(12-19-2017 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:51 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:52 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

No. Anti-competitive practices are already prohibited by antitrust and related legislation. What the misnamed "net neutrality" power grab does is empower a federal bureau to micromanage what's "fair and reasonable" -- including prohibiting people from doing things that are not blessed as "fair and reasonable". Who do you expect will the primary influencers and beneficiaries of what gets entrenched as "fair and reasonable"? Hint: it won't be consumers, or entrepreneurs, or innovators...

If you look at EVERY industry in which such a regime has been imposed, the result has been less innovation and less competition, not more. This should surprise no one. The fact that it continually surprises some folks is mind-boggling.

The fact that this is your argument is mind boggling. Explain to me how net neutrality would cause or result in less innovation for any industry outside of ISPs. I have no idea how a rule that states ISPs can’t favor one person over the other would negatively effect internet users - that this could somehow stymie an entrepreneur who is trying to use the internet to disrupt an industry through innovation.

That’s like suggesting that a federal law prohibiting toll roads from charging more for one type or brand of 2 axel vehicle would result in less innovation.

No, it's like suggesting that a federal law empowering a five-man commission to pass judgment on all aspects of automobile transportation would result in less innovation. Which it would.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All of a sudden Ford could start lobbying for toll roads to charge more for Teslas, etc.

That very scenario is proof positive of the dangers of regulatory power, not its virtues.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The repeal of the rule opens the door for ISPs to favor companies who can pay for favor, crack down on content they don’t like, and, in general, have a bit more control over their customers, who are not always able to use a competiting ISP, than they should.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue at stake isn't just one particular rule, but the more fundamental question of whether the internet should be primarily a creature of regulation, or not. Yes, a common-carrier regulatory regime may allow a particular regulation that you like, but it also creates a permanent regime that will inevitably impose regulations and entrench practices that you won't like. In the medium and long run, that "cure" is much worse than any alleged disease. Moreover, the "disease" which everyone is currently exercised about is at worst a temporary condition that will heal on its own through natural innovation.

Exploratory chest surgery is not a wise prescription for a common cold.

So it isn't the actual net neutrality regulation you impose, but rather you view it as a slippery slope issue? That the requirement for ISPs to treat all content as equal will lead to further government regulations?

No, that imposing a common-carrier regulatory regime on the Internet will lead to further bad regulations.

(12-19-2017 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If that's the case, isn't any and all regulation bad? Everything from drinking water standards, to emission standards, to safety standards, etc?

Not at all. I'm sure we all agree than any expansion of government power should be treated with healthy skepticism, but that doesn't mean that all regulations are bad.

Again, the issue here is not a single regulation, but an open-ended regime. Most regulations are relatively well-defined in what they do nor do not allow; they do not generally give a political commission broad power to pass judgment on what is "fair and reasonable". The common-carrier regime does exactly that, and is thus especially troublesome.

(12-19-2017 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember, my approach is to push competition and innovation. So these are things that my approach would address.

How do you push it?

(12-19-2017 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history
In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.
From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.
In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).
Remember, net neutrality also applies to mobile networks, which are essentially ISPs nowadays.

Remember, my approach is to push competition and innovation. So these are things that my approach would address.

Remember also that the strongest ally to any company seeking to block competition is the existence of a strict regulatory structure.

You haven't explained at all how either your approach pushes competition or how, or what competition, net neutrality would reduce.

(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history

In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.

From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.

In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).

Exactly. Those alleged evils (many of which can be addressed by existing antitrust laws) are pretty slight compared to the medium- and long-term suppressive effect of empowering a political commission to pass judgment on whatever is or is not "fair and reasonable". This disease you cite can be treated over-the-counter, and does not justify an aggressively interventionist cure.

(12-19-2017 11:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history

In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.

From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.

In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).

Exactly. Those alleged evils (many of which can be addressed by existing antitrust laws) are pretty slight compared to the medium- and long-term suppressive effect of empowering a political commission to pass judgment on whatever is or is not "fair and reasonable". This disease you cite can be treated over-the-counter, and does not justify an aggressively interventionist cure.

So the crux of your argument against net neutrality legislation is that we have to wait and see on the potential problems with it?

Can you provide me details on what exactly those problems will be, how they will manifest themselves, and why I should expect this worst-case-scenario will occur? At the moment, you're really just asking me to trust that your theory that the FECC would turn into an evil organization that would start to apply their powers in a way that would suppress something (not sure what they are suppressing actually).

