- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
‘Net Neutrality’ Is a Problem, Not a Solution
|
|
|
Comments (26)
6 earlier comments in the full thread.
On the risk that this might be considered political... I will state for the record that I am a conservative,... The Alex P. Keaton of my family... But this issue is not really political. Its been made political by $$$.
Net Neutrality is a necessary thing. We have yet to see whether these particular FCC regs accomplish that goal. I am hopefully optimistic. Machines don't discriminate one datagram packet versus another. At least they don't unless you go out of your way to use things like deep packet inspection to accomplish traffic shaping (which really does take a lot of work to accomplish). The only thing the machines are concerned with is whether they can route from one node to another, and whether a packet gets sent/rec'd by one host or another (and not even that depending on which layer/protocol you're talking about).
The opposition to net neutrality CANNOT, logically, be firmly based on capitalistic market principles. The reason??? Simple. Companies must use Gov't power to either get access to the limit electromagnetic frequencies they use or to force people to permit the companies to put wires/cables/fiber-optics across their property. It's not THEIR network if they use good old Henry VIII style powers and favors to get it. If you use Gov't power to create a monopoly, you have to be willing to accept reasonable Gov't controls. It's not "free market" if you're the only game in town, as blessed by "The State." Period.
The content providers/Big Media/Big ISPs are sore because they thought they bought and paid for the current administration. Now, they are trying to use their soap box to convince the great unwashed it is an "economic freedom" issue. They didn't quite realize that a lame-duck administration has got nothing to lose by serving the public (especially when Big Media/Big ISPs were spreading the wealth to the other side). So,... They switched sides, and hoped nobody noticed how the parties flip-flopped over their viewpoints on the matter. It was both parties chasing $$$, and had absolutely zero to do with real politics. If you don't believe they switched sides... Just consider that the FCC chair used to be the top lobbyist for the industry, and was promoting rules that allowed for "fast lanes," just a little while ago... And for good measure, watch John Oliver's classic clip about net neutrality... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU (if not to back my point, so much as it is just awesomely funny and informative at the same time). Keep in mind that Oliver's show is on HBO, owned by Time-Warner (talk about "biting the hand").
Net Neutrality is a necessary thing. We have yet to see whether these particular FCC regs accomplish that goal. I am hopefully optimistic. Machines don't discriminate one datagram packet versus another. At least they don't unless you go out of your way to use things like deep packet inspection to accomplish traffic shaping (which really does take a lot of work to accomplish). The only thing the machines are concerned with is whether they can route from one node to another, and whether a packet gets sent/rec'd by one host or another (and not even that depending on which layer/protocol you're talking about).
The opposition to net neutrality CANNOT, logically, be firmly based on capitalistic market principles. The reason??? Simple. Companies must use Gov't power to either get access to the limit electromagnetic frequencies they use or to force people to permit the companies to put wires/cables/fiber-optics across their property. It's not THEIR network if they use good old Henry VIII style powers and favors to get it. If you use Gov't power to create a monopoly, you have to be willing to accept reasonable Gov't controls. It's not "free market" if you're the only game in town, as blessed by "The State." Period.
The content providers/Big Media/Big ISPs are sore because they thought they bought and paid for the current administration. Now, they are trying to use their soap box to convince the great unwashed it is an "economic freedom" issue. They didn't quite realize that a lame-duck administration has got nothing to lose by serving the public (especially when Big Media/Big ISPs were spreading the wealth to the other side). So,... They switched sides, and hoped nobody noticed how the parties flip-flopped over their viewpoints on the matter. It was both parties chasing $$$, and had absolutely zero to do with real politics. If you don't believe they switched sides... Just consider that the FCC chair used to be the top lobbyist for the industry, and was promoting rules that allowed for "fast lanes," just a little while ago... And for good measure, watch John Oliver's classic clip about net neutrality... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU (if not to back my point, so much as it is just awesomely funny and informative at the same time). Keep in mind that Oliver's show is on HBO, owned by Time-Warner (talk about "biting the hand").
"We're from the government. We're here to help you."
I agree with jdixon - too many opportunities for political abuse of the net now, IMO.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I agree with jdixon - too many opportunities for political abuse of the net now, IMO.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This article is indeed way out there.
As to the actual topic, Net Neutrality is a principle, not contained within these laws. As a principle, it's pretty clear that Net Neutrality is a good thing for consumers. However, it's unfortunate that there have to be regulations in place to try to keep that principle going (notice I said "keep" because Net Neutrality started out as standard practice). I guess the real question is, What are the alternatives?
