251–260 of 388 posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
tl;dw - For those who want to understand how closely the government is related to those who benefit from NO net-neutrality.
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality. Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject. If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument. Another…
In other words, I want to be convinced that:
1) There is a problem here at all. The regulation that is being repealed was only introduced 2 years ago; how did we get along before that?
2) This problem can be solved by this regulation (not all regulation achieves its goals, and sometimes it is even counter productive).
3) Regulation is the best/only solution for this problem (what other solutions to the problem described in 1 have been proposed, and why are they not suitable)
I think serious answers to these types will be far more convincing than the typical simplified arguments along the lines of "What if comcast creates a competitor to netflix and prioritizes its own streaming service".
TL;DR: I think some libertarians are not so much against regulation as they are skeptical of it, and are willing to be convinced that certain regulations are good, on a case-by-case basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net neutrality is the status quo. No one is talking about adding complex new regulation here but you.
> No one is talking about adding complex new regulation here but you. If you follow a bit about what happened the past 100 years of new government agencies rules is that they have _always_ yes, _always_ grown into thousands and thousands of regulations each year. But yeah, I'm sure this time it won't happen... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0MCZ3FJXJJs/UA7zeOEIanI/AAAAAAAAFl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…
For the record, Net Neautraility does not and is not a legal framework for telling ISPs about how to manage their bandwidth. In its most simplistic terms: Net neutrality is simply tha concept of treating access to the network (in this example the ISP and the greater internet it connects to) where it does not prioritize one set of bits and simultaneously and purposefully (and typically for the exchange of money) slow…
If my ISP is hitting peak throughput at 8pm on monday night, it makes sense for high priority traffic to pay for priority (streaming, telephony, etc), while low priority traffic (bittorrnet, dropbox updates, etc) slow down because they are unwilling to pay.
I don't think outright blocking is justified or even purposeful slowing down (rather than speeding other stuff up). But i don't think treating everything the same is economically justified.
Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous. Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?
If you live in a State that allows for some kind of “entrenched” statutes that are more difficult to change (the US Constitution is one such example), pushing for a right to net neutrality on that basis is probably the path of least resistance. Of course some nations, like the U.K., unfortunately have no such thing (all statutes repealable/changeable with simple majority).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false. All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax…
Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise. I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality. The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad an…
Telecom networks also qualify as a natural monopoly to some extent. Allowing any startup to form a telecom and try to deploy their own infrastructure would look like this:
https://news.lovepattayathailand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017...
The lowest hanging fruit for real deregulation and opening of the broadband market would be to get the FCC to nuke analog TV and open the UHF spectrum for last mile Internet access with a policy that is very pro-competition. For example they could limit TX power in some bands to no more than what it takes to get ~5km range and require some kind of minimal few-hundred-per-year license to use them in a given geo-region. That would allow anyone to start a last mile wireless ISP using commodity hardware and a single fiber uplink such as to a data center. But since this FCC is the definition of regulatory capture I highly doubt this will happen either. Pai and his FCC is completely in the pocket of entrenched telecoms and this kind of move would threaten them more than any kind of net neutrality regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced. Why am I supposed to take sides in a fight between two industries?
If you're unconvinced, you should default to supporting net neutrality. It's the status quo, the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the people wishing to make this fundamental change to the structure of the internet.
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality. Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject. If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument. Another…
In their minds, any form of goverment is evil, and if it didn’t exist, we’d all live in paradise, free from chemtrails and tax sheets.
After going through these arguments and others linked here, I can safely say it's all excuses and handwaves; a thin veneer over an anarachist misanthropy.
Which isn’t too different from other conspiracy circles actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false. All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax…
Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise. I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality. The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad an…
Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality subreddit if you're curious [0]. The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free "basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful site…
The counter to free basics is why didn't Facebook just provide free full internet with heavy branding and advertising to encourage Facebook use? Did they have some Indian competitor they were scared of? I have a hard time seeing how it would be that much more expensive.
