• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

LorenzoValla said:
No, that's what it purports to do. Big difference.
Click to expand...

It actually does do that.

What the gov't should really do is stop regulating who can bring cable and the internet to one's home and open it up to competition. Right now, the rules are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The federal government doesn't do that. Some state and local governments do. At the behest of corporations like Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Those same corporations are also the ones that stand to lose anything from net neutrality.
 
Tony Stark said:
It actually does do that.
Click to expand...
No, it's denying the opportunity for companies to do what they want with their equipment. Instead of punishing them, overturn the monopolistic laws at the local levels and let their competitors punish them.
The federal government doesn't do that. Some state and local governments do. At the behest of corporations like Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Those same corporations are also the ones that stand to lose anything from net neutrality.
Click to expand...
See above. The system is broken right now. The NN approach is to take a broken system and try to regulate it. I strongly prefer to use the power of the federal gov't to quash what makes the system broken rather than trying to regulate the broken pieces.
 
LorenzoValla said:
No, it's denying the opportunity for companies to do what they want with their equipment. Instead of punishing them, overturn the monopolistic laws at the local levels and let their competitors punish them.
Click to expand...

Allowing ISPs to control the internet is only good for the ISPs. It is bad for everybody else.

See above. The system is broken right now. The NN approach is to take a broken system and try to regulate it. I strongly prefer to use the power of the federal gov't to quash what makes the system broken rather than trying to regulate the broken pieces.
Click to expand...

Doing what you suggest doesn't mean that the invisible hand of the free market would magically swoop in to fix everything. The reality of the matter is that the lines and everything that are necessary to install broadband internet are very expensive which prohibits competition.
 
Tony Stark said:
Allowing ISPs to control the internet is only good for the ISPs. It is bad for everybody else.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I believe more competition is better than less.
Doing what you suggest doesn't mean that the invisible hand of the free market would magically swoop in to fix everything. The reality of the matter is that the lines and everything that are necessary to install broadband internet are very expensive which prohibits competition.
Click to expand...
Google is here in Austin and can only install lines in certain neighborhoods before going on to other ones. Not because of market demands, but because of the government determining what is 'right'. ATT either can't or won't bring a competing service to these non-Google neighborhoods because they don't need to (no competition). The consumer suffers because there is no high capacity internet available for those willing to pay for it. The gov't's plan stupidly looks at these relatively low speeds and decides that the only way to protect the capacity of these households is by regulating what's in place rather than allowing companies to create higher capacity in a competitive market. Sorry, but that's not something I can ever support.
 
LorenzoValla said:
Sorry, but I believe more competition is better than less.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address the fact that allowing Comcast to do whatever they want is bad for everybody except for Comcast.

Google is here in Austin and can only install lines in certain neighborhoods before going on to other ones. Not because of market demands, but because of the government determining what is 'right'. ATT either can't or won't bring a competing service to these non-Google neighborhoods because they don't need to (no competition). The consumer suffers because there is no high capacity internet available for those willing to pay for it. The gov't's plan stupidly looks at these relatively low speeds and decides that the only way to protect the capacity of these households is by regulating what's in place rather than allowing companies to create higher capacity in a competitive market. Sorry, but that's not something I can ever support.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality doesn't ask you to support that and so it is a non-argument against it.
 
Tony Stark said:
That doesn't address the fact that allowing Comcast to do whatever they want is bad for everybody except for Comcast.
Click to expand...
You can't defend that statement. That's a ludicrous assertion. I don't like cable companies any more than the next person, but if you don't like them, you should want them to compete to keep alive.
Net neutrality doesn't ask you to support that and so it is a non-argument against it.
Click to expand...
The very premise of net neutrality is to protect consumers from what are considered exploitive business practices, but the only reason those practices can be exploitive is because they are protected by the government in the first place. So, what NN is promoting is the argument that because the gov't didn't protect consumers on one level, that the gov't should protect them on another level. That's why I don't support NN - it's just a shell game.
 
LorenzoValla said:
But it doesn't address the root cause, which is a limit of competition among those bringing the end service.
Click to expand...
Perfect solution fallacy. Plus the issues aren't mutually exclusive. You can have net neutrality even with more competition.

Remember, the free market is a concept not a religion.
 
LorenzoValla said:
But it doesn't address the root cause, which is a limit of competition among those bringing the end service.
Click to expand...

A limit on competition caused by mergers and buyouts and collusion and other intentional actions by the ISPs.

So then what's the solution? Anti-trust suits?

I seem to remember asking someone else this exact question. They never answered it.
 
ehcks said:
A limit on competition caused by mergers and buyouts and collusion and other intentional actions by the ISPs.

So then what's the solution? Anti-trust suits?

I seem to remember asking someone else this exact question. They never answered it.
Click to expand...
If anti-trusts make sense, I'm all for it. And, as I said earlier, I'm opposed to local gov't regulations that create monopolies in the first place.
 
