Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality
hustlebear.com
hustlebear.com
As far as I'm aware, no one wants government to regulate the internet - Net Neutrality supporters just want rules saying that ISPs can't regulate it either. The issue of censorship is irrelevant, and could even be made explicitly so, if that's what legislators who oppose Net Neutrality are actually worried about.
> [ISPs] are regulated by YOU!
Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit.
> who’s regulating the FCC?
The executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
> which hypothetical scenario is more likely? The FCC overstepping its current authority, or ISPs delivering services that its customers are not happy about?
... I'm speechless.
> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.
And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".
Which areas do you have in mind? "The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers."
And given the trend of increased access identified in that FCC report, what leads you to suppose things are likely to stay a certain way?
>> who’s regulating the FCC? > The executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Except the judicial branch, which the FCC decided to ignore after it started ruling the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the net. And except the executive branch, which already supports regulation of the net. It's a damn good thing we have three.
1. The FCC is more than happy to step in and assume the power to regulate the internet, as every entity desires growth.
2. The more ISPs have to play to politics game, the more they will suck up to power, and look for ways to appease that power (ie gradual censorship).
To actually convince anyone, I'd suggest cutting most of the hyperbole and trimming up the salient points. In addition:
3. Communication has always been tiered between bundles of lowest-common-denominator services, and general net access. Past innovations were driven by modems (at least $20/mo on top of a landline), while the masses had only dialtone.
4. Don't be scared by graphics showing lots of hypothetical pricing options, the highest priced tier (what one currently considers "standard") will be the standard $20-$40 more than the budget tier. (A quick litmus test as to whether something qualifies as internet access is whether it allows ssh/vpn. And there will always be internet access available, barring it being made illegal, in which case government certainly isn't the remedy)
4. The more non-packagable applications there are in widespread use, the more common the demand for standard commodity access. Bittorrent and VPN are quite embedded.
5. If you are worried about net neutrality, work at a local level. Cities already have the power to regulate who strings wires on public land, and can even build out public infrastructure! The incumbents have been somewhat successful scaring off community fiber projects, but they won't win that battle indefinitely.
It is significantly harder to switch governments, of course.
"Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are DEMANDING Net Neutrality."
I stopped reading there. Based on the other comments, looks like I didn't miss much.
If you're doing this hacky a job of writing, you're either out of ideas and need to hit a deadline, you're getting a backhander from someone, or both.
> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.
I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget?
THE GOVERNMENT.
Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink?
THE GOVERNMENT.
I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful regulation known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out.
Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.
You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these, and keeps doing them, and I don't know which government you're watching if you think that these elected officials and unelected bureaucrats shouldn't be kept on the shortest leash possible.
The Bill of Rights regulates no one but the government itself. The government has two roles: to keep others from infringing on my rights, and to keep its nose out of my damned business unles I infringe on others'. It's doing a lousy job, but that's a different issue.
There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I want. They can keep me from doing it on land they own or with resources they own, but that's fine. I don't want them to be able to freely use my resources without my consent, either. That's the concept of private property. But I can get a bullhorn and run down to city hall and yell, I can publish a newspaper, I can create a blog. If $company_x doesn't want to host my blog, I can get $company_y to do it. If my government can stop me on a whim, though, then I'm screwed.
(Edit: typos, damnable phone, it's trying to censor me.)
Let's say it's fine for the FCC (or another government entity) to do this, though. What if I run open WiFi, but I block bittorrent traffic? Have I violated my neighbors' rights? I think I can do what I want with my pipe, but would this be under the FCC's authority? I'm not a business, sure, but what about the WiFi at, say, Starbucks? I trust a non-monopoly much more than I trust a government, which has a de facto monopoly over imposing its will by force on the populace.
Built into the laws of this country is an inherent mistrust of the government., the idea that authority over the populace has a corrupting influence, and that it should be kept limited to the extent possible. You hope for the best (a benevolent set of leaders) but plan for the worst (a power-hungry group of totalitarians). The Constitution's plan for the worst is to avoid trusting in our leaders' benevolence and keep them from getting enough rope to string us up. It's what I love about this country.
I think most of the commenters here agree on that principle, so I would like to apologize as it seems I've been a little abrasive, and we're all on the same side here (at least apparently). But I am secure in my belief that the government is too big already and its authority needs to be reduced, not expanded in any direction.
Starbucks free WiFi is an excellent point, which sheds light on the underlying philosophical debate. If an organization provides a resource (WiFi, water, a job), but only to a select group of their choosing, at what point do we call it supplying a service, and at what point do we call it discriminatory starvation? Is the glass half full, or half empty?
If there's competition, it's moot, but if there isn't any, we're giving the single supplier complete power over distribution (slippery slope to plutocracy argument). If we ban discrimination, it's also moot, but then we're giving government power to dictate rules for private organizations (slipperly slope to fascism argument).
Correct! Your company can fire you for saying something bad about it online, but they can't throw you in jail. No one can throw you in jail for what you say online (with technical exceptions for some forms of hate speech I believe). Companies can't do it, nor can the government. Why? Because of... heh, The Government!
You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these
Yes. Sometimes the government violates its own laws. And when it gets caught doing that, other parts of.. The Government, actually spring into action. This is called the system of Checks and Balances, and you may have heard of organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF making use of it to correct the Government's behavior using... The Government.
The internet, as a whole, belongs to no one. It belongs to us all. In a sense, it is Public Property (on the whole). Protecting it is therefore the responsibility of The People, through the mechanism known as Government.
(Edit: BTW, you'll note that most of the examples you cited happen to be caused by contamination in The Government caused by the private sector, known as regulatory capture (as another commenter pointed out).)
ahem:
>> The government has two roles: to keep others from infringing on my rights, and to keep its nose out of my damned business unles I infringe on others'.
> And when it gets caught doing that, other parts of.. The Government actually spring into action.
You're making my point for me. And as far as I can tell, the government isn't doing much to stop itself in the last three cases, and last time I heard, some music still has "Warning! Explicit lyrics!" labels on it, so the PMRC ended up getting its way there.
When government begins meddling in the affairs of content delivery, it is not only an innappropriate harmful intrusion, but leaves a door open for content itself to be regulated or up for public vote.
I have an idea - we could make a law that says "no one should meddle in the affairs of content delivery" - we could call it something catchy, like "Net Neutrality".
Government Power and Market Power are pretty much opposite.
My point is, without some entity establishing rules of fair play, the market isn't a free one, because one player can gain enough power to effectively close the market to any competitors.
Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality".
All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock.
Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.