FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

As I'm writing this the stock market is having the opposite take on this than I Would have expected. Netflix is down while the providers (ATT, Verizon, Comcast) are up.

Is there something going on here that's not obvious?

Note: he was a cable lobbyist from 1976-1984, long before cable internet was a thing. He was a wireless industry lobbyist from 1992-2004, but the proposed "light touch" regime looks a lot like what has been applied to the wireless industry for years.

I know in my area there's more than one.

>And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience.

In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price.

>They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections.

I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations.

>The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it.

Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it.

>Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.

I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer.

Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here?

As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality.

What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus...

There are plenty of use cases for not-nn.

And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.

Public sentiment on the right is definitely not in favor of net neutrality...

In Romney's own words:

    It is not the role of any government to “manage” the 
    Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because 
    government has so far refrained from regulating this 
    dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I 
    would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, 
    not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its 
    economic, social and scientific value.

    Specifically, the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” regulation 
    represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf 
    of certain special interests, but ultimately a “solution” 
    in search of a problem. The government has now interjected 
    itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, 
    picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and 
    determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrow’s 
    new applications and services. The Obama Administration’s 
    overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with 
    Washington bureaucrats.

From here: http://sciencedebate.org/2012/debate12/#9

>This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?

X isn't perfect, so Y must be better? That makes no sense.

I'm pro-free market because I go into the grocery store and see an entire row of bread. In communism, there is an entire row of people waiting for bread. Free market == abundance, government == rationing.

I use communism as the example because it is the opposite of free-market and highlights the historical (not ideological) differences between the two systems. Free markets have a triage effect. When supplies are limited, prices go up, and if you really need something you can still get it (but you'll pay more).

The opposite of that system is one of price fixing and rationing. You may need something more than me, but the price is fixed at X, so there needs to be a lottery to decide who gets the limited supply. If I win, I get to watch fail videos on youtube all day. If you win, you get to run your online business that day.

ISPs are struggling to keep up with demand. They've been trying to price their services in a way to triage demand while they build more capacity (which is mostly held up by local governments). Now the FCC will step in and make sure that I can watch my youtube videos all day and make it illegal for the ISP to favor your clearly more important traffic.