FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

If provider A starts providing terrible bandwidth, incredibly high prices, and terrible service, it means that that provider X has a lucrative opportunity to provide better bandwidth, better prices, and great service.

I hope these rules aren't used to help entrenched monopolies, but provide an ripe opportunity for the space to innovate.

I hope these rules will be on the wrong side of history, but there is little stopping anyone from using the free market to their advantage.

I bet it's more focused on geeky interests and less focused on entrepreneurial topics than it was originally. Longtime readers might sense that it's more dumbed down or diluted now, but I suspect that's really just those longtime readers themselves getting more knowledgeable over the years, and HN seeming less revelatory than it did in the past. :)

Example: it seems like everyone I know used to read Slashdot but stopped at some point when they realized how much the discussion quality had deteriorated. What's funny is how different people's timelines are. I thought Slashdot was a great resource in 1998 but felt like the quality of the comments had descended to mostly garbage by 2001. I know other people who are way smarter than me (but a few years younger) who will swear that Slashdot was awesome in 2003 when they started reading it, but lament its downfall circa 2008 or something. The biggest factor in an individual's Slashdot timeline seems to be, they loved it when they were younger, less mature, and less knowledgable, then as they got older and more experienced they started getting annoyed by it. But really, Slashdot's demographics didn't change nearly as much as they did.

Who cares what the corporate owners feel? They're custodians of infrastructure that was built with substantial government assistance; they knew there would be strings attached, even if they expected in the near term to stay a step or two ahead of the regulators. They have every right to be disappointed when the government does its job and restrains their greed, but that disappointment has no bearing on what actually makes for good public policy. Those corporate owners you pity are taking actions that harm the public interest. The government is not solely responsible for creating the situation that requires a choice between making Comcast execs feel bad or letting Comcast wreak havoc on the Internet's economics. Comcast et al. are trying to expand the scope of their power over the utility infrastructure they manage; net neutrality regulation isn't about disallowing anything that the ISPs have a long-established history of doing, so don't imply that the government is pulling the rug out from under their existing business model.

Net neutrality is a lopsided issue. That doesn't mean that the clear right answer is a win-win situation all around. Every issue the government faces could hypothetically be dealt with in a manner that greatly enriches a chosen few, but the existence of those alternatives does not establish their validity or suitability for accomplishing the government's purpose of promoting the general welfare. If you want to call my position biased, you can't stop at merely pointing out that my preferred solution would be less than perfect for somebody, because that's true of every possible solution.

So what you're saying is that because they agreed to X terms from the government that they should have always expected for the government, later on, to add additional terms to it even in cases where they may not have accepted government assistance? You do realize there are some companies and situations in which infrastructure was entirely laid with little or no government assistance, right? I'm not saying that's common (as far as I understand it isn't) but those people paid a considerable amount of money to do that likely without expecting the government to step in and tell them what they can and cannot do with it.

You seem to have side-stepped my original point, however as I never wanted to argue which side is correct or who's side has merits. In your point of view the argument is lopsided and it's just black and white. What my respond should have shown you is that it isn't clearly black and white.

You would be better for it to try and see both side's point of view instead of completely dismissing one because "who cares what the corporate owners feel".

"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."

And you completely failed to do so. All you showed was that there exists somebody who doesn't want net neutrality. You didn't even show whether they have any non-selfish reasons for that opinion. You showed the existence of opposition, not the existence of reasonable or viable opposition.

The merits of a side's arguments must be considered when judging whether an issue is largely one-sided, because it is always possible to construct unreasonable arguments against something.

I'd like to know roughly what you would consider to be sufficient justification for calling a politicized issue one-sided with respect to its public policy soundness.