6 ms·

Allow private companies to impose regulations on internet traffic and you don't have a free and open internet. Block private companies from imposing regulation

Allow private companies to impose regulations on internet traffic and you don't have a free and open internet. Block private companies from imposing regulations on internet traffic and you don't have a free market for ISPs. You're losing one free market or the other. Which is worth more to you? This is a gross simplification and neither are ever going to be free markets, but you get the idea. There is no avenue that doesn't involve some institution imposing their will on a marketplace.

nthcolumn 9y ago
So I would have no problem I don't think with a certain mandatory minimum amount of guaranteed bandwidth unlimited free (as in beer as well as bird) data being provided subsidized I suppose by people who want to stream 3DHD entertainment (say half/third the highest speed the ISP offers). A free and open internet guaranteed and the ability for ISPs to offer VIP services to paying customers/businesses. Everyone is happy or am I just a smug liberal looney left millenial whatever that other guy said... or merely mistaken somehow?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Why should it be free? Internet access is very affordable.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Can't somebody explain why I am dead wrong here? I have a gut feeling it doesn't stack up. But to answer your question: Free because cost is a barrier to the other free - free speech. And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. This way people who cannot afford it - and there are currently people who cannot afford it - get access to the internet and therefore education, so they can get better jobs thereby alleviating poverty so in the end they can afford those sweet high bandwidth charges. The American Dream. (the nice one where you work hard and become successful - not the one where your dad leaves you billions and then when you lose it all you get the enemy to hack you rich and powerful again)
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      >And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. The ISPs wouldn't be so well off once you make their main product free. Investment in network infrastructure would go to zero in this system. They would all go bankrupt pretty quickly actually. The only way to keep the internet running with a mandate to offer it free would be to nationalize it. And once it's nationalized, forget about improvements to the network or new generations of mobile internet tech. Internet costs <$50 a month. You want to effectively nationalize an entire industry because that's too expensive in your opinion.
marcoperaza 9y ago
I hear good arguments on both sides. The worst-case scenario of different levels of internet service for access to different sites is troubling. And if you could convince me that it's likely to happen without the FCC's regulation, I'd oppose repealing it, at least without a replacement. But it does seem unlikely, especially in a market like the US where there is the demand and willingness to pay for unrestricted access, and where political pressure could always stir regulatory agencies back into action. But I agree that it is a bad end result that should be avoided. Here's my big question: weren't things fine before Tom Wheeler's net neutrality regulation? So why not go back to that? Am I forgetting something about that state of affairs?
- heartbreak 9y ago
  Why not just let the government run its own neutral ISP like they run the postal service? It could be independently funded by its users, since obviously being an ISP is profitable (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles). Then we wouldn't have to regulate these other ISPs because it wouldn't matter. They'd always have at least one competitor offering (likely subpar) internet access.
  - AndrewGaspar 9y ago
    > (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles) Why wouldn't a public ISP have to bid for pole access? Is the implication here that a public ISP should have extra privileges that a private ISP doesn't?
    - nthcolumn 9y ago
      Yes.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    No way. Once you have a public ISP like that, it's one "minor reform" away from running parts of its operation at a loss, for the "public good". And before you know it, it's controlling the market, distorting prices, and holding back innovation.

nthcolumn 9y ago

So I would have no problem I don't think with a certain mandatory minimum amount of guaranteed bandwidth unlimited free (as in beer as well as bird) data being provided subsidized I suppose by people who want to stream 3DHD entertainment (say half/third the highest speed the ISP offers). A free and open internet guaranteed and the ability for ISPs to offer VIP services to paying customers/businesses. Everyone is happy or am I just a smug liberal looney left millenial whatever that other guy said... or merely mistaken somehow?

marcoperaza 9y ago
Why should it be free? Internet access is very affordable.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Can't somebody explain why I am dead wrong here? I have a gut feeling it doesn't stack up. But to answer your question: Free because cost is a barrier to the other free - free speech. And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. This way people who cannot afford it - and there are currently people who cannot afford it - get access to the internet and therefore education, so they can get better jobs thereby alleviating poverty so in the end they can afford those sweet high bandwidth charges. The American Dream. (the nice one where you work hard and become successful - not the one where your dad leaves you billions and then when you lose it all you get the enemy to hack you rich and powerful again)
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. The ISPs wouldn't be so well off once you make their main product free. Investment in network infrastructure would go to zero in this system. They would all go bankrupt pretty quickly actually. The only way to keep the internet running with a mandate to offer it free would be to nationalize it. And once it's nationalized, forget about improvements to the network or new generations of mobile internet tech. Internet costs <$50 a month. You want to effectively nationalize an entire industry because that's too expensive in your opinion.

marcoperaza 9y ago

I hear good arguments on both sides. The worst-case scenario of different levels of internet service for access to different sites is troubling. And if you could convince me that it's likely to happen without the FCC's regulation, I'd oppose repealing it, at least without a replacement. But it does seem unlikely, especially in a market like the US where there is the demand and willingness to pay for unrestricted access, and where political pressure could always stir regulatory agencies back into action. But I agree that it is a bad end result that should be avoided. Here's my big question: weren't things fine before Tom Wheeler's net neutrality regulation? So why not go back to that? Am I forgetting something about that state of affairs?

heartbreak 9y ago
Why not just let the government run its own neutral ISP like they run the postal service? It could be independently funded by its users, since obviously being an ISP is profitable (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles). Then we wouldn't have to regulate these other ISPs because it wouldn't matter. They'd always have at least one competitor offering (likely subpar) internet access.
- AndrewGaspar 9y ago
  > (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles) Why wouldn't a public ISP have to bid for pole access? Is the implication here that a public ISP should have extra privileges that a private ISP doesn't?
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Yes.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  No way. Once you have a public ISP like that, it's one "minor reform" away from running parts of its operation at a loss, for the "public good". And before you know it, it's controlling the market, distorting prices, and holding back innovation.