Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[leftysergeant]

It seems like it would be better if it were an organization that regulates commerce rather than content

FCC was supposed to regulate commerce. Under the Shrub, it made a great show of regulating content for our protection. (Somebody had to defend us from the bare boobs of that luscious Janet Jackson so that we did not get so obsessed with sex that we no longer felt like sacrificing for the good of our corporate masters.)

Letting the industry have any control over the make-up of regulatory bodies is an even more obvious no-go.

We tried that already with banking and commercial fisheries.

Totally sucked.

 

[Upchurch]

It seems like it would be better if it were an organization that regulates commerce rather than content

Commerce? To verify that communication lines remain neutral to the content they are carrying?

Interesting. What is your thinking behind that and what organization were you thinking? I assume the argument against the FCC would be moot if it were another government organization. Trusting a coalition of ISP's to sale-regulate would be hopelessly naive. Consumer protection groups would have no authority to enforce anything, aside from what they.could very slowly lobby government to enforce.

 

[WildCat]

It seems like it would be better if it were an organization that regulates commerce rather than content

The FCC has no authority to regulate the content of the internet. Any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

eta: and thanks for proving my point in post #51.

 

[AlBell]

I don't see it as 'content'; rather 'amount'.

Why should it cost the same for usage of 5 Meg/month and 500 Meg/month?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see it as 'content'; rather 'amount'.

Why should it cost the same for usage of 5 Meg/month and 500 Meg/month?

Because they don't charge based on amount downloaded but based on speed at which you can download. The idea here is to give sites that pay them higher speeds to you than sites that don't pay them, breaking the internet into a fast and slow lane.

 

[Upchurch]

Because they don't charge based on amount downloaded but based on speed at which you can download. The idea here is to give sites that pay them higher speeds to you than sites that don't pay them, breaking the internet into a fast and slow lane.

Actually, plans still exist for X number of GB per month vs unlimited. I think that's pure scam, but that and Al's post still have nothing to do with network neutrality.

The FCC has no authority to regulate the content of the internet. Any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

eta: and thanks for proving my point in post #51.

QFT.

I understand the concern that government agencies might screw things up. Who doesn't from time to time? The thing is, there is no one else who has both the authority and motivation to ensure network neutrality.

Suggest another agency, I'm all ears, but the government is the only one who can do it in this case and FCC is the most obvious choice.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The FCC has no authority to regulate the content of the internet. Any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

eta: and thanks for proving my point in post #51.

The FCC has come down on ISP's for restricting traffic, however.

 

[Upchurch]

The FCC has come down on ISP's for restricting traffic, however.

And, on the face of it, that's a good thing.

The only time it makes sense to do that is, maybe, during a DoS attack, but isn't that usually on the server admin to handle?

 

[Newtons Bit]

And, on the face of it, that's a good thing.

The only time it makes sense to do that is, maybe, during a DoS attack, but isn't that usually on the server admin to handle?

That's a bit different. They're not sniffing packets and determining what priority to give them based on their content. They are, more or less, banning entire IP's from accessing their services.

 

[Upchurch]

That's a bit different. They're not sniffing packets and determining what priority to give them based on their content. They are, more or less, banning entire IP's from accessing their services.

What are you referring to, specifically? What you describe here is not what I would call the FCC coming down on ISP's for "restricting traffic".

 

[Beerina]

Seems to me the answer to this is obvious: the inclination to oppose Net Neutrality is inversely correlated one's degree of hatred for freedom -> the more you hate freedom, the more you like Net Neutrality - the more you love freedom, the more you hate Net Neutrality.

As a freedom lover, I think you can guess where I lie...

Please tell me this is satire.
I don't think I could live in a world where people thought stuff this idiotic in earnest.

Perhaps it is satire. But taking the good with the bad for freedom, under the thought that the net benefit for society is better than the inevitable problems caused by the drag of too much regulation is most certainly a viable viewpoint.

You can see how, rhetorically, every sob story that comes along becomes an anecdote when building up the "evils" of unrestricted capitalism in the memetic narrative against it in the minds of voters. Of course, in that sense, it doesn't differ from anything else at all that's ever discussed.


So, I could acknowledge the validity of every sob story you have to offer, yet still be correct that authorizing government the authority to ameliorate them (or, more often than not, merely making the wasteful attempt to do so with no outcomes follow up, he said cynically) provides a net overall drag and, therefore, a net overall worse society, as far as progress goes.

The eye of the reader believes, out of necessity, for the alternative is Fail, the occasional regulatory "correction" of capitalism is helpful by buffing and honing it to better than it otherwise would be. And, perhaps, for some issues, it actually works. But the net effect is to place many such drags, and give the benefits of capitalism (not capitalism per se) the death of a thousand cuts. And, as I suggested above, even if every single amelioration is necessary and a wild success, you could still create a net overall drag that's worse off than without any regulations at all.

