4 ms·

Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. Internet is a private good -

by wfo 10y ago

Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. Internet is a private good -> a tiny group of unelectable, unaccountable corporate leaders decide in secret everything about how it works, and are ethically required to make decisions which are bad for you and me but good for their profits.

wyager 10y ago
Ironically, government regulation tends to work more like your second example. You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent. It's also good for profits to be less proscriptive than one's competitors. There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > > Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. > You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent. The FCC has only the regulatory powers it is granted by statute, hence, "regulatory powers are voted on" is correct. Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out. The FCC is, in fact, governed by a number of transparency laws in the execution of its regulatory powers (and Congress has some degree of transparency, as well.) So, I would say that your attempted rebuttal is more wrong than the post you are claiming is "objectively wrong".
  - wyager 10y ago
    >Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out. You mean the congress with an 11% approval rating? Yeah, that's going great.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      That's a misleading statistic. No one votes on "congress as a whole", they vote for their individual representatives. And individual representatives typically have a high approval rating (and are frequently voted out when it falls).
      - wyager 10y ago
        >No one votes on "congress as a whole" Exactly. But congress as a whole would regulate the Internet.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        I still say that's a little misleading. On any issue of national (or broader) scale, the people accounting for the difference between the behavior of my elected official (of whom I, statistically, approve) and the behavior of Congress as a whole must still be somehow contended with.
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  > and is in no way transparent They are pretty fucking transparent. And they are still a public regulatory body, appointed by people appointed by the public. > There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord. Unless that ISP wants to create a streaming video service. So they block access to Netflix so you can "enjoy" their video service as well. If you want the internet to be run the way cable service is, then great, good for you. But the rest of us enjoy the freedom of being able to access any resource connected to the network for one price. > So switch ISPs (You'd inevitably bring it up)...most ISPs are a monopoly so there goes that idea.
  - wyager 10y ago
    >appointed by people appointed by the public. So they're not elected; they're hired by the someone who is hired by the people in congress with an 11% approval rating. Great. >most ISPs are a monopoly When this occurs, it is a result of shitty municipal government line leasing policies.

by wfo 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

Ironically, government regulation tends to work more like your second example. You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent. It's also good for profits to be less proscriptive than one's competitors. There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> > Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. > You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent. The FCC has only the regulatory powers it is granted by statute, hence, "regulatory powers are voted on" is correct. Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out. The FCC is, in fact, governed by a number of transparency laws in the execution of its regulatory powers (and Congress has some degree of transparency, as well.) So, I would say that your attempted rebuttal is more wrong than the post you are claiming is "objectively wrong".
- wyager 10y ago
  >Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out. You mean the congress with an 11% approval rating? Yeah, that's going great.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    That's a misleading statistic. No one votes on "congress as a whole", they vote for their individual representatives. And individual representatives typically have a high approval rating (and are frequently voted out when it falls).
    - wyager 10y ago
      >No one votes on "congress as a whole" Exactly. But congress as a whole would regulate the Internet.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        I still say that's a little misleading. On any issue of national (or broader) scale, the people accounting for the difference between the behavior of my elected official (of whom I, statistically, approve) and the behavior of Congress as a whole must still be somehow contended with.
orthecreedence 10y ago
> and is in no way transparent They are pretty fucking transparent. And they are still a public regulatory body, appointed by people appointed by the public. > There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord. Unless that ISP wants to create a streaming video service. So they block access to Netflix so you can "enjoy" their video service as well. If you want the internet to be run the way cable service is, then great, good for you. But the rest of us enjoy the freedom of being able to access any resource connected to the network for one price. > So switch ISPs (You'd inevitably bring it up)...most ISPs are a monopoly so there goes that idea.
- wyager 10y ago
  >appointed by people appointed by the public. So they're not elected; they're hired by the someone who is hired by the people in congress with an 11% approval rating. Great. >most ISPs are a monopoly When this occurs, it is a result of shitty municipal government line leasing policies.