As to the actual topic, Net Neutrality is a principle, not contained within these laws. As a principle, it's pretty clear that Net Neutrality is a good thing for consumers. However, it's unfortunate that there have to be regulations in place to try to keep that principle going (notice I said "keep" because Net Neutrality started out as standard practice). I guess the real question is, What are the alternatives?
> Net Neutrality is a necessary thing.
I'd argue that it's a good thing, and necessary for proper functioning of the Internet as designed, but not necessary in the cosmic scheme of things. A network can be made to work without it, it just won't be the Internet we've come to know.
I'd argue that it's a good thing, and necessary for proper functioning of the Internet as designed, but not necessary in the cosmic scheme of things. A network can be made to work without it, it just won't be the Internet we've come to know.
CFWhitman,
That same link I posted in this thread has a potential solution as an alternative.
That same link I posted in this thread has a potential solution as an alternative.
Net Neutrality regulates the Internet the same way the Constitution regulates free speech.
> Net Neutrality regulates the Internet the same way the Constitution regulates free speech.
332 pages is a lot of space to say "Congress shall make no law...". I suspect there's a bit more in there than that. I also suspect that what ever is in there will be abused by the current administration as much as the IRS and EPA have been.
That said, the major ISP's have no one to blame but themselves for this ruling.
My main concern in this particular case is the lack of transparency. I've never know an organization like the FCC to make a change of this magnitude with out making the proposed rules public and allowing a fair amount of time for feedback from the public. It's worrisome that those procedures weren't followed in this case.
332 pages is a lot of space to say "Congress shall make no law...". I suspect there's a bit more in there than that. I also suspect that what ever is in there will be abused by the current administration as much as the IRS and EPA have been.
That said, the major ISP's have no one to blame but themselves for this ruling.
My main concern in this particular case is the lack of transparency. I've never know an organization like the FCC to make a change of this magnitude with out making the proposed rules public and allowing a fair amount of time for feedback from the public. It's worrisome that those procedures weren't followed in this case.
Quoting: 332 pages is a lot of space to say "Congress shall make no law...".
Is suspect that it is 7-10 pages of regulations with 322-325 pages of explanation and legal justification, in order that they might pass the inevitable judicial review. As for the lack of transparency, it has never been the FCC's custom to release rules for review until they have been voted on. While I find that practice troubling, it's not as if this were handled any differently.
There are more draconian regimes that have enacted internet regulation, and have failed to change the character of the internet. Wasn't it the South Koreans who had passed a regulation that all internet accounts had to be in the person's real name??? That one didn't last. The South Koreans aren't known for their easy going attitude when it comes to getting on board with Gov't policy and jingoism.
I suspect the rules will deal with Title II issues of common carrier status, and maybe with some stuff thrown in about ISP's responsibilities for providing access and promises of bringing high speed service to more areas (re-investment commitments). They ask for a monopoly and don't want to be regulated. Then, they cry and gnash their teeth like a bunch of babies (Verizon,... issuing a morse code statement in a hissy-fit)... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th...
To quote a somewhat campy, but still loveable movie, "Somebody call the Wambulance."
I'm sure, in the end, this will be a positive thing. I mean, it's not like the government ever uses its power to favor its cronies or to silence political enemies.
Quoting: I'm sure, in the end, this will be a positive thing. I mean, it's not like the government ever uses its power to favor its cronies or to silence political enemies.
D@mned if we do,... D@mned if we don't. If nothing was done, it was going to end up pretty bad. It's unlikely it will get worse than that.
Quoting:I'm sure, in the end, this will be a positive thing. I mean, it's not like the government ever uses its power to favor its cronies or to silence political enemies.
After a couple more margaritas, I may even believe that. But, whatever the outcome, the industry brought it upon themselves. To be successful with greed, you must moderate its appearance.
Here is an interesting interview of one of the FCC commissioners, where he says that the Net Neutrality regulations will have ‘severe’ tax impacts and other negative consequences: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/27/fcc-commish-new-re...
> D@mned if we do,... D@mned if we don't
As I said in the one conversation I linked to, " Ah, the ancient quandary, the devil you know or the one you don't?"
> But, whatever the outcome, the industry brought it upon themselves.
Exactly.
Government regulation is a sledgehammer. It's almost never the best solution. but sometimes it's the only one available. I'm afraid we're in exactly such a case.
As I said in the one conversation I linked to, " Ah, the ancient quandary, the devil you know or the one you don't?"
> But, whatever the outcome, the industry brought it upon themselves.
Exactly.
Government regulation is a sledgehammer. It's almost never the best solution. but sometimes it's the only one available. I'm afraid we're in exactly such a case.
It's amazing how little of the argument about/against Net Neutrality has any connection to the actual (and verifiable) facts.
