3 ms·

> The "let the market decide" shills don't seem to understand there's no market. Oh, trust me, we understand that very well. What we want to do is expand compe

by pitaj 9y ago

> The "let the market decide" shills don't seem to understand there's no market. Oh, trust me, we understand that very well. What we want to do is expand competition by making it easier to compete. This largest barrier to competition at this time is local municipalities, which is a good place for the FCC to step in and tell them to back off and let the ISPs install their fiber. I support the FCC regulating governmental entities, not so much private ones. Net neutrality should, if enforced by government, be legislated, not initiated by a regulatory agency. This issue was brought up by people on both sides of the issue for different reasons. On the pro- side because they new a regime change would just undo it, and on the con- side because they thought such a large change was unfit for unelected bureaucrats to decide. The idea that we should introduce more regulation in order to fix bad historic policy is like government asking for a temporary tax. A long time ago my state asked for a new temporary tax for school renovations. Guess what, that tax never went away. It's the same thing with regulations. They just keep piling up.

arcticbull 9y ago
(1) The FCC exists (almost?) solely to regulate private and not public entities. (2) There's no evidence that local municipalities running infrastructure and allowing telecoms to compete on services instead will reduce competition. It will likely increase it by lowering barrier to entry, as you can see all over Europe. Can you cite evidence of municipalities refusing to allow fiber installs? I did a lot of research and found nothing. I've only found the inverse, private companies lobbying to prevent municipalities from running fiber. [1] (3) This kind of regulation is exactly the purview of the FCC. That's why they have a Title I and Title II. They already impose this exact kind of regulation on landline phone companies. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03/cable-companies-want-to-block-cities-from-building-fiber-networks-heres-how-the-fcc-could-intervene/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03...
- pitaj 9y ago
  (1) I know that but it doesn't matter to me (2) I wasn't talking about "local municipalities running infrastructure" I was talking about them being used to prevent competition as you specifically gave an example of. (3) I know, but the application of that regulation is at the discretion of the FCC, which, as we've seen, can be easily swayed the opposite way. That's why its better to have legislation.
  - simonh 9y ago
    This has been legislated and the legislation has delegated this authority to the FCC. I agree completely that explicit legislation would be far better, but in the absence of that it's the FCCs job to regulate. Saying they should abrogate that responsibility and not regulate on general principle doesn't address the issue. They are required do their job to serve the public interest.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. I hope those who read this don't downvote because they, like me, disagree with you. Voting on comments is about pushing productive conversation to the top. I, for one, would like to open the doors in this echo chamber. With that in mind, let me politely explain why you are wrong. > What we want to do is expand competition by making it easier to compete. I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this. Have you? I would love to hear it, even if I disagree with it. I want discussion, not rhetoric. > I support the FCC regulating governmental entities, not so much private ones. The FCC was put in place to regulate private entities. Whether you agree with what those regulations are, it's important to understand that distinction. If you want to totally dismantle the FCC, I would love to have a discussion about that, but here we are discussing net neutrality, since it appears the FCC is here to stay. > Net neutrality should, if enforced by government, be legislated, not initiated by a regulatory agency. I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you? It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality. > because they thought such a large change was unfit for unelected bureaucrats to decide. That is a reasonable point, but let us not forget that those unelected bureaucrats did decide it, with input from millions of Americans. While that is a clear reason to not implement this regulation, I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation. > Guess what, that tax never went away. It's the same thing with regulations. They just keep piling up. That sounds plausible. What regulations are piling up? Maybe we should get rid of some that we think are unnecessary. I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental. Darn. I got to the end of your comment, but I didn't find much to talk about. I'm still wondering: do you want net neutrality dismantled? Why? I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one. That's not very common. Usually there is something to consider. I haven't heard it, and I am beginning to fear that I never will, and that's just depressing. That would mean that Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill, and that those 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should. So sad.
- s73ver 9y ago

by pitaj 9y ago

arcticbull 9y ago

(1) The FCC exists (almost?) solely to regulate private and not public entities. (2) There's no evidence that local municipalities running infrastructure and allowing telecoms to compete on services instead will reduce competition. It will likely increase it by lowering barrier to entry, as you can see all over Europe. Can you cite evidence of municipalities refusing to allow fiber installs? I did a lot of research and found nothing. I've only found the inverse, private companies lobbying to prevent municipalities from running fiber. [1] (3) This kind of regulation is exactly the purview of the FCC. That's why they have a Title I and Title II. They already impose this exact kind of regulation on landline phone companies. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03/cable-companies-want-to-block-cities-from-building-fiber-networks-heres-how-the-fcc-could-intervene/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03...

pitaj 9y ago
(1) I know that but it doesn't matter to me (2) I wasn't talking about "local municipalities running infrastructure" I was talking about them being used to prevent competition as you specifically gave an example of. (3) I know, but the application of that regulation is at the discretion of the FCC, which, as we've seen, can be easily swayed the opposite way. That's why its better to have legislation.
- simonh 9y ago
  This has been legislated and the legislation has delegated this authority to the FCC. I agree completely that explicit legislation would be far better, but in the absence of that it's the FCCs job to regulate. Saying they should abrogate that responsibility and not regulate on general principle doesn't address the issue. They are required do their job to serve the public interest.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. I hope those who read this don't downvote because they, like me, disagree with you. Voting on comments is about pushing productive conversation to the top. I, for one, would like to open the doors in this echo chamber. With that in mind, let me politely explain why you are wrong. > What we want to do is expand competition by making it easier to compete. I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this. Have you? I would love to hear it, even if I disagree with it. I want discussion, not rhetoric. > I support the FCC regulating governmental entities, not so much private ones. The FCC was put in place to regulate private entities. Whether you agree with what those regulations are, it's important to understand that distinction. If you want to totally dismantle the FCC, I would love to have a discussion about that, but here we are discussing net neutrality, since it appears the FCC is here to stay. > Net neutrality should, if enforced by government, be legislated, not initiated by a regulatory agency. I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you? It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality. > because they thought such a large change was unfit for unelected bureaucrats to decide. That is a reasonable point, but let us not forget that those unelected bureaucrats did decide it, with input from millions of Americans. While that is a clear reason to not implement this regulation, I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation. > Guess what, that tax never went away. It's the same thing with regulations. They just keep piling up. That sounds plausible. What regulations are piling up? Maybe we should get rid of some that we think are unnecessary. I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental. Darn. I got to the end of your comment, but I didn't find much to talk about. I'm still wondering: do you want net neutrality dismantled? Why? I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one. That's not very common. Usually there is something to consider. I haven't heard it, and I am beginning to fear that I never will, and that's just depressing. That would mean that Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill, and that those 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should. So sad.

s73ver 9y ago