Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[Lemur]

Look what Comcast did!
The FCC already overruled that.

Based on what philosophy and what principles? Why are you in favor of the practice of net neutrality, but dead set against the policy? Like ACIN said, it's as though you like being defended from foreign enemies, but don't want anybody making the armed forces a fact of policy. 'Cause that would be, you know, big government. Which is bad.

You also appear to be pivoting from point to point, moving on as quickly as possible as each position is disproved. "Show me an example of harm!" Examples given. "Those don't matter, 'cause net neutrality won in the end!" What about Canada? "That's Canada, which passed a law against net neutrality, so it can't posibly be relevant!" Say wha? "You don't get it!" Seriously, your position appears to be fixed, with the reasoning for the position scattered about like decorations.

Also, note that you love the series of tubes videos, while blithely walking past what Ted Stevens was arguing. His reasons for opposing net neutrality were about as coherent as your own.

Let's not forget that the playing field is not static, and that telcos will be working their little lobbyists to the bone in an attempt to recreate the Canadian system here. That should be blindingly obvious to anyone whose position is not an idée fixe.

In recent years, however, major telcos have pressured lawmakers to take a different viewpoint. As the Internet has assumed an ever-greater role in business and our daily lives, ISPs claim they have the right to adopt an active role in shaping the traffic that flows over their networks. They claim such interference will benefit network security, improve customer experience, and stimulate the free market. But if we want to see what the Internet would look like if the telcos get their way, we need look no further than the current situation on mobile networks -- and it's not a pretty picture. [...]

Mobile network providers have long maintained a higher level of control over their services than traditional ISPs do -- because they can. Only certain devices work on certain carriers' networks, and carriers routinely disable features on those devices if they don't like their implications. And it's all perfectly legal.

By comparison, Congress has taken an active hand in the regulation of terrestrial networks since the breakup of Ma Bell in the 1970s, when lawmakers sought to curtail monopolistic practices in the telecom sector. But existing regulations were designed mainly for voice calls. Unless Congress takes specific measures to limit the powers of ISPs soon, expect the telcos to move steadily toward a service model like the one the mobile carriers enjoy now.

ISPs have already demonstrated a willingness to limit network access for specific applications. Typically they claim they do it because the applications consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth, in violation of network usage policies. But last year, the FCC found that Comcast had engaged in widespread blocking of the BitTorrent protocol, even in cases where no network congestion was present. In the absence of specific guidance from Congress, such cases will only proliferate, and the FCC's authority to regulate them will continually be called into question.

Yup, it's the Comcast decision again, the one in favor of net neutrality, which, in a leap of dizzying illogic, you claim proves that net neutrality is unnecessary.

[Xiahou]

Yup, it's the Comcast decision again, the one in favor of net neutrality, which, in a leap of dizzying illogic, you claim proves that net neutrality is unnecessary.

No, you're the one who wants to see regulations passed without being able to point to a single case where the current system in place hasn't sorted out any problems. I ask for examples to support your claims of a pressing need, and you show me ones that have already been resolved. That does not help your case.

I wasn't even going to reply to ACIN's example, because it was nonsensical. What you are proposing would be akin to agitating for the PATRIOT ACT, if our intelligence community had broken up the 9/11 plot without it.

Seriously, your position appears to be fixed, with the reasoning for the position scattered about like decorations.

All I've asked for is some examples of problems that net neutrality regulations would fix if passed. You've shown none. We haven't even started arguing the merits of the issue- there's no need. You've failed to show any justification for it. Trying to drag examples from a different country just seems desperate.

No, sorry. Net neutrality regulation would stop the ISP from shutting down someones internet based on a companies complaint without any judicial oversight or approval.

No, I'm sorry- it would not. Whether or not web content is legal under the DMCA is a completely separate issue from traffic shaping and net neutrality. If you can cite anywhere in proposed net neutrality legislation where your position is supported- I'd love to see it.

Umm, part of the point of net neutrality is to prevent the interest group/corporation from being able to force ISPs to cut off the internet in the first place so....

No, it's not. ISPs trying to shut out competitor's services has already been found to be a violation of antitrust regulation. And in your example, much like Lemur's, the issue was resolved without passing new regulation.

People have been talking about how we need net neutrality legislation immediately for at least the past 7 years. It hasn't passed, and not only has the Internet not collapsed into itself, but we still can't seem to find an outstanding issue that it would solve despite the allegedly dire need for immediate reform. If you two think that it's a good idea for the congress to pass regulation without a demonstrable need for it.... well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm tired of dancing in circles over it. Find some current examples that haven't already been addressed by the existing system and then you can tell me all about how proposed regulation would be a panacea for it. Til then.....