Right now, I see nothing other than the government boogeyman trope, with not much substance to backup that the FECC would actually become that boogeyman.

Summarizes my take.

https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neu...mpetition/

(12-19-2017 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history
In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.
From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.
In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).

Exactly. Those alleged evils (many of which can be addressed by existing antitrust laws) are pretty slight compared to the medium- and long-term suppressive effect of empowering a political commission to pass judgment on whatever is or is not "fair and reasonable". This disease you cite can be treated over-the-counter, and does not justify an aggressively interventionist cure.

So the crux of your argument against net neutrality legislation is that we have to wait and see on the potential problems with it?
Can you provide me details on what exactly those problems will be, how they will manifest themselves, and why I should expect this worst-case-scenario will occur? At the moment, you're really just asking me to trust that your theory that the FECC would turn into an evil organization that would start to apply their powers in a way that would suppress something (not sure what they are suppressing actually).
Right now, I see nothing other than the government boogeyman trope, with not much substance to backup that the FECC would actually become that boogeyman.

Read 1984.

Am I comfortable turning the Internet over to big corporations (the horror that killing "net neutrality" supposedly opens up)?

When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha.

(12-19-2017 11:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history

In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.

From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.

In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).

Exactly. Those alleged evils (many of which can be addressed by existing antitrust laws) are pretty slight compared to the medium- and long-term suppressive effect of empowering a political commission to pass judgment on whatever is or is not "fair and reasonable". This disease you cite can be treated over-the-counter, and does not justify an aggressively interventionist cure.

That is the crux --- 98 - 99 per cent of the cited and hypothetical evils are already explicit violations of various already existing consumer an/or antitrust laws. But that doesnt make a good warcry, does it? Better to throw it under the morass of common carrier regulation than actually let the specific provisions of law work as they should.....

I hope the user experience works out better than, say, airline deregulation has. I will drive a long way to avoid the modern deregulated airlines.

Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

(12-20-2017 09:57 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  I hope the user experience works out better than, say, airline deregulation has. I will drive a long way to avoid the modern deregulated airlines.

What tanq said. Moreover, for most of the history of the Internet, the user experience has been quite good -- which is exactly what skeptics of the recent FCC power grab want to preserve!

Again, the common cold can be treated over-the-counter; it is not a reason for exploratory surgery.

Comcast celebrates the corporate tax cut and net neutrality by . . . Raising its rates. Good times ahead.

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.

I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

(12-21-2017 10:44 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.
I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

What do you mean, banking deregulation? We've never had any such thing.

(12-21-2017 10:44 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.

I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

What straw man? I'm describing the US airlines before deregulation. And with all due respect, the amount of savings driven to the consumer through actual competition has been astronomical.

(12-21-2017 10:44 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.

I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

Do you honestly believe the Internet has mostly suffered by too little regulation?

(12-22-2017 06:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:44 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.

I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

What straw man? I'm describing the US airlines before deregulation. And with all due respect, the amount of savings driven to the consumer through actual competition has been astronomical.

He is also describing exactly the regime that the common-carrier scheme would allow: not just prohibiting anti-competitive practices, but authorizing the five people on the FCC to decide whether every single thing is or is not "fair and reasonable". In anything other than the shortest of short runs, who do you think will exert the strongest influence over those assessments, and who do you think that power will mostly benefit? Hint: it won't be consumers, innovators, or entrepreneurs.

(12-22-2017 08:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 06:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:44 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even though airline deregulation has driven massive savings to the consumer? Sorry, I cannot really support a system where every route is determined by the government, every ticket price is determined by the government, and an airline would be fined for serving better food than their competitor.

Nice straw man because there is nothing possible between what you describe and total deregulation.

I hope net neutrality works as well as banking deregulation did. What could go wrong?

What straw man? I'm describing the US airlines before deregulation. And with all due respect, the amount of savings driven to the consumer through actual competition has been astronomical.

He is also describing exactly the regime that the common-carrier scheme would allow: not just prohibiting anti-competitive practices, but authorizing the five people on the FCC to decide whether every single thing is or is not "fair and reasonable". In anything other than the shortest of short runs, who do you think will exert the strongest influence over those assessments, and who do you think that power will mostly benefit? Hint: it won't be consumers, innovators, or entrepreneurs.

Thank you for making more generalized and more explicit my problems with internet provision being lumped into the statutory/regulatory morass of the common carrier regime. I should have said that directly instead of making issue by singular fact issues.