Francesca R said:
I heart The Economist. I haven't seen much opinion from it about net neutrality to date. Maybe it is the new editor's doing.
Click to expand...

"Get rid of those monopolies and there would be much less need to worry about the mind-numbing intricacies of network neutrality. "


It's like saying: "Earth is overcrowded. So just start a new human colony on Mars."

LorenzoValla said:
If anti-trusts make sense, I'm all for it. And, as I said earlier, I'm opposed to local gov't regulations that create monopolies in the first place.
Click to expand...

ehcks has asked it at least twice now. I have asked it about half a dozen times.

What is your solution to achieve "competition?" Anti-trust lawsuit?

"Get the federal government to change the rules."

1. What rules, exactly?
2. What should they change?
3. How is that ideologically any different from the government "changing the rules" regarding NN?

I have asked Francesca over and over and over again. She has never answered. I have asked you several times. You have never answered. What, exactly, is your plan of action for creating "moar competition!!!1!" ?

Even if you were able to somehow break the monopolies in local districts as low as the county and township level, how in the world are you going to spur "competition" when it is very, very, VERY expensive for a new startup to build brand new infrastructure everywhere? Or else, how are you going to garner enough political clout to take infrastructure property away from ISPs that already own infrastructure, and allow other companies to use it equally? Yes, it worked in the UK. Yes, it worked in NZ. But neither the UK nor NZ has politicians at the national level named "John Boehner."
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
ehcks has asked it at least twice now. I have asked it about half a dozen times.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old pretense of 'you didn't answer'...
What is your solution to achieve "competition?" Anti-trust lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Followed by a comment on the answer. Woops.
"Get the federal government to change the rules."

1. What rules, exactly?
2. What should they change?
3. How is that ideologically any different from the government "changing the rules" regarding NN?

I have asked Francesca over and over and over again. She has never answered. I have asked you several times. You have never answered. What, exactly, is your plan of action for creating "moar competition!!!1!" ?
Click to expand...
You seem to believe that without a gov't plan in place, that those who compete will not know what to do until directed by the guiding hand of the gov't.

I don't know the rules all over the nation. I live in Austin, TX, and as I have said earlier, there are two companies (including Google) that are brining fiber and/or high speed internet to homes but are restricted by the PUC (not sure if it's local or state rules) from bringing it to the neighborhoods of their choosing because they must bring it to low income neighborhoods first, and only after gaining a minimum market share are they allowed to expand into other neighborhoods. These rules have essentially blocked one older company from establishing widespread access in Austin and Google is currently only available in a few areas in town.

Furthermore, once Google announced it was coming to Austin, ATT immediately started installing fiber in order to stay competitive but they aren't in every neighborhood yet, either because they don't need to be or because they aren't allowed. That's what competition does.
Even if you were able to somehow break the monopolies in local districts as low as the county and township level, how in the world are you going to spur "competition" when it is very, very, VERY expensive for a new startup to build brand new infrastructure everywhere?
Click to expand...
Why do you presume that cost is such a prohibition? Who put the current infrastructure in? Companies did and other companies would also do the same. Google and other companies are doing that right now.
Or else, how are you going to garner enough political clout to take infrastructure property away from ISPs that already own infrastructure, and allow other companies to use it equally? Yes, it worked in the UK. Yes, it worked in NZ. But neither the UK nor NZ has politicians at the national level named "John Boehner."
Click to expand...
That's a strawman argument. You are assuming that all companies could only exist side by side in competition by using their own equipment. Companies could choose to lease access to their lines to their competitors (and don't pretend that couldn't or wouldn't happen), and other companies could choose to install or negotiate a lease. For example, Google could lay fiber and sell their own service directly to consumers or if it found it to be better economically, let others handle the end service.

But, your entire premise that it's too expensive is demonstrably false considering that companies have already been doing this for years.
 
ehcks said:
Huh?

What government regulations caused this?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. Businesses frequently get gov't to enact legislation that protects themselves but that is sold to the public as protecting the consumer. Protectionism has been around as long as gov'ts and businesses have coexisted.
 
Nihilianth said:
What is your solution to achieve "competition?" Anti-trust lawsuit? [ . . . ] I have asked Francesca over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
You seem to conclude that because you can't find a way to dismantle bad regulation, then logical thing is to layer new regulation over the top of it to try to compensate for the badness.

That the implication of this is lost on you is pretty weird.
 
Francesca R said:
You seem to conclude that because you can't find a way to dismantle bad regulation, then logical thing is to layer new regulation over the top of it to try to compensate for the badness.
Click to expand...

The proposed NN laws intend to solve an immediate threat to net neutrality, not to solve abstract systemic problems. So yes, the logical thing is to solve the problems in front of us, in the least to mitigate harm until the economic miracle occurs that you imagine might obviate the kind of overreach desired by the ISPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom