Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

Newtons Bit said:
I'm not going to read 68 pages of garbage to find whatever sentence you're referring to. If you have a position, SAY IT.
Click to expand...
My position (actually the regulatory position in countries other than yours, which you're evidently blind to) is that "last mile" infrastructre owners can be required to allow other ISPs to use them as long as they want to pay. You're responding as if this can't be done, just because the US hasn't done it. Not the first time I have seen that attitude, but you're welcome to it.
 
Upchurch said:
I disagreed then and now. "Mistake" implies that it was the wrong solution, period. It was probably the best solution for the needs at the time. It was not the best solution for this particular situation. That doesn't mean it was a mistake, just a different situation.
Click to expand...
And yet it is specifically this "situation" that you want network neutrality law to correct.

I don't know why you insist on denying evidence that has been provided throughout this thread. It is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
I haven't denied anything about that case--merely pointed out that it is the direct result of your "non-mistake" of allowing dominant market power for ISPs. This must be about the fifth time you've revealed that you perceive the need for network neutrality to be due to service providers having monopolistic power. I have argued that you (well the US) would do better to address the dominance of market power in the first place (less innovation-stifling unintended consequences). Yet you won't hear of it. Far, far better to add on more regulation to try to squash the undesired consequence of the original regulation, which you also deny is a mistake. . . .


Evidence?
Click to expand...
What? You want evidence that customers and content providers differentiate between what they offer or consume? Ha ha.
 
Francesca R said:
And yet it is specifically this "situation" that you want network neutrality law to correct.

I haven't denied anything about that case--merely pointed out that it is the direct result of your "non-mistake" of allowing dominant market power for ISPs. This must be about the fifth time you've revealed that you perceive the need for network neutrality to be due to service providers having monopolistic power. I have argued that you (well the US) would do better to address the dominance of market power in the first place (less innovation-stifling unintended consequences). Yet you won't hear of it. Far, far better to add on more regulation to try to squash the undesired consequence of the original regulation, which you also deny is a mistake. . . .


What? You want evidence that customers and content providers differentiate between what they offer or consume? Ha ha.
Click to expand...

You, uh, like ignoring arguments much?
 
Francesca R said:
And yet it is specifically this "situation" that you want network neutrality law to correct.
Click to expand...
This aspect of it, yes. What's the problem with that?

Francesca R said:
I haven't denied anything about that case--merely pointed out that it is the direct result of your "non-mistake" of allowing dominant market power for ISPs.
Click to expand...
Honestly, this is getting tiresome. There are multiple paths to the same destination. Just because the US choose a different path from the UK does not mean that one is necessarily superior or inferior to the other.

For just a moment, imagine that the US is currently where it is now and that we must move forward from that point. From that perspective, do you have a reasonable argument against network neutrality?

(Not that having a plurality of vender choices guarantees good service. Take the cellphone industry. Please.)

Francesca R said:
What? You want evidence that customers and content providers differentiate between what they offer or consume? Ha ha.
Click to expand...
I want evidence that customers and content providers want to pay more for the services they previously enjoyed at a lower fee, yes.
 
TFian said:
It's a shame she goes way above your head. She really had it all right.
Click to expand...

Not an english major, I take it? I found Rand's work to be dreadfully dull and her socio-economic "theories" to be juvenile.
 
Upchurch said:
There are multiple paths to the same destination.
Click to expand...
Glad you agree. And there are decent arguments for a path other than the one you favour. Which is what you queried, and which you haven't actually argued against because as far as you seem to be concerned, requiring phone and cable companies to open up their networks to competitors is an idea to ignore.

For just a moment, imagine that the US is currently where it is now and that we must move forward from that point. From that perspective, do you have a reasonable argument against network neutrality?
Click to expand...
Already given (post 68). I am not willing to accept that the US can somehow do nothing to open up cable and phone networks to competition, when other countries do it.

I want evidence that customers and content providers want to pay more for the services they previously enjoyed at a lower fee, yes.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with what I posted.
 
Francesca R said:
Glad you agree. And there are decent arguments for a path other than the one you favour.
Click to expand...
Funny. That's what I was trying to get you to understand.

Francesca R said:
Already given (post 68). I am not willing to accept that the US can somehow do nothing to open up cable and phone networks to competition, when other countries do it.
Click to expand...
If we cannot find common ground, then there is nothing to discuss.
 
Upchurch said:
Funny. That's what I was trying to get you to understand.
Click to expand...
Oh I certainly understand the reasoning behind Americans' support for various permutations of network neutrality legislation (Note that the rules passed by your FCC last month do not prohibit "reasonable" data discrimination, which probably includes fast-tracking and pay-for-priority). I acknowledged as much in post 45: "But there are decent arguments against regulation for content tiering as well as for." So I don't think I've needed any educating from yourself. :)

And you wondered what they (the arguments against regulation for content tiering) are, but it's not clear you're really interested.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
And you wondered what they (the arguments against regulation for content tiering) are, but it's not clear you're really interested.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am. What isn't clear is that you've been paying attention to the thread:

Upchurch said:
Now, maybe I should have been more specific in my challenge, but I thought it was implied given the sub-forum we're on, but let me restate it more clearly now:

Is there any legitimate argument against network neutrality in the United States?
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
Honestly, that's the only reason I could see being against network neutrality. (...in the US. Sorry, Francesca R)
Click to expand...
 
The arguments/reasons certainly apply to the US. You just need to look beyond your borders for solutions sometimes, 'stead of tripping on exceptionalism or whatever.
 
Francesca R said:
The arguments/reasons certainly apply to the US. You just need to look beyond your borders for solutions sometimes, 'stead of tripping on exceptionalism or whatever.
Click to expand...
Restructuring ownership agreements and/or seizing private assets in order to mimic the UK system isn't exactly what I would call "reasonable" or a "legitimate argument", even if it does have a solid anti-US vibe to it.
 
It isn't "seizing private assets" any more than what you want to do is that. It's imposing service requirements (same as what you want to do). And it isn't "anti-US" either. There is no ideological divide along those lines between your views and mine.
 
Francesca R said:
My position (actually the regulatory position in countries other than yours, which you're evidently blind to) is that "last mile" infrastructre owners can be required to allow other ISPs to use them as long as they want to pay. You're responding as if this can't be done, just because the US hasn't done it. Not the first time I have seen that attitude, but you're welcome to it.
Click to expand...

Many local areas (such as mine) have this requirement already. There's still basically zero competition.
 
Francesca R said:
It isn't "seizing private assets" any more than what you want to do is that. It's imposing service requirements (same as what you want to do). And it isn't "anti-US" either. There is no ideological divide along those lines between your views and mine.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're the one who accused me of exceptionalism. And the one insisting that the UK system is superior and the US should just switch to that, despite the fact that the US has roughly 40 times the land mass of the UK and about 5 times the population and infrastructure has slightly different challenges because of that. Our current system has addressed problems the UK, frankly, just doesn't have. That isn't exceptionalism. It's scale. The way our internet infrastructure developed was a product of the environment in which it existed.

Now, given the fact that the US isn't like UK, is there any reasonable, legitimate argument against network neutrality for the US?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom