fiber just about everywhere, and municipal broadband, the new order won't do what it promises to do.
Exactly. This, like so many “issues” of our time, are entirely fabricated on both sides. For example, “Wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living!” is the issue, and the solution provided is “We should give everyone more money!”so the campaign is launched to raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 per hour, totally ignoring–on purpose–the fact that the Federal Reserve is responsible for a 98% reduction in the purchasing power of the US dollar since 1913. And then, because the “other side” also purposely ignores this, they call for lower taxes on businesses to off-set the obvious price increases that will inevitably happen after a minimum wage hike (which would increase the cost of living past wages yet again…), when the problem is taxation on the people–not businesses–and is solved, yet again, by abolishing the Federal Reserve.
People scream “We need net neutrality!” despite not knowing what that phrase means, while others (who are paid by the same group) scream “We need no Internet oversight!” and all the while the ACTUAL problem–government protected false monopolies and inter-ISP price and infrastructure collusion–is completely ignored and not addressed in the slightest. And then when the bill is passed (or not, or whatever) the end result is always more government control.
Great video. The techniques have never really changed, but the faces of Marxism/Communism change.
Points one through five, and the new order, miss or ignore a giant point.
For most Americans there are no other broadband choices to pick from if you don't like who you have.Take what you can get, and you'd better like it -- because there are no other alternatives.
Without that choice, without that vaunted free marketplace you say we have, and other laws like telephone pole controlling factors holding up expansion of Google Fiber just about everywhere, and municipal broadband, the new order won't do what it promises to do.
There will be no free-market expansion, because AT&T, Verizon, and the rest of them do not will it so, and sue every time somebody wants to do something.
As with everything else, we'll see how it goes. You paint a rosy future of ISPs not blocking or throttling content because of a corporate battle or a dislike of a competitive technology -- and I have already proven to you that they do. I'm not sure why you think that all of a sudden that they're going to act in the consumers' best interest.
Yes, free marketeer seem to forget that as a whole, there is NO TRULY FREE MARKET. It's only a construct used in econ 101 (or the like) to simplify things .
There are just various various degree of unfreedom, going from generally free (say, hairdresser market in a city like Los Angeles), to complete state supported/dependent monopolies, like utilities, telecoms or industries with very strong patent protection (pharmaceuticals) or
The larger the market a monopolist dominates, the harder it is to displace it. It can use cash flow from one part of its market to undercut any entrant anywhere in its market.
Only an entrant offering a non copiable service (protected by patent and not being able to be done in any other way) that offer a distinct alternative that fullfils unmet local needs stands any chance.of beating it.
I'm glad most of the people here are informed. Still, we have a few "fantasy league free market" players in here like usual who think regulation is bad, because "freedom". Slap the word "freedom" on it and you can convince uninformed people to embrace even despotism.
"Freedom..."
Yes, let the doublespeak flow...
They're free to continue strangling consumer choice, destroying the once great resource known as the Internet, turning it into yet another deluge of
You do realize that choice is not a fundamental right, right? I mean, you can’t choose from what is not on the market.
You are a hypocrite, because you lament about freedom from regulations that supposedly restrictes consumer choice due to big corp being at play, yet you somehow ignore the fact that it is the small players that are usually stopped by the regulation, not the big ones. That by definition restricts consumer choice, but from your post I did not get the feeling that you are against those.
in fact, it is usually the big corp players that use the law to create a monopoly. Of course, they call it - regulations, but the main point is to prevent other SMALLER players from entering the market. Do you even understand that? Ironic that it’s you who mentioned the doublespeak....
I'm glad most of the people here are informed. Still, we have a few "fantasy league free market" players in here like usual who think regulation is bad, because "freedom". Slap the word "freedom" on it and you can convince uninformed people to embrace even despotism.
"Freedom..."
Yes, let the doublespeak flow...
