11 ms·

Why I don't support Net Neutrality

68 points by bifrost 9y ago

sna1l 9y ago
Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?
- smsm42 9y ago
  We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is not so: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-o... http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040
  - secabeen 9y ago
    In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
    - jkollross 9y ago
      Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major threat in the 2000s.
    - eli 9y ago
      And indeed it arguably was in force in 2007, when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling bittorrent. Though of course Comcast eventually was successful in challenging the basis for that order in court.
  - triplesec 9y ago
    This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. The capability is only in the past decade and in the years to come something where we have to be seriously concerned. Even then, there were serious anticompetitive breaches beforehand. See this article: https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-neutrality-spee-1794717829 https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-...: 'One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix in order to extract a payment deal from the streaming video provider, which it eventually agreed to pay. And in 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones, claiming it was using too much bandwidth. In this case, critics argued it was an attempt to block a service that competed with its own voice services. And as the biggest ISPs keep gobbling up content-producers, like AT&T buying DirectTV and then providing free access to itscontent, the risks that ISPs will start prioritizing traffic only increase.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
      - okreallywtf 9y ago
        Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
  - tzs 9y ago
    > We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015 2010 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
    - smsm42 9y ago
      That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". Also, was shut down by courts, so not sure if one can say it was actually in place since 2010, as I imagine having it under threat of being overturned (which eventually happened) prevented effective enforcement of it.
      - tzs 9y ago
        > That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to: • No blocking, • No throttling, • No paid prioritization, • Explicitly allows "reasonable network management". The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed. Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290. https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
        smsm42 9y ago
        > • No throttling, > • No paid prioritization, That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    also: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 In the authors' shared opinion, the economic evidence does not support the regulations proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices (the “NPRM”). To the contrary, the economic evidence provides no support for the existence of market failure sufficient to warrant ex ante regulation of the type proposed by the Commission, and strongly suggests that the regulations, if adopted, would reduce consumer welfare in both the short and long run. To the extent the types of conduct addressed in the NPRM may, in isolated circumstances, have the potential to harm competition or consumers, the Commission and other regulatory bodies have the ability to deter or prohibit such conduct on a case-by-case basis, through the application of existing doctrines and procedures. Hence, the approach advocated in the NPRM is not necessary to achieve whatever economic benefits may be associated with prohibiting harmful discrimination on the Internet.
- krrishd 9y ago
  Came here to say this, especially in the context of his Portugal argument -- sure, consumers in that context can pay less and have restricted access to a select few services. But that's the exact anti-competitive problem -- it's effectively incentivizing non-usage of new services that'd effectively compete with the packaged ones if given a level playing field to do so. If I buy the Netflix package because all I use the Internet for is streaming movies/films, a startup that'd somehow give me that utility in a better way wouldn't be worth switching to the full/unlimited package for.
  - eli 9y ago
    Imagine Google trying to get off the ground when it costs extra or is artificially slow, but Yahoo Search is free and fast.
nkozyra 9y ago
The responses here are a mix of whataboutism and hand-waving dismissals. But let's say they're all 100% valid and well-argued. The conclusion of this still wouldn't validate not supporting net neutrality. I will assume based on the site's name the overarching reason is libertarianism. In which case why bother with the dismissals? Isn't then the argument self-evident?
- CalChris 9y ago
  I understand libertarianism. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian Party platform: As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://www.lp.org/platform/ Yeah, they do mention corporations: Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in. Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a libertarian POV, from first principles.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles. Others can probably do it better, but I'll try. The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first principles against any legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior. I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)
