7 ms·

Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has th

by jamoes 11y ago

Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.

jrcii 11y ago
Libertarian support for limited government turns into a grey area when it comes to infrastructure. Efficiency is not gained with competing infrastructure, even Hayek says as much http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-infrastructure-socialists/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-i...
mahranch 11y ago
> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all. Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.
- joeyaiello 11y ago
  The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it). As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue". [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
  - warfangle 11y ago
    The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account. Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.
    - Diamons 11y ago
      Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.
      - Jonoco 11y ago
        > the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.
        um_ya 11y ago
        > Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them. You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?
        afarrell 11y ago
        Either that or it hires private individuals and pays them to do it. What is your point? In either case, the govt is making the resource-allocation choice.
- Gormo 11y ago
  Net neutrality has been the status quo on the internet for 30 years without regulatory intervention. Whether or not there's a credible threat to that status quo is something that's very arguable: there are potentially more forces working against the ISPs' ability to engage in content-based discrimination than working in favor of it. The organizations with the most de facto power on the internet seem to be the ones which stand the most to lose from any breach of net neutrality: the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world seem quite a bit more influential than the Comcasts and the Verizons. On the other hand, agency capture is a very real phenomenon, and the Comcasts and Verizons certainly do have disproportionate influence over the FCC: it's entirely possible that the thing most likely to undermine net neutrality in the near future is making its preservation the responsibility of the FCC. The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc. The mindset of "we've got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution" has just got to go away.

by jamoes 11y ago

jrcii 11y ago

Libertarian support for limited government turns into a grey area when it comes to infrastructure. Efficiency is not gained with competing infrastructure, even Hayek says as much http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-infrastructure-socialists/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-i...

mahranch 11y ago

> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all. Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.

joeyaiello 11y ago
The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it). As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue". [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
- warfangle 11y ago
  The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account. Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.
  - Diamons 11y ago
    Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.
    - Jonoco 11y ago
      > the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.
      - um_ya 11y ago
        > Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them. You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?
        afarrell 11y ago
        Either that or it hires private individuals and pays them to do it. What is your point? In either case, the govt is making the resource-allocation choice.
Gormo 11y ago
Net neutrality has been the status quo on the internet for 30 years without regulatory intervention. Whether or not there's a credible threat to that status quo is something that's very arguable: there are potentially more forces working against the ISPs' ability to engage in content-based discrimination than working in favor of it. The organizations with the most de facto power on the internet seem to be the ones which stand the most to lose from any breach of net neutrality: the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world seem quite a bit more influential than the Comcasts and the Verizons. On the other hand, agency capture is a very real phenomenon, and the Comcasts and Verizons certainly do have disproportionate influence over the FCC: it's entirely possible that the thing most likely to undermine net neutrality in the near future is making its preservation the responsibility of the FCC. The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc. The mindset of "we've got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution" has just got to go away.