So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites.
If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government.
Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites.
And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us?
If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.
The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know 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.
>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.
Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.
"Here, there's a problem because regulation has made the market not free enough."
"I know, let's fix it with more regulation!"
Also, freeness isn't binary, it can be more or less free. It's free enough that Google Fiber can exist. As long as it's possible to open something given enough money, there will be an upper limit on how much companies can screw their customers, which doesn't seem too high to me.
The FCC is doing what it can within its legal jurisdiction to improve the actual reality of internet access in the US.
The one dimensional perspective of 'more regulation bad, less regulation good' is completely unhelpful in this situation.
See http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...
Some solutions would be to fix the laws allowing these lawsuits to go on like this, perhaps requiring the loser to pay the costs for frivolous suits like the ones described, or stop the FCC regulations that are the official cause of the lawsuit.
Why doesn't the government go after the monopolies under anti-trust laws?
In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expression of ideas does this, but allowing companies to block this at their whim benefits nobody but the companies. Battling internet providers day in, day out is tiresome enough without having net neutrality on the chopping block constantly. I don't want to have to switch providers every time they start blocking content. How do I even know they are blocking or throttling content? Will they even tell me? The free market offers me no protections against this. A company could be lying to be and I'd never know.
With a regulatory body, at least there's some oversight, and by default a good amount of protection.
I think if enough people in society determine they want something, that becomes a public matter. Trying to shoehorn every problem into the free market is a lot messier, IMO.
The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem.
In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this.
How many of your problems could be solved by this? What problems would still remain?
(Oh, and is there any chance of getting people to support anything this complicated? No.)
Among others, a limited, but greater than one, number of providers in an area all trying to push their own, e.g., video service and so all blocking/throttling Netflix and other competing video services.
I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Netflix is completely inaccessible or heavily throttled in an area and the public outcry can't stop it. The problems Netflix complained about were fixed by the free market without any NN rules.
At the same time, the government should make it easier for new ISPs to open, by relaxing the regulations.
Remember the days when a college kid could run an ISP out of their basement?
You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building?
As an aside, as anyone been able to show what it would actually cost providers to adhere to a net neutrality standard?
Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same?
> In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices.
So regulation in some instances, but not in others. A known, well-established regulation is now much more complicated to a) understand and b) enforce.
> You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this.
Much harder than it sounds, I believe.
Your solutions are band-aid fixes for the fact the the free market is not equipped to handle this problem. Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original.
When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong.
I just don't see what the big deal with regulation is. The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.
I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here:
>I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not.
The reason this is better is because you're only forcing them to provide information, not change business practices.
>Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original.
I'm supporting making the info public, which is needed for markets to be truly free.
>When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong.
I went through some of the problems with the obvious answer above.
>The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.
I gave use-cases and reasons why a consumer might want it. Why are you ignoring those?
What we are doing here in Brazil regarding the upcoming regulations on the Internet and data protection [0] is to frame it around human rights issues -- freedom of expression and press freedom are the main ones.
The existence and action of governments is only justifiable for me to keep people from hurting each other too much, and preventing abusive power relationships. I believe current net neutrality issues are one of those situations.
[0]: http://www.internetlab.org.br/en/news/internet-brazil-debate...
Looks like regulation to me.
"In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies..."
More regulation.
I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not.
Also, you didn't answer my question about whether you would support my proposal over the net neutrality one.
I'm not the one to which you raised your question. I think your suggestion is a fine one except that I wouldn't use it in place of protecting us from the monopolies we're experiencing, but in addition to net neutrality.
You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building? I'm not sure if this is unique to New York City, but the choice to bring a supplier into a building is often the result of an exclusive contractual agreement with that provider (I waited about five years for FiOS to arrive as the second option in my building, finally supplanting the incumbent Time Warner 10/0.5 "broadband" option).
N.B.: My initial response was to your similar comment deeply threaded below.
I would also point out that the FCC has not been granted any additional regulatory power. They could have made this move at any time and they can un-do it at any time as well. Congress can also take action to remove or re-define the FCC's power.
I don't see this as "the" be-all and end-all action, but it seems worth trying to see if we can get the average connection speeds across the country up and the minimum cost down.
The telecom space hasn't been a "free" market in decades... and likely never will again. The only thing that happens if you remove regulation is that eventually we'll have a telecom monopoly again, while prices go through the roof and industry profits soar.