6 GOP Senators(Including Vitter) are Introducing an Amendment to Block Net Neutrality Policy (1 Viewer)

[Sardonios]

Well, here's the problem.

(Before going any further, let me first say that I agree with blackadder; this seems to be a payola issue. The rest of what follows is mostly theoretical. I believe our system to be more corrupt than any of us truely realize. We play the parlor game of pretending esoterica matters, when in truth it's simply about who gave money to who).

The throttling back and pay-for-extras that have been attempted thus far have been rejected by the market. In principle, the solution to companies attempting such policies should be competition.

As Bronco noted, however, there are barriers to entry in the field. There are only a few ISPs, comparatively speaking, and their networks were funded in part with government dollars (at least that's my understanding of it).

While on the surface net nuetrality seems like something everyone should support, it's still dangerous. It's allowing government a foothold and measure of control over something where it previously had none. While the current level of control seems innocuous, it's setting the precedent that the government has the right to stick its nose in this business.

Nothing with government ever stays innocuous and harmless. Time will pass, and government will continue to creep.

My specific problem with this issue is the barrier to entry for competitors. There doesn't seem room for a Netflix to come along and kill the Blockbusters of the ISP industry if they decide to collude to rake us over the coals. Then again, I never would have predicted Netflix owning Blockbuster the way they have. So who knows.

I'm torn. The government regs seem harmless at this point, and I despise the ISPs for even considering such policies. I have to believe, though, that we've built enough history that customers won't stand for throttling back or other usage fees, and that some competitor could come in and make a fortune offering real Internet service.

But then I go back to the fact that most of the infrastructure is owned by only a few entities, and that worries me.

In the end, I don't trust that these politicians have our interest in the front of their minds. I don't want to see the government gain a foothold and implicit authority and stewardship over the Internet.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the ISPs. But they are dirty dealers themselves, and quasi-governmental.

I'm far from an antitrust expert, and I have no idea how much actual control Comcast et al. have over the infrastructure involved here, but your post reminds me of three major components of the US antitrust landscape: 1) essential facilities doctrine; 2) concerted refusal to deal; and 3) the break-up of Ma Bell.

I think Net neutrality is all well and good, but I'm unconvinced we face a monopolistic hellscape if it ultimately falls. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the idea that we'll see MCI-style competitors backed by the specter of antitrust penalties is Pollyannaish. But it's that or trusting our politicians to perpetually protect our interests against encroachment by one of the largest industries in the country. I think I'll take my chances.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

The internet was developed with your tax dollars. It is now as important as phone service or a vehicle for your daily life. To allow greedy corporations control over what you can and can't access is tantamount to turning over the interstate road system to toll providers.

In my post (from a long while back) I did not say anything about corporations being able to limit your bandwidth based upon what you are viewing... I just said they should be able to charge by bandwidth usage if they choose to. To allow them to restrict usage of different sites would allow them complete control over internet commerce and the ability to give one company an unfair competitive advantage over another one.

 

[dtc]

This is the part where we just have different philosophies and will disagree.

I'm more distrustful of government's hand than you are. I like the anarchy of the Internet, even though it isn't truly anrchistic anymore. But I like where the lean towards anarchy has taken it; I'd go so far as to say it's what has made it so cool.

I just don't want to see the FCC creeping.

So, instead of letting government do its job, you'd rather be raped?

Not me. The job of government is to govern and in a society such as ours, that governance should be to keep the power of institutions in check.

I can't care less if the FCC regulates what ISPs charge for bandwidth.

 

[The Mongoose]

So, instead of letting government do its job, you'd rather be raped?

Not me. The job of government is to govern and in a society such as ours, that governance should be to keep the power of institutions in check.

I can't care less if the FCC regulates what ISPs charge for bandwidth.

Govern = rape.

You're gonna be sore in the morning no matter what.

 

[Maxp]

Mongoose, do you really trust Comcast, bellSouth, etc. to offer better, cheaper service or do you expect them to jack up rates for the same or lower quality? When was the last time a utility company cut it's rates? Never since I've been paying bills.

 

[buzd]

Mongoose, do you really trust Comcast, bellSouth, etc. to offer better, cheaper service or do you expect them to jack up rates for the same or lower quality? When was the last time a utility company cut it's rates? Never since I've been paying bills.