They're free to continue strangling consumer choice, destroying the once great resource known as the Internet, turning it into yet another deluge of
You do realize that choice is not a fundamental right, right? I mean, you can’t choose from what is not on the market.
You are a hypocrite, because you lament about freedom from regulations that supposedly restrictes consumer choice due to big corp being at play, yet you somehow ignore the fact that it is the small players that are usually stopped by the regulation, not the big ones. That by definition restricts consumer choice, but from your post I did not get the feeling that you are against those.
in fact, it is usually the big corp players that use the law to create a monopoly. Of course, they call it - regulations, but the main point is to prevent other SMALLER players from entering the market. Do you even understand that? Ironic that it’s you who mentioned the doublespeak....
Quite right. Historically, monopolies in the US have been facilitated by collusion with lawmakers to prevent competition. Protected local cable TV monopolies are one of the most recent examples of this type of anti-free market behavior.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
No, you don’t. Fox isn’t news. And while I know people who don’t like CNN because if it isn’t right wing, it’s left wing, because they don’t understand that there is a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in. If you want to usu CNBC as an example of a lefter position, go ahead.
CNN isn't news either. And what on Earth are you smoking to claim that CNN is center for you? There is no mass media "center" position in the US today, no matter how hard you want to believe in it. Period. Also, if CNN is so not biased and centered, why there are so many click bait ads onrelated to CNN that occupy 60% of their pages? That is because it is not news, but rather a click bait based website where people of left leaning type go to affirm their biases. I know it because I was one of them.
Yup, your post shows that the right wing in this country doesn’t recognize actual news or v]balanced discussion. If it isn’t FOX, well, then it isn’t news.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
By your idea, we don’t have rights to anything then. As societies become more advanced, and enlightened, more things are decided to be rights. Equal accesss to information is a basic right in a democracy so people who wish to avail themselves of that information can make informed decisions on many hints, such as voting. When that access is denied, because a company decides to not give a services because it st them more to do so, then those people are being denied that equal access. Whether you like Tim or not, that’s a right.
I know you want to go back to the 19th century in these things, as do some others here, it in three years, they loser will be out of office, and things will go back to normal. Heh, the way things are going, he may be gone before that.
There are a limited number of constitutionally protected rights at the Federal level and you know this. Why use such hyperbolic language which is insulting to both of us?
There is no "right to equal access to information" unless that information is being provided by the US government. That's not the case. Do you seriously PREFER to have your information provided by the state?
And then there's this little problem about giving government the power to determine what is "information"... The Left started this whole "fake news" thing, which then the Right took up. I don't want either side telling me what is viable or truthful information.
Also, where are you getting this idea that I don't like Tim?
It’s not hyperbolic language when it’s the truth. Rights are something that we CREATE! If you don’t get that, then there’s no point in discussing it. The right started this whole fake news thing. Actually, it was Trump that really started it, by making it his modus when he did something stupid, which he does every day.
heh, the “Tim” is part of Apple’s wonderful spell correction, which I missed. It should have read “it”. Sometimes I miss these things.
but just remember that one reason we have a democracy is because of what the founders called the “fourth estate” - the press. They were, and should still be considered to be an unholder of democracy, even if you don’t like what they say. The entire point to the press, when the political world is concerned, is not to praise the government, but to criticize it. That public criticism helps to keep the public informed. It’s needed, not a sycophantic press, but a skeptical one.
but then, I suppose you would make the point that a free press is also not a right. Trump would agree. He vowed, when running fo Office to also change the libel laws so that he could sue anyone who said something about him that he wasn’t happy with
Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.
The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
Why don’t you look at this from the perspective of internet capabilities? The internet continues to get faster and more capable and there are increasing opportunities in internet monetisation. The internet has stayed neutral despite commercial interest. There is no reason at all to think the internet will continue to remain neutral. As the capabilities increase the business opportunities increase, and even well-meaning entrepreneurs will seek out opportunities unaware of the effect of their actions. And, of course, there are plenty of people who will happily screw their customers and ruin anything if they can get away with it. As much as I did not like Obama policies in general the idea of net neutrality is vital in keeping the internet the way it is—it might be the one thing Obama’s administration did that I liked!