cup 9y ago
1st point: Private companies can already ban hate speech so net neutrality won't change anything. 2nd point: An ISP failed to invest in the infrastructure it needed to provide the service it promised but something something net neutrality. 3rd point: Companies should be regulated, but not by the government. They should be sued, by the people. Honestly.. this kind of drivel is so tiring. Can libertarians please go away, or at least stop using resources and infrastructure that only exists because of public funding and government intervention.
- fleitz 9y ago
  A lot of it also exists because of capitalism, it's a symbiotic relationship. Capitalism produces more wealth which a government can tax to provide more infrastructure for capitalism to occur which produces more wealth. Although this is one area where the interstate commerce clause seems to genuinely apply it would be interesting to see what would happen with some areas following NN and some areas not and what results... I think the real key here is that gov't regulation is not a good substitute for genuinely competitive markets.
jackmott 9y ago
The information about Portugal has made me want net neutrality even more.
s73ver_ 9y ago
It seems like far too many of their counter arguments seem to boil down to, "This isn't already happening here, so we don't have to worry about it." If we don't want to worry about it, and we don't want those things to happen, then we should just keep the regulations in place. If you support repealing the regulations, then you support the idea of these things becoming reality, and surely expect it.
mbesto 9y ago
> On top of that, there are articles going around like these: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... …listing situations that have taken place where it’s claimed that net neutrality was violated. I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly And then the author doesn't address AT&T blocking Skype, Comcast blocking P2P, Telecoms blocking Google Wallet, and on and on. This is basically an article of whataboutisms. "ISP's aren't the problem with Freedom of Speech, companies are". Ya but if a private company (Facebook, Google, etc) blocks dissenting opinions, we can simply chose to read/visit another site. That's the point. If your ISP blocks a site, you don't have the choice to get another ISP.
- glassrye 9y ago
  Let us not forget Level3 and Verizon having peering relationship issues in high use markets.... sigh
  - bifrost 9y ago
    Consumers do suffer when lastmile carriers don't work to find solutions, however the solution is for customers to complain to their provider. The more people who complain the faster it'll get fixed, NN absolutely won't solve that, and to be honest I think it could make it worse.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dominotw 9y ago
  >you don't have the choice to get another ISP Is this a problem that cannot be solved?
  - chrisan 9y ago
    Not easily. In most places I have lived you have at most 2 options. DSL (if you are close enough) or cable. I guess anyone can do satellite but... shudders Cable is like fiefdoms of old Europe and I'm they would like to keep it that way vs actually competing on the same lines
glassrye 9y ago
Hilariously, without Net Neutrality, this particular article might never been seen...
- sremani 9y ago
  The net-neutrality rules are put in place in 2014 by Obama administration. I am pretty sure, without so called "net-neutrality" regulation this site existed and been read.
  - clavalle 9y ago
    No, net neutrality rules have been around since 2004. Before that there wasn't much need because dial-up was regulated as a telephone service which have had their own neutrality regulatioins since forever. Those early rules were largely voluntary but the FCC did take companies to court to enforce them with varying levels of success. It was this variability and a judicial erosion of what was considered permissible along with some fairly egregious shenanigans by internet service providers that pushed the Obama administration to formally reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service to put back in place net neutrality rules that stood before in the days of dial-up.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Doubtful. Net Neutrality (at least in its topical compulsorily form) has only existed since 2015.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Also, Google fiber coming into existence only benefited those in the markets where Google was threatening to enter. Everywhere else, the incumbent ISPs were content to rest on their laurels.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, that seems accurate to me. In my area when google announced they were going to build out here all the sudden my bandwidth got doubled for no charge and AT&T started pushing their fiber expansion hard. They probably had planned to do these things at some point but I got the distinct feeling they were trying to consolidate their power before google fiber came and ate their lunch. They ended up scaling back their offerings geographically so I was never able to get it but I have no doubt it pushed my bandwidth up faster than it would have been otherwise.
- thinkvinny 9y ago
  There is a link to an article in my article explaining this. I am not in a google fiber area, but I still received the ability to have my broadband speed amplified when Comcast decided to raise its ceiling on streaming speeds as a reaction to the popularity of Google Fiber.
Zarathust 9y ago
"ISPs are not too big to compete with because Google can do it" is not a valid argument.
