4 ms·
Net neutrality includes a clause that places ISPs into the category of "common carrier," which allows the government to regulate the internet as a telecommunica
by nnfy 9y ago
Net neutrality includes a clause that places ISPs into the category of "common carrier," which allows the government to regulate the internet as a telecommunicationa company.
This makes me nervous, I'd much rather the government stay out of the internet. Legislation is painfully slow to both make and unmake, and legislators will almost certainly be out of touch with the technology and there is a real risk of a restricted, heavily regulated internet which is far worse than what we have today. Not to mention that such a classification opens up ISPs to equal time laws, where the government decides who is or is not a candidate and forces telecom companies to play equal ad time for all candidates. Here's a great example of how this law would have already broken down: how many Republican candidates were there last election? Would you have wanted your ISP to be responsible for shoving political ads down your throat? How could you even enforce equal time laws on ISPs?
Net neutrality is a power grab by the U.S. government, and the propaganda has been well executed IMO; but I really hope that we will leave the internet to the markets. I dont trust our government to make something as enormous and complex as the internet any better, and it's been going quite well so far.
- tomc1985 9y agoYou would instead leave governance of the internet in the hands of business execs that care for little more than extracting as much value as possible for themselves and their companies?
- nnfy 9y agoYes, because when entities compete, consumers typically win. The government in the U.S. has already regulated ISPs to the point that an enormous artificial barrier has arisen to market entry. We need deregulation. Approval for the major carriers in the U.S. is low enough[0] that someone could probably disrupt the entire industry, except it is next to impossible to enter. You're also aware of regulatory capture, right? This regulation was premature, and, as is typical of government, overreaching. Imagine even further expanding the power of the last three administrations, especially with the disaster that is the patriot act. Regulations are bad for business and bad for innovation, outside of monopoly laws, and those give me pause as well. 0. http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-still-ranks-last-customer-experience-survey-focused-top-pay-tv-companies http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-still-ranks-last-cu...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 9y ago> The government in the U.S. has already regulated ISPs to the point that an enormous artificial barrier has arisen to market entry. At the behest of telco lobbying. > We need deregulation. Approval for the major carriers in the U.S. is low enough[0] that someone could probably disrupt the entire industry, except it is next to impossible to enter. Small carriers are starting up, I just read an article chronicling several successful municipal broadband carriers in isolated pockets, and in each of their stories they are essentially boxed in by .... guess.... lobbying from larger telcos. (I think it may have been on HN, but if not just google 'successful municipal broadband') Every step of the way it is the large telcos that prevent their growth. Perhaps if there were no incumbents in the ISP space deregulation might actually see improvements, but as it is the last thing we need is AT&T/Comcast/et al given free reign. The more we staple their balls to the chair the closer we get to a truly shared internet commons.