Techdirt: Wall Street Journal Upset That Wall Street Isn't Upset About Net Neutrality https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015022...
Techdirt: Wall Street Journal Upset That Wall Street Isn't Upset About Net Neutrality https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015022...
I do support the concept of Net Neutrality, but the best way to enforce it is to have more ISP's competing, not the FCC or any government agency that may already be intertwined with the same corporations that are opposed to said concept.
http://consumerist.com/2014/08/28/how-isps-compete-with-muni...
http://consumerist.com/2014/08/28/how-isps-compete-with-muni...
How do you suppose we get more ISPs??? Start-up subsidies??? Not going to happen. Big telecom brought this fight,... won in court and have forced the other side to get the Internet labeled as a Title II service. They got kicked in the rear end with their own boot. I have zero sympathy for them.
> How do you suppose we get more ISPs???
Many local municipalities have looked at running fiber. The telco's and cable companies have lobbied their state governments and I believe even gone to court to stop them.
There aren't any good guys in this situation. It's a question of pitting one evil against another and hoping for the best.
Many local municipalities have looked at running fiber. The telco's and cable companies have lobbied their state governments and I believe even gone to court to stop them.
There aren't any good guys in this situation. It's a question of pitting one evil against another and hoping for the best.
> Many local municipalities have looked at running fiber. The telco's and cable companies have lobbied their state governments and I believe even gone to court to stop them.
< SOAP BOX >
That actually happened right here in my home state of North Carolina, USA. The city of Wilson, where I work, is the poster child for it.
Wilson had awful Internet access. Eight years ago my employers headquarters' access was over a 3mbps synchronous wireless link with weekly downtime, the latency of a sloth, and an actual throughput of around 1 mbps. So, the city went to the major carriers (Time Warner, CenturyLink, et. al.) asking them to upgrade their infrastructure. They were ignored.
A small local provider attempted to work with the city to build and market the upgrades, but they were stymied by - guess what - government regulations.
Finally the city said screw em all and they built it themselves. Now my employer gets a great deal on 100mbps fiber which performs as advertised. On top of that, Time Warner is running fiber and dropping prices to compete. However, the State Assembly has passed laws to prevent other cities doing the same.
Note that if the big carriers hadn't successfully lobbied for regulations to prevent new competition, Wilson wouldn't have had to go it alone.
The Internet service at my house sucks. It's through CenturyLink who has a monopoly in my area granted by - guess who - the government.
Do you see big business as your enemy and big government as your saviour? You're a fool. They are two arms of the same beast. What difference does it make if the beast kills with its left arm or its right. Dead is dead.
Until we stop crony capitalism and remove government regulations that prevent entrepreneurship, this problem cannot and will not be solved. Because socialism (seeing the government as your provider, protector, and saviour) has invaded the thinking of the American populace, I fear that the only possible end is that of the USSR.
< /SOAP BOX >
Edit: Oops - my bits were bytes.
< SOAP BOX >
That actually happened right here in my home state of North Carolina, USA. The city of Wilson, where I work, is the poster child for it.
Wilson had awful Internet access. Eight years ago my employers headquarters' access was over a 3mbps synchronous wireless link with weekly downtime, the latency of a sloth, and an actual throughput of around 1 mbps. So, the city went to the major carriers (Time Warner, CenturyLink, et. al.) asking them to upgrade their infrastructure. They were ignored.
A small local provider attempted to work with the city to build and market the upgrades, but they were stymied by - guess what - government regulations.
Finally the city said screw em all and they built it themselves. Now my employer gets a great deal on 100mbps fiber which performs as advertised. On top of that, Time Warner is running fiber and dropping prices to compete. However, the State Assembly has passed laws to prevent other cities doing the same.
Note that if the big carriers hadn't successfully lobbied for regulations to prevent new competition, Wilson wouldn't have had to go it alone.
The Internet service at my house sucks. It's through CenturyLink who has a monopoly in my area granted by - guess who - the government.
Do you see big business as your enemy and big government as your saviour? You're a fool. They are two arms of the same beast. What difference does it make if the beast kills with its left arm or its right. Dead is dead.
Until we stop crony capitalism and remove government regulations that prevent entrepreneurship, this problem cannot and will not be solved. Because socialism (seeing the government as your provider, protector, and saviour) has invaded the thinking of the American populace, I fear that the only possible end is that of the USSR.
< /SOAP BOX >
Edit: Oops - my bits were bytes.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
For those looking for the blatantly political libertarian take on the matter, there's a discussion at Vox Popoli: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/curses-foiled-again.html#...
Fair warning, I take part in the latter one. :)