The internet is bigger than a commercial venture. While much of it is entertainment, that’s not its philosophy and shouldn’t be. It’s the easy and free distribution of information and communication. It’s more like utility services than it is like a television network.
That’s simply a utopian view of how things really work. The Internet is only as valuable as its connections and those connections are many millions of servers, databases and other kinds of inputs which must all be paid for somehow. This “free Internet” meme has always been utter nonsense.
Nobody has really talked about the free internet. We all know that we have to pay for service. The free internet is the information that flows over it, which is often free.
in most businesses, it’s understood that you don’t compete with your customers. In the case of ISPs, the customers are not only the users, but also the companies that run over their networks. They shouldn’t be competing with them. It’s the old argument of pipes vs services. The problem when ISPs offer the same services as their customers, and they offer crappy services they have problems selling, they do what businesses do if they aren’t prevented from doing it, which is, instead of improving their services, or lowering their prices, which is what capitalistic theory says will happen, they make it more difficult for these competing services to survive, which is what really happens.
so we end up with crappier services, often at higher prices, once the competition is ruined. But that’s what you want, right?
Mel, are you aware Elon Musk has planned a series of low-orbit satellites for the sole purpose of providing high-speed Internet access? He's in a good position to do this and as far as I know, this is still going to happen.
This is exactly the kind of competition (that is to say, unexpected sources of competition that leapfrog the existing technology) that nicely obliterates all of the nonsense being employed to argue against a free market where businesses are able to set rates based on traffic, use, locale, etc.
As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower. Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.
Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.
Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.
There's no proof US citizens will be "hurt by this". I'd simply argue that consumers are more "harmed" by regulations which protect local markets FROM competition instead. Let anyone and everyone enter the cable/satellite/Internet service provider/wireless services race and see who comes out on top.
Do you really understand what the concept of competition is? It’s the idea that somewhat equal comletitors, as well as smaller, more specialized ones can all exist, only succeeding on the quality of their products, and sometimes, the prices.
what the removal of rules intended to prevent major competitors from rolling over the smaller ones, and then rolling over the larger, but still somewhat smaller ones that are left, are the rules in place preventing it.
we can look to Amazon right now, as an extreme example, though they aren’t in this business - yet. Competition is quickly disappearing. What are you going to say when they are the only major, end even minor place to buy things? Are you so sure they will keep Bing so nice to their customers, or their partners when they no longer need to be? Bezos has been shown to be a pretty ruthless person.
these regulations don’t prevent competition, they encourage it. When communities are prevented from opening municipal ISP services by the feds and state governments because the lag]rage ISPs tell them to, as has been happening, those consumers who only have that one provider, are trampled upon. Go to Ars to read about these problems. It’s serious. You see, that’s a regulation that you like, preventing small communities who can’t get good, inexpensive service, who vote to do it themselves. That’s a large part of the hypocrisy of the right in this country.
Comments
But ICANN can do anything they want, right?
Also, it's not clear you actually understand either Net Neutrality OR Libertarian positions.
Yeah eventually there would be some semblance of a relatively direct transportation network, with almost certainly various of speed limits, road rules, restrictions on commercial vehicles, travel costs, a wide range of road quality and maintenance based on a state's wealth and/or populace or willingness to cooperate.... sounds great! No doubt a wonderful embodiment of efficient interstate and coast to coast travel made possible by profit-maximizing private enterprise driven by various and sometimes competing agendas. Oh, wait, didn't we already have a good portion of that in the first half of the 20th century?
Sounds much like the haphazard state highway systems that private drivers and commerce navigated pre-interstate, only worse, with only directly profitable highways regularly maintained if it's left up to private enterprise to decide. Bring on ever bigger metros with more congestion, crime, population density, and demand on water and waste treatment resources in order to attract and maximize investment in travelways and fragile yet necessary infrastructure. Is that what you are really endorsing?