To anyone else who's still reading this thread, here's a recent WaPo editorial on the dangers of net neutrality and over regulation of the Internet.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And in your example, much like Lemur's, the issue was resolved without passing new regulation.

Here again is your nonsensical logic: "Courts said no! Problem solved, NO MORE BAD GOVERNMENT!"

People have been talking about how we need net neutrality legislation immediately for at least the past 7 years. It hasn't passed, and not only has the Internet not collapsed into itself, but we still can't seem to find an outstanding issue that it would solve despite the allegedly dire need for immediate reform. If you two think that it's a good idea for the congress to pass regulation without a demonstrable need for it.... well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm tired of dancing in circles over it. Find some current examples that haven't already been addressed by the existing system and then you can tell me all about how proposed regulation would be a panacea for it. Til then.....

You have been given examples, you just can't move beyond your bias against government to realize, huh why are our courts having to decide on something like this in the first place? No, all you do is say is that in the end the good guy won and ignore the fact that he almost lost because in your mind if the good guy wins, it doesn't matter how close the bad guy came to winning its a justification that everything is 100% fine and now we don't need more evil government to help us against the kind corporations that look out for us so we will choose to give them our money.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wasn't even going to reply to ACIN's example, because it was nonsensical. What you are proposing would be akin to agitating for the PATRIOT ACT, if our intelligence community had broken up the 9/11 plot without it.

No, it's more akin to agitating for better protection if the terrorists had already hijacked the planes and were 30 seconds away from hitting the towers but a fighter plane manages to shoot them down 10 seconds before they hit.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unless Congress takes specific measures to limit the powers of ISPs soon, expect the telcos to move steadily toward a service model like the one the mobile carriers enjoy now.

Why? They've been able to forever, and net neutrality people have been harping about the supposed 'dangers' for years, but it hasn't happened. So why should we expect it to?

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

Some important points:

In his summary and conclusion, Professor Epstein explains that we ought to be able to distinguish between regulations that strengthen markets and those that undermine them, but that there is a long-standing pattern of government's failure to do so. The regulators' proclivities to overreach are often driven by a denigration of property rights and systems of voluntary exchange. So here is how he concludes his chapter:

"A similar pattern is at work in the modern debates over net neutrality. The defense of that position starts out as a plea to end discrimination. Yet there is little evidence that the new dose of regulation will produce any gains in the short run. In the long run, we can expect a repetition of the sorry performance of the FCC (or, for that matter, Congress) with respect to broadcast rights to work its way through the law of net neutrality. The sad truth is that the parties who seek to develop sophisticated and sensible schemes for state control quickly lose control over the administrative process to persons whose ambitions for state control are not bound by any fine-grained rationale. The dangers for this predictable drift usually suffice to err on the side of caution. Stated otherwise, the expected rate of depreciation of sound public norms that rely on administrative discretion is high. There are too many pressure points to keep the rascals at bay. So the recommendation here is to follow classical liberal principles that treat all state intervention as a mistake until it is shown to be a good. More practically, and much to the point of the current public policy debate: Keep private control over broadband pipes by abandoning the siren call for net neutrality."

And as to the idea that companies aren't expanding networks or just hording cash because they are as stupid as the people who invented the net neutrality problem:

Unlike other segments of the economy, even in difficult economic times, just in the last two years the broadband providers have invested over $200 billion of private capital in building out and enhancing their broadband networks, without seeking government guarantees of bailouts.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

I would like to pull a Tribesman and say:


A blog!?! One that specifically states it's a shill for free market ideology! And you want that to be taken seriously!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

I have read the blog, and it is obvious the guy is an intelligent person, but it's a blog, period. If this guy has posted an argument in a published place with any sort of fact checking instead of him just going off on his blog, then I will take it seriously. Anyone can make an "intelligent" argument with lots of links to "facts" and try to label it as worthy as an opinion piece in Newsweek.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd take most blogs of any political persuasion over a Newsweek opinion piece.

It seems like you're not even giving the arguments any thought. If you don't think he checks his facts, then find what's incorrect. If his arguments are false, then refute them.

But don't entirely dismiss them because you don't agree with them. The validity of an argument is not determined by whether or not it's written in Newsweek.

CR