- striking 9y ago
  Nor could Google even do it. The ISPs are fighting tooth and nail against One Touch Make Ready policies and winning.
  - freedomben 9y ago
    But that's the point of the article. The regulation that makes it even impossible for Google to do it, means we aren't dealing with anywhere near a free market that can benefit from competition. Perhaps we should address that regulation first before adding regulation to correct for results of other regulation.
    - heurist 9y ago
      Net neutrality prevents ISPs from blocking upstart competitors. If we want competition, we need net neutrality.
      - Dirlewanger 9y ago
        NN does not address the regulations in place that protect the incumbent status of existing ISP monopolies.
        heurist 9y ago
        No, but it prevents ISPs from blocking upstart competitors. Without NN an ISP can slow down a competitor's site or prevent access to a competitor's website or any website that advertises them or any advertisement they might run. Will they do that? I don't know. It would be easy to hide under a cable package model, and I certainly don't trust ISPs to offer any consumer protection.
- 9y ago
rhcom2 9y ago
This reads like blogspam. Just a couple of very vapid points without anything new to say.
- vernie 9y ago
  With a side of extra spicy libertarian shitpics [0] [0] https://www.instagram.com/thinkliberty/ https://www.instagram.com/thinkliberty/
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    I think its relevant to post that, it does give an idea of the mentality behind the source. Shitpics might be juvenile but after looking at them it is not a bad description.
thrillgore 9y ago
With a domain like "think-liberty" the right newspeak circlejerking immediately makes itself visible and I don't even need to click the link. Yet I clicked through. The author's argument is flawed by blaming it on "big companies" like Google without realizing the scope or reach of telecom holdings. If i had a downvote here on HN i'd use it.
elihu 9y ago
> “Free speech will suffer without net neutrality” I’m not entirely sure what those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms of speech, as I’ve not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, ... That's an easy one. ISPs may artificially degrade the quality of service to or block some sites and not others depending on whether the ISP agrees with the content on that site, whether the owners of the site give the ISP a kickback, or a host of other non-technical reasons. It seems like the author of the article hasn't made a reasonable effort to understand the opposing viewpoint.
- thinkvinny 9y ago
  No, I understand, but this is also an overdramatic hypothetical. My point in the article was that this is actually happening under Net Neutrality, from private companies doing it. I do not believe it's wise to support the government control of broadband internet not being repealed, as an attempt to try and solve a problem that is clearly already not being solved while the government has control of broadband internet.
yairhaimo 9y ago
Automated TL;DR to save global hacking time (might not be perfect): I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly, and that list of net neutrality violations honestly, but I first want to state: While my arguments are against net neutrality I do not take positions against the sentiments these arguments are rooted in. I'm not entirely sure what those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms of speech, as I've not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, but I can say confidently that free speech is under attack, and has been, regardless of any net neutrality regulations. I do not consider this situation to be a glaring example of why we need net neutrality, I actually consider it to be quite the opposite. As best I can tell this is a situation dealing with agreements between two companies, and sure, Comcast should have been more prepared before taking on an agreement with Netflix, but that's still not a situation concerned with net neutrality. Using Net Neutrality to solve this problem, is a classic case of trying to solve the symptom, and not addressing the cure. I'm not sure this kind of situation has ever existed or been mentioned as a possibility by the ISPs involved in the Net Neutrality issue. I am not against the sentiment or the passion that people feel when they speak of their support for Net Neutrality, just as I'm not against the sentiment of those who want to ban guns because they care about human life, or those who want to continue the war on drugs to try and keep bad substances and ugly situations from those who are better left unexposed to such things.
- ghrifter 9y ago
  \> Automated TL;DR to save global hacking time wew. yes our precious "hacking" time for making web apps
- dang 9y ago
  Could you please not do this here? HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and reciting this kind of thing doesn't make for good conversation.
trentnix 9y ago
I also find myself to be skeptical of Net Neutrality. But I should be clear that I want the same end result as those who are pro-net neutrality - a transparent, fair, and working Intenet. I just simply don't trust the government to be the arbiter of that, and I don't trust a regulatory agency to be making wholesale decisions regarding the enforcement of Net Neutrality or regulating speech on the Internet. That doesn't mean that the government has no responsibility to enforce fair trade and transparent advertising. And it doesn't mean that ISPs are angels with customer interests in mind. I want purchasing options with a transparent understanding of what I'm purchasing and clear expectations on what's being delivered. And I want elected officials making laws that determine any regulation of the web, not an agency that allows elected officials to hide behind it's regulatory fiat. While you may not like the idea of the market correcting bad behavior, I find the government is even worse (and slower) at correcting bad behavior (and it is almost always overcorrects).