The individual States don't answer to the Feds, the Feds answer to the States and the People in the States.
You know, just as a side note... I seem to recall your arguments being far more intellectually rigorous years ago. What is going on? These comments place you in alignment with statists. Am I wrong?
If you want to claim that I don’t know about net neutrality then please explain why you think that and what you think is erroneous in my thought process. It’s a pretty simple concept.
I also notice you are not really addressing the larger issues I am bringing up re crony capitalism. One sentence replies about what you think I don’t know isn’t much of an argument v
Like “global warming.”
Like “The Patriot Act.”
Which, of course, democrats don’t do.
Like the “New Deal.”
So do you not know anything about the process of maintaining the environment during a coal operation? Here’s an excerpt.
Clean Air Act: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president.
Clean Water Act: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress.
RCRA: Introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democrat Congress, and signed into law by a Republican president.
So maybe you should tell your people to be a little less lax with the regulations. But then again, we know the left doesn’t actually care about the environment, while traditionalists make it one of their primary tenets.
You know, if you were actually interested in discourse I’d think you’d want to reply to what he said and not what you have deluded yourself into believing. Someone with the ability to think critically would be able to follow this simple chain of events.
You: In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers.
Spam: Uber and Lyft both left Austin because of a hostile business climate.
You: Criminal background checks for drivers makes it a hostile business environment?
See, someone paying attention would notice that by not stating anything about the ordinance, Spam was refuting your claim that the ordinance was the (sole) reason for them leaving. Yes, he should have provided further evidence to substantiate this refutation, but come on.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players. The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.
The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears. If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers. If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.
In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do. Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”
Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.
As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.
Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral
Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.
Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.
Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.
Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.
Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.
After the President’s announcement Monday morning on net neutrality, Mercatus research fellow Brent Skorup, who specializes in telecom issues, provided initial reaction.
“It does not require a law degree to question the wisdom of imposing eighty-year-old rules intended for the government-blessed monopoly telephone network on the competitive, dynamic Internet. If the FCC—an independent regulatory agency—does what the President envisions, the change will represent a stark reversal of decades of deregulatory Internet policy pursued by Congress and FCC commissioners of both political parties. The application of Title II—sometimes called utility or common carrier regulation—would result in value-destroying government oversight of the Internet. Among other damaging effects, broadband Internet would be subject to rate regulation, taxes, and fragmented regulation by state commissions. Further, many advocates who cheer this announcement have made no secret that their aims stretch beyond economic regulation of the Internet. They also seek government oversight of media, websites, and political speech online. To that end, Title II instantly politicizes the Internet and puts significant power over this dynamic technology in the hands of unelected FCC officials, lobbyists, opportunistic industry players, and well-funded activists.
“Market participants in Silicon Valley and at technology companies would increasingly rely on their risk-averse regulatory compliance officers instead of their creative engineers and designers. The complex Title II proceedings that ensue will be largely invisible and unintelligible to the public and their representatives in Congress. It would be a mistake to apply Title II’s stultifying provisions to one of the few bright spots in U.S. economy—technology and Internet services. The President’s announcement is puzzling because the political consensus is that the 1934 Communications Act should be retired in favor of modern, flexible laws that place consumers—not industries—at the forefront. Title II would impair the creative destruction that makes the U.S. technology sector a boon to consumers and the envy of the world.”