In this particular case, I'm betting fear of "Oh noes! My price goes up or my access is slowed" is the real emotional buttress behind the pro net neutrality side rather than a love of egalitarianism, with which the "regulations now!" side of economics is notoriously unconcerned.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The FCC has no authority to regulate the content of the internet. Any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

eta: and thanks for proving my point in post #51.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

I dont know or care what mccain says, I worry about the nipplegate police

How would the FCC regulating the content of the internet be unconstitutional? What about TV? What about radio?

 

[Upchurch]

In this particular case, I'm betting fear of "Oh noes! My price goes up or my access is slowed" is the real emotional buttress behind the pro net neutrality side rather than a love of egalitarianism, with which the "regulations now!" side of economics is notoriously unconcerned.

You're providing more evidence for WildCat's statement:

In my experience most people who oppose net neutrality don't have the slightest idea what it actually is.

Network neutrality has nothing to do with what you pay an ISP to get online.

A lack of network neutrality will provide the exact net drag on capitalism (and technical innovation and pretty much everything overall) that you fear for everyone except the ISP's. Just to be absolutely clear:

A lack of network neutrality restricts free market, which stifles innovation and stagnates economy.​

This is the one time pro-capitalism, free market conservatives should absolutely be behind government regulation. To do otherwise is just blind adherence to talking point without understanding the principle behind it.

 

[AlBell]

Network neutrality has nothing to do with what you pay an ISP to get online.

As you see it at the moment, ok. Where do you think it'll end up other than effecting your pocketbook?

As an aside, various plans right now charge exorbitantly for usage greater than 5 Meg/mo.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Maybe I'm a rube, but I think there are some kinds of net non-neutrality that are acceptable. For example, if a switch has to choose between routing a time dependent packet and a less time-dependent packet, then privileging the time-dependent one (to an extent) makes sense in terms of optimising resource use, no? Like delaying an email two seconds is generally less deleterious to the function of email than is delaying a piece of a voip conversation.

But in terms of the other stuff like privileging sites that pay more yeah net neutrality is the way to go. Michael Geist writes generally good net-neutrality stuff for Canadians.

 

[Upchurch]

As you see it at the moment, ok. Where do you think it'll end up other than effecting your pocketbook?

As an aside, various plans right now charge exorbitantly for usage greater than 5 Meg/mo.

Yes, there is already tiered pricing for access. Whether or not you consider that an issue (what are you paying for 5 MB/month?!?), it is not same issue as network neutrality.

Think of it this way: An apple and an orange are both fruit. That does not mean that an orange is an apple.

In the same way: A lack of network neutrality and exorbitantly high internet service fees are both problems with the internet. That does not mean that high fees for internet service is a lack of network neutrality.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe I'm a rube, but I think there are some kinds of net non-neutrality that are acceptable. For example, if a switch has to choose between routing a time dependent packet and a less time-dependent packet, then privileging the time-dependent one (to an extent) makes sense in terms of optimising resource use, no? Like delaying an email two seconds is generally less deleterious to the function of email than is delaying a piece of a voip conversation.

This is the closest thing to a reasonable argument, but its validity is ultimately temporary. As mobile network speeds increase (as they undoubtedly will and must), argument will become a non-issue and becomes an argument instead for wireless companies to keep their service crappy. If wireless companies are going to kludge data onto their phone network, they can't complain that people are using the data.

Right now, Verizon won't let me use Skype on my phone without charging me voice minutes. If I have an internet connection (even second party wi-fi) there is no valid reason for charging me extra to use a viop service that, on another device, would be free.

 

[WildCat]

I don't see it as 'content'; rather 'amount'.

Why should it cost the same for usage of 5 Meg/month and 500 Meg/month?

Nothing about net neutrality prevents ISPs from metering their rates of they want to. Some tried doing this back in the early days of the internet, consumers didn't like it.

So now they want to fool the consumers by advertising "20Mbps download speeds and unlimited use", and then throttling down high-bandwidth sites so as to restrict the amount of data you can d/l.

So the Netflix user sees that advertised for an attractive price, only to find out later the ISP is throttling Netflix to 56k dial-up speeds so it takes you a week to d/l your movie. But it just so happens they have a competing movie d/l site you can subscribe to, and they won't throttle that one!

And this is exactly what the ISPs want to do - create vertical monopolies by stifling competition from competitors through the throttling I just described. Under net neutrality, they wouldn't be allowed to throttle any particular site. All sites get the same priority and speed.

Without net neutrality, any web site capable of making money could thus be forced to make a deal with the few large ISPs (and by "make a deal" I mean pay money to them like a mafia protection racket) to keep from being throttled. Or the ISP might want to get into that business themselves if it's a big moneymaker and throttle all the competition.

In short, an absence of net neutrality rules places way to much power in too few companies, is anti-competitive, and will encourage vertical monopolies. This will stifle innovation and growth, not encourage it.

 

[SezMe]

Well said, WildCat.

 

[Upchurch]

Agreed.