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  I see this kind of sentiment a lot, and while I can kind of get where it is coming from can you cite some specific examples to back up your skepticism about the government as a regulator? Can you cite any examples where the government was doing a bad job of regulating and got out of the way and it improved? I'm honestly not sure what other options there are in many cases. Who else is going to do it? Just because government isn't working (I imagine it is working in a lot that we don't have to think about exactly because it is doing what it is supposed to do), doesn't mean that it can't work or it isn't the best tool we have. Its nice to think "let the market handle it", and maybe in some cases that is true but there are pretty clear examples where that isn't true (like power generation and distribution). I could easily blame the government for the issues this causes in my state where the power company is far too powerful and lobbies to effectively, giving them too much sway over the government. Is that "the governments" fault or is it the fault of the people for not holding the government accountable for not looking out for the interest of the people enough? I feel like those of us with cynical feelings about the government have a tendency to sit back and gripe but then not actually do anything to make it work better. I think that if we aren't actively trying to make the government better and work for us, we really don't have much room to complain (and I include myself in this because that has been me for quite a while, aside from voting and giving the bare minimum of thought to it I haven't really done anything useful). If we sit back and let whoever wants to run things run things we can't be surprised when we don't like what we get. At the end of the day the government is what we want it to be and how badly we want it to be that. Garbage in garbage out.
preinheimer 9y ago
I was enthusiastic when I saw the title, I'd love to read an impassioned plea by someone against net neutrality. I don't think this article is it. Net Neutrality would guarantee ISPs that blocked access to union websites would be fined[1]. Yes Net Neutrality would stop cheap plans like those offered in Portugal. But it would mean that a new messaging app would have a chance of finding traction, since it wouldn't need to convince every prospective user to start paying more for their Internet first. Net Neutrality would not solve the problem of consumers having 0-2 choices when it comes to ISPs. Solving that would require laying millions of miles of new copper/fiber or somehow relieving those ISPs of their buried assets and making them communal property. Most problems can't be easily solved, so we settle for managing the symptoms. [1] - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-t...
- eli 9y ago
  More realistically, it would make it impossible to start a new video streaming service or VoIP provider. Especially when the large ISPs own the or have partnerships with the entrenched competition.
- briznian 9y ago
  https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617 https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617 I found this to be interesting.
mosselman 9y ago
What a horrible article: “Free speech will suffer without net neutrality..I can say confidently that free speech is under attack, and has been, regardless of any net neutrality regulations” - Ok, never mind then, lets end protecting people against sexual harassment in the workplace, because people have been getting sexually harassed in subways since forever. Lets stop putting protection mechanisms in electrical outlets, there are other ways in which children can electrocute themselves after all.
kparaju 9y ago
Sorry I can't access the article. think-liberty.com is not included in my ISP package. Can you copy paste the article to facebook.com? Thanks!
CapacitorSet 9y ago
The way some arguments are exposed is... weird. Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality”) boils down to "People say X will happen without net neutrality, X is happening, so we may as well let NN pass" [where X is "interruption of free speech"], while ignoring that free speech is not a binary and that circumventing net neutrality can be one way to deny free speech. Internet censorship is the most basic example of such a situation. Argument 2 relies on the concept that not only should users pay for their bandwidth and services for theirs, but large services ought to pay once more for their bandwidth w.r.t. "interconnection fees" - but then again, the sentence being discussed ("These ISPs are monopolies, and they need to be regulated”) isn't relevant to NN. Finally, when talking about Portugal he claims that "Portugal does have net neutrality", when the screenshot above is in direct violation of NN as defined in the link ("End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service.", Recital 6 of the "BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality"). At best, he is relying on a weird interpretation of this sentence, where "have the right to access" means "there is at least one plan which does that". Besides, the existence of a European regulation doesn't mean NN is enforced: the same regulation applies to Italy, but I can buy a plan boasting "free social&chat" and 10 GB towards select music services, through Telecom Italia no less (https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica).