Though the economy has improved only in fits and starts over the past few years, one bright spot remains constant: The technology and communications industry. Part of this success is because Silicon Valley and the tech sector aggressively develop popular consumer products before bureaucrats and lawmakers have time to delay them. Wisely, or perhaps coincidentally, Congress has treated the Internet with benign neglect. However, there is a well-funded contingent in the net neutrality movement seeking to increase Federal Communications Commission oversight of the Internet. These net neutrality proponents are – to paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr. – standing athwart the history of technology yelling, “Stop!” Their backward-looking approach would revive large parts of telephone regulations from the 1934 Communications Act. Their goal is to persuade the FCC to reinterpret the law and apply monopoly-era telephone regulations to today’s broadband providers. Net neutrality advocates conjure up a bogeyman that ostensibly threatens startups and consumers. Their cramped worldview does not see tremendous possibilities in lightly regulated broadband and they oppose the FCC’s current hands-off approach to the Internet.
For most Americans there are no other broadband choices to pick from if you don't like who you have. Take what you can get, and you'd better like it -- because there are no other alternatives.
Without that choice, without that vaunted free marketplace you say we have, and other laws like telephone pole controlling factors holding up expansion of Google Fiber just about everywhere, and municipal broadband, the new order won't do what it promises to do.
There will be no free-market expansion, because AT&T, Verizon, and the rest of them do not will it so, and sue every time somebody wants to do something.
As with everything else, we'll see how it goes. You paint a rosy future of ISPs not blocking or throttling content because of a corporate battle or a dislike of a competitive technology -- and I have already proven to you that they do. I'm not sure why you think that all of a sudden that they're going to act in the consumers' best interest.
People scream “We need net neutrality!” despite not knowing what that phrase means, while others (who are paid by the same group) scream “We need no Internet oversight!” and all the while the ACTUAL problem–government protected false monopolies and inter-ISP price and infrastructure collusion–is completely ignored and not addressed in the slightest. And then when the bill is passed (or not, or whatever) the end result is always more government control.
You are a hypocrite, because you lament about freedom from regulations that supposedly restrictes consumer choice due to big corp being at play, yet you somehow ignore the fact that it is the small players that are usually stopped by the regulation, not the big ones. That by definition restricts consumer choice, but from your post I did not get the feeling that you are against those.
in fact, it is usually the big corp players that use the law to create a monopoly. Of course, they call it - regulations, but the main point is to prevent other SMALLER players from entering the market. Do you even understand that?
Ironic that it’s you who mentioned the doublespeak....
It’s not hyperbolic language when it’s the truth. Rights are something that we CREATE! If you don’t get that, then there’s no point in discussing it. The right started this whole fake news thing. Actually, it was Trump that really started it, by making it his modus when he did something stupid, which he does every day.
heh, the “Tim” is part of Apple’s wonderful spell correction, which I missed. It should have read “it”. Sometimes I miss these things.
but just remember that one reason we have a democracy is because of what the founders called the “fourth estate” - the press. They were, and should still be considered to be an unholder of democracy, even if you don’t like what they say. The entire point to the press, when the political world is concerned, is not to praise the government, but to criticize it. That public criticism helps to keep the public informed. It’s needed, not a sycophantic press, but a skeptical one.
but then, I suppose you would make the point that a free press is also not a right. Trump would agree. He vowed, when running fo Office to also change the libel laws so that he could sue anyone who said something about him that he wasn’t happy with
what the removal of rules intended to prevent major competitors from rolling over the smaller ones, and then rolling over the larger, but still somewhat smaller ones that are left, are the rules in place preventing it.
we can look to Amazon right now, as an extreme example, though they aren’t in this business - yet. Competition is quickly disappearing. What are you going to say when they are the only major, end even minor place to buy things? Are you so sure they will keep Bing so nice to their customers, or their partners when they no longer need to be? Bezos has been shown to be a pretty ruthless person.
these regulations don’t prevent competition, they encourage it. When communities are prevented from opening municipal ISP services by the feds and state governments because the lag]rage ISPs tell them to, as has been happening, those consumers who only have that one provider, are trampled upon. Go to Ars to read about these problems. It’s serious. You see, that’s a regulation that you like, preventing small communities who can’t get good, inexpensive service, who vote to do it themselves. That’s a large part of the hypocrisy of the right in this country.