We got credits back with Entergy after oil prices spiked.

 

[wnelson]

net neutrality Vs free speech

the bill was introduced to keep the FCC from placing rules on CONTENT

 

[Tapxe]

In my post (from a long while back) I did not say anything about corporations being able to limit your bandwidth based upon what you are viewing... I just said they should be able to charge by bandwidth usage if they choose to. To allow them to restrict usage of different sites would allow them complete control over internet commerce and the ability to give one company an unfair competitive advantage over another one.

The problem is that they are able to do exactly what you say you don't want them to do based on this ruling.

 

[The Mongoose]

Mongoose, do you really trust Comcast, bellSouth, etc. to offer better, cheaper service or do you expect them to jack up rates for the same or lower quality? When was the last time a utility company cut it's rates? Never since I've been paying bills.

No, I don't trust them.

As I indicated in those above posts from September '09, the fact that these quasi-government funded networks provide a huge barrier to entry is a problem.

But I'd rather trust market dynamics than any sort of government.

 

[dtc]

Govern = rape.

You're gonna be sore in the morning no matter what.

What does your government do to you that makes you so resentful? I've been given parking tickets and speeding tickets and was once attacked by a cop who I promptly beat down like a child, but the IRS and the SEC and the FDIC and the rest don't bother me much. They may be incompetent or annoying, but how can you equate government restricting corporate rape by buying of legislators to the government raping you?

What are you people so darned mad about? Seriously, I'm pretty pod that the rich got tax breaks by borrowing the money from our kids and I'm sore about the lies to get to Iraq, but that isn't at all like feeling raped because congress legislates what an ISP can do with its government subsidized infrastructure to the detriment of all.

 

[dtc]

No, I don't trust them.

As I indicated in those above posts from September '09, the fact that these quasi-government funded networks provide a huge barrier to entry is a problem.

But I'd rather trust market dynamics than any sort of government.

My 5 yr old believes in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. I don't care what imaginary entity you choose to believe in or not, but market dynamics are not at work when corporations are subsidized by govt and then use their money to buy influence so they can lie, cheat and steal.

You're scaring me.

 

[Bulletproof Tiger]

I am cool with anything that keeps the FCC out of my business. They've already ruined so much of my TV and terrestrial radio experience.

 

[The Mongoose]

I don't care what imaginary entity you choose to believe in or not, but market dynamics are not at work when corporations are subsidized by govt and then use their money to buy influence so they can lie, cheat and steal.

That sounds like a government problem, no?

Seriously, are you really feeling this froggy? Don't you have a Mcmansion to build? D)

We've been down this road before and we get nowhere. I spew some esoteric free market bull****, you disagree, and we realize we have different philosophies. You think I'm a naive idealist, I think you're somewhat guilty of your success and a born contrarian who loves giving fits to the fat, cigar-smoking, Tommy Bahama-wearing, fox news-parroting captains of industry in a redneck state, even though you aren't quite comfortable with the big government of the left.

Aren't we wasting our time? Let's just skip to the part where we decide we sort of like each other.

 

[AppleSaint]

Not really speaking about Neutrality but more in general

I wish the Government would set minimal regulations but regulations nonetheless. It seems that the big corporations want as free enterprise as possible yet turn around and GET the government to intervene whenever THEY need them.

How Verizon, AT&T, and others have gotten laws passed that restrict local companies from starting and growing is absolutely beyond me. If AT&T, Verizon, and others want an open system, give them an ACTUAL open system.

Anyone who reads DSLReports.com can attest to the amount of articles by those guys about how big companies use the government to constantly attack competition yet use it just as often to shield themselves whenever they can with their HUGE financial advantage

 

[Sniper Wolf]

No, I don't trust them.

But I'd rather trust market dynamics than any sort of government.

I don't either, but without government regulation a market sector will eventually and always morph into a oligopoly or monopoly which will have a very real ruling class that will jack prices well over a free market price and take steps to increase demand, thus ensuring that the imposed higher price stays high.

For a free market to function freely, there must be imposed equality in competition. That's basic economics.

Though, and to be fair to one of your points, I do agree that the US government is run by people that I wouldn't trust to hold my wallet.

Can't we just wipe out our entire elected government and start over?

I'd like to thank you for allowing me to use the following image in a appropriate and comedic way.