gaelow 9y ago
you lost me at not opening our platform to hate speech. Even for an open minded person there must be limits. I keep remembering that quote: "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out". They can build their hate internet if they want. With blackjack, and hookers!
xupybd 9y ago
Some things can't compete in open markets. Like roads, you're always going to have a monopoly on the roads you want to use. This is similar with the local loop there are massive problems with only one ISP operating in given areas, meaning competition will not regulate the market. So I think the net may be one of the few things you can't leave to the markets to produce the best outcome for consumers.
jstewartmobile 9y ago
Most libertarians I know are good people that I'm proud to know. At the same time, it's like they just skipped over the entire history of the late 19th / early 20th century. We had immensely powerful private entities short-circuiting the avenues of democratic self-government (just like we do now!), and it took TR--a Republican, not a commie--to point the finger and do something about it. Of course, bring any of that up with them and they'll just quote one of their Austrian school bone-readers back at you as though they have just refuted you with pure logic. And even worse, Democrats and Republicans clearly worship at the same altar, just in a quieter way. It's like people have more faith in questionable econometrics than in any innate sense of justice. Until something shakes the mainstream faith in money-money-money, the situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better.
- randyrand 9y ago
  I'm quite libertarian but also against monopolies and pro trust-busting. Some people think these two positions are at odds with each other. I happen to think it's the exact opposite. A large monopoly with complete control is not too different than the absolute control of an overbearing government -- something libertarians are quite against.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    It's probably time for new ideas. Clinton administration to present has shown that regulatory agencies are very easy to capture. "Hands off" hasn't worked that well either. The senior citizens who rule us are just going to keep squabbling over the same busted ideas that were popular back when they were still sexually relevant. It is going to be a long ride...
- tooltalk 9y ago
  You mean like AT&T? Wasn't AT&T's monopoly in telecommunication propped up by gov't from 1910's all the way through 1980's?
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
Pr0ducer 9y ago
ISPs should be regulated under Title II, as they are common carriers, not information services. I don't pay Comcast for information, I pay them for access. It's like a phone line, but in modern times. Imagine if phone carriers could do what ISPs are planning, where certain companies can pay for better, faster phone connections, and everyone else gets the crappy maybe it works, maybe it doesn't level of service. No one thinks that's ok. The internet isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. Any limits on my ability to use it in any legal manner I see fit is wrong.
jotm 9y ago
That Portugal example... you realize it's the same in several countries, including the UK? The difference being that Net Neutrality exists in EU, and instead of an "unlimited" package being much more expensive, it is the lesser packages that are cheaper. Subtle, I guess, but big difference. Most consumers don't give a fuck though, which is really bad.
- thinkvinny 9y ago
  Right, but nothing is being restricted. They have a plan that will give you everything, just like we have now. But then, they ALSO have plans, that cost substantially less, that only give you a smaller portion. It is a way to anticipate user behavior and offer solutions at affordable rates based on bandwidth use. There is no one forcing anything here, they're simply offering different plans based on use, while still offering the traditional plans, and that's exactly why it's not a net neutrality violation.
thinkvinny 9y ago
Hey everyone. I wrote the article, stumbled across this post. Thanks a lot for your feedback, I appreciate it. I just wanted to take a moment to address some of the things that were written here. Whataboutisms: The point isn't to divert, the point is to say that this is a problem that exists WITH net neutrality in place. The point is, the argument of free speech is being made a lot, and most of the arguments are overdramatic hypotheticals, all while freedom of speech is being shut down under Net Neutrality. Our Instagram account: I know, it's shit-posty, but that's how you get people to like your IG account. I don't make the rules, people love shitty memes. Anyhow, this article is just why I don't support net neutrality. I guess it can seem like hand-waving, but that's not at all what my intention was. I did as much research as I could on the matter, and I just didn't see enough that convinced me keeping broadband under title 2 was a necessity. I had been hearing a lot of arguments that didn't seem totally logical to me, so I addressed some of them as best I could. Thanks again for the feedback!
dreamcompiler 9y ago
In the absence of both competition and regulation, corporations will never act benevolently toward their customers. One or the other is necessary to keep capitalism ethical.

68 points by bifrost 9y ago

Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

smsm42 9y ago
We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is not so: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-o... http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040
- secabeen 9y ago
  In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
  - jkollross 9y ago
    Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major threat in the 2000s.
  - eli 9y ago
    And indeed it arguably was in force in 2007, when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling bittorrent. Though of course Comcast eventually was successful in challenging the basis for that order in court.
- triplesec 9y ago
  This is disingenuous. The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically and organisationally. The capability is only in the past decade and in the years to come something where we have to be seriously concerned. Even then, there were serious anticompetitive breaches beforehand. See this article: https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-neutrality-spee-1794717829 https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-lies-from-yesterdays-anti-net-...: 'One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix in order to extract a payment deal from the streaming video provider, which it eventually agreed to pay. And in 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones, claiming it was using too much bandwidth. In this case, critics argued it was an attempt to block a service that competed with its own voice services. And as the biggest ISPs keep gobbling up content-producers, like AT&T buying DirectTV and then providing free access to itscontent, the risks that ISPs will start prioritizing traffic only increase.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument. > The capability is only in the past decade What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about). > One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      Not the GP but I'll take a stab at. 1. Bandwidth has increased (slowly, but it has)[0] making streaming more prominent. More people are watching media on mobile devices, meaning less likely to use traditional media delivery services. The market delivered services catering to peoples desires as hardware (processing power, more and better GPU's in smaller and smaller devices), bandwidth and software (dynamic video quality changes and I'm sure lots of things I don't know about) have improved. 2. Maybe the capability was there 10 years ago to some extent but that is true of many advancements, it is a combination of social pressures and technology that push things. Just because streaming wasn't a thing while it was technically possible doesn't mean that you can discount the fact that it wasn't a thing and now it is. It takes time for new things to take hold and the beginnings of it probably started more or less as soon as the technology allowed for it. 3. It isn't now, which is why it could afford to pay up and survive, but what if it wasn't? I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make exactly. [0] http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/ http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
- tzs 9y ago
  > We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015 2010 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
  - smsm42 9y ago
    That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". Also, was shut down by courts, so not sure if one can say it was actually in place since 2010, as I imagine having it under threat of being overturned (which eventually happened) prevented effective enforcement of it.
    - tzs 9y ago
      > That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management". That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to: • No blocking, • No throttling, • No paid prioritization, • Explicitly allows "reasonable network management". The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed. Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290. https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > • No throttling, > • No paid prioritization, That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
- smsm42 9y ago
  also: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058 In the authors' shared opinion, the economic evidence does not support the regulations proposed in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices (the “NPRM”). To the contrary, the economic evidence provides no support for the existence of market failure sufficient to warrant ex ante regulation of the type proposed by the Commission, and strongly suggests that the regulations, if adopted, would reduce consumer welfare in both the short and long run. To the extent the types of conduct addressed in the NPRM may, in isolated circumstances, have the potential to harm competition or consumers, the Commission and other regulatory bodies have the ability to deter or prohibit such conduct on a case-by-case basis, through the application of existing doctrines and procedures. Hence, the approach advocated in the NPRM is not necessary to achieve whatever economic benefits may be associated with prohibiting harmful discrimination on the Internet.
krrishd 9y ago
Came here to say this, especially in the context of his Portugal argument -- sure, consumers in that context can pay less and have restricted access to a select few services. But that's the exact anti-competitive problem -- it's effectively incentivizing non-usage of new services that'd effectively compete with the packaged ones if given a level playing field to do so. If I buy the Netflix package because all I use the Internet for is streaming movies/films, a startup that'd somehow give me that utility in a better way wouldn't be worth switching to the full/unlimited package for.
- eli 9y ago
  Imagine Google trying to get off the ground when it costs extra or is artificially slow, but Yahoo Search is free and fast.

nkozyra 9y ago

The responses here are a mix of whataboutism and hand-waving dismissals. But let's say they're all 100% valid and well-argued. The conclusion of this still wouldn't validate not supporting net neutrality. I will assume based on the site's name the overarching reason is libertarianism. In which case why bother with the dismissals? Isn't then the argument self-evident?

CalChris 9y ago
I understand libertarianism. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian Party platform: As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://www.lp.org/platform/ Yeah, they do mention corporations: Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in. Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a libertarian POV, from first principles.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles. Others can probably do it better, but I'll try. The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first principles against any legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior. I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)

cup 9y ago

1st point: Private companies can already ban hate speech so net neutrality won't change anything. 2nd point: An ISP failed to invest in the infrastructure it needed to provide the service it promised but something something net neutrality. 3rd point: Companies should be regulated, but not by the government. They should be sued, by the people. Honestly.. this kind of drivel is so tiring. Can libertarians please go away, or at least stop using resources and infrastructure that only exists because of public funding and government intervention.

fleitz 9y ago
A lot of it also exists because of capitalism, it's a symbiotic relationship. Capitalism produces more wealth which a government can tax to provide more infrastructure for capitalism to occur which produces more wealth. Although this is one area where the interstate commerce clause seems to genuinely apply it would be interesting to see what would happen with some areas following NN and some areas not and what results... I think the real key here is that gov't regulation is not a good substitute for genuinely competitive markets.

jackmott 9y ago

The information about Portugal has made me want net neutrality even more.

s73ver_ 9y ago

It seems like far too many of their counter arguments seem to boil down to, "This isn't already happening here, so we don't have to worry about it." If we don't want to worry about it, and we don't want those things to happen, then we should just keep the regulations in place. If you support repealing the regulations, then you support the idea of these things becoming reality, and surely expect it.

mbesto 9y ago

> On top of that, there are articles going around like these: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... …listing situations that have taken place where it’s claimed that net neutrality was violated. I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly And then the author doesn't address AT&T blocking Skype, Comcast blocking P2P, Telecoms blocking Google Wallet, and on and on. This is basically an article of whataboutisms. "ISP's aren't the problem with Freedom of Speech, companies are". Ya but if a private company (Facebook, Google, etc) blocks dissenting opinions, we can simply chose to read/visit another site. That's the point. If your ISP blocks a site, you don't have the choice to get another ISP.

glassrye 9y ago
Let us not forget Level3 and Verizon having peering relationship issues in high use markets.... sigh
- bifrost 9y ago
  Consumers do suffer when lastmile carriers don't work to find solutions, however the solution is for customers to complain to their provider. The more people who complain the faster it'll get fixed, NN absolutely won't solve that, and to be honest I think it could make it worse.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dominotw 9y ago
>you don't have the choice to get another ISP Is this a problem that cannot be solved?
- chrisan 9y ago
  Not easily. In most places I have lived you have at most 2 options. DSL (if you are close enough) or cable. I guess anyone can do satellite but... shudders Cable is like fiefdoms of old Europe and I'm they would like to keep it that way vs actually competing on the same lines

glassrye 9y ago

Hilariously, without Net Neutrality, this particular article might never been seen...

sremani 9y ago
The net-neutrality rules are put in place in 2014 by Obama administration. I am pretty sure, without so called "net-neutrality" regulation this site existed and been read.
- clavalle 9y ago
  No, net neutrality rules have been around since 2004. Before that there wasn't much need because dial-up was regulated as a telephone service which have had their own neutrality regulatioins since forever. Those early rules were largely voluntary but the FCC did take companies to court to enforce them with varying levels of success. It was this variability and a judicial erosion of what was considered permissible along with some fairly egregious shenanigans by internet service providers that pushed the Obama administration to formally reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service to put back in place net neutrality rules that stood before in the days of dial-up.
paulddraper 9y ago
Doubtful. Net Neutrality (at least in its topical compulsorily form) has only existed since 2015.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Also, Google fiber coming into existence only benefited those in the markets where Google was threatening to enter. Everywhere else, the incumbent ISPs were content to rest on their laurels.

okreallywtf 9y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, that seems accurate to me. In my area when google announced they were going to build out here all the sudden my bandwidth got doubled for no charge and AT&T started pushing their fiber expansion hard. They probably had planned to do these things at some point but I got the distinct feeling they were trying to consolidate their power before google fiber came and ate their lunch. They ended up scaling back their offerings geographically so I was never able to get it but I have no doubt it pushed my bandwidth up faster than it would have been otherwise.
thinkvinny 9y ago
There is a link to an article in my article explaining this. I am not in a google fiber area, but I still received the ability to have my broadband speed amplified when Comcast decided to raise its ceiling on streaming speeds as a reaction to the popularity of Google Fiber.

Zarathust 9y ago

"ISPs are not too big to compete with because Google can do it" is not a valid argument.

striking 9y ago
Nor could Google even do it. The ISPs are fighting tooth and nail against One Touch Make Ready policies and winning.
- freedomben 9y ago
  But that's the point of the article. The regulation that makes it even impossible for Google to do it, means we aren't dealing with anywhere near a free market that can benefit from competition. Perhaps we should address that regulation first before adding regulation to correct for results of other regulation.
  - heurist 9y ago
    Net neutrality prevents ISPs from blocking upