4 ms·

So it seems your problem is with the initial government intervention? So in order to fix that we need more?

doron 17y ago
Limiting what lobbyist and special interest group can squeeze out of government should give a fair shake.
pyre 17y ago
I'm not really offering solutions. I'm pointing out the lack of a decent evaluation of how we got here and how we can fix it. Almost all net neutrality discussions are people that want to prevent large ISPs from enacting draconian restrictions on their networks vs the people that don't want any government regulation of anything. There doesn't seem to be much constructive discussion. Just people taking traditional 'liberal-vs-conservative' positions and digging in to duke it out on the canned talking points that traditionally follow. The people that say "networks are private property and I don't want no government in my private property" are forgetting that most of those networks were built during periods of guaranteed profits (AT&T) or just regional monopolies (cable companies). It's not like these companies were little mom-n-pop shops that were built from nothing with no help from anyone, and now the 'big bad government' is coming in to kill them off by helping their competitors. These companies where weened off the government's teat. The people that want to bring in the government to restrict the internet are forgetting that there is a whole can of worms that will be opened if the government starts getting their hands into the internet. Sure it could be just 'net neutrality' regulation now, but what you picture as what 'net neutrality' should be will not be what it looks like once an actual bill gets passed. Not to mention all the attempts to tack on 'child porn' filtering and crap (possibly creating some 'Internet Filter Czar' position in the Executive Branch). Even solutions like: "the internet should be like the highways; built and run with tax-payer money." So the government now runs the major backbones of the internet in the US. This means: 1. Companies can easily become ISPs by hooking into the backbone at reasonable rates 2. Congress will be salivating to pass bills to put filters on these backbones to 'protect the children.' 3. The networks will be less secure as routers, servers, etc are administered by incompetent administrators that only have their positions because they know how to play the government bureaucracy politicking games better than more technically skilled colleagues. The average consumer is stuck between a rock (the government) and a hard place (large corporations with vested interests). Neither solution is particularly palatable, and it's naive to say that one solution or the other will save us from all the evil in the world.
- jquery 17y ago
  I'll take large corporations with vested interests over the government. At least those interests are maintaining a profit and answering to the market. I can pick between a few different COMPETING mega-corps (if they are a monopoly, break them up via anti-trust). With the government I will have no choices and I can see them chomping at the bit to take away liberty "for the children."
  - pyre 17y ago
    The thing is that you're buying into the false dichotomy of the Net Neutrality debate. It's not an all-or-nothing prospect. Rather than framing the question in terms of, "who should control our internet," we should be asking, "how can we fix the current situation." In your post, you make an excellent suggestion, anti-trust. The only issue with that, is that we've proven in recent years that the power of the corporation extends well into the government, and most anti-trust attempts end up as not much more than slaps on the wrist.
hristov 17y ago
No what we need to do is enforce the terms on which that initial government intervention happened. And that is that in return for the government granting you monopolies subsidies and a lot of rights you agree to promote the public interest.

doron 17y ago

Limiting what lobbyist and special interest group can squeeze out of government should give a fair shake.

pyre 17y ago

I'm not really offering solutions. I'm pointing out the lack of a decent evaluation of how we got here and how we can fix it. Almost all net neutrality discussions are people that want to prevent large ISPs from enacting draconian restrictions on their networks vs the people that don't want any government regulation of anything. There doesn't seem to be much constructive discussion. Just people taking traditional 'liberal-vs-conservative' positions and digging in to duke it out on the canned talking points that traditionally follow. The people that say "networks are private property and I don't want no government in my private property" are forgetting that most of those networks were built during periods of guaranteed profits (AT&T) or just regional monopolies (cable companies). It's not like these companies were little mom-n-pop shops that were built from nothing with no help from anyone, and now the 'big bad government' is coming in to kill them off by helping their competitors. These companies where weened off the government's teat. The people that want to bring in the government to restrict the internet are forgetting that there is a whole can of worms that will be opened if the government starts getting their hands into the internet. Sure it could be just 'net neutrality' regulation now, but what you picture as what 'net neutrality' should be will not be what it looks like once an actual bill gets passed. Not to mention all the attempts to tack on 'child porn' filtering and crap (possibly creating some 'Internet Filter Czar' position in the Executive Branch). Even solutions like: "the internet should be like the highways; built and run with tax-payer money." So the government now runs the major backbones of the internet in the US. This means: 1. Companies can easily become ISPs by hooking into the backbone at reasonable rates 2. Congress will be salivating to pass bills to put filters on these backbones to 'protect the children.' 3. The networks will be less secure as routers, servers, etc are administered by incompetent administrators that only have their positions because they know how to play the government bureaucracy politicking games better than more technically skilled colleagues. The average consumer is stuck between a rock (the government) and a hard place (large corporations with vested interests). Neither solution is particularly palatable, and it's naive to say that one solution or the other will save us from all the evil in the world.

jquery 17y ago
I'll take large corporations with vested interests over the government. At least those interests are maintaining a profit and answering to the market. I can pick between a few different COMPETING mega-corps (if they are a monopoly, break them up via anti-trust). With the government I will have no choices and I can see them chomping at the bit to take away liberty "for the children."
- pyre 17y ago
  The thing is that you're buying into the false dichotomy of the Net Neutrality debate. It's not an all-or-nothing prospect. Rather than framing the question in terms of, "who should control our internet," we should be asking, "how can we fix the current situation." In your post, you make an excellent suggestion, anti-trust. The only issue with that, is that we've proven in recent years that the power of the corporation extends well into the government, and most anti-trust attempts end up as not much more than slaps on the wrist.

hristov 17y ago

No what we need to do is enforce the terms on which that initial government intervention happened. And that is that in return for the government granting you monopolies subsidies and a lot of rights you agree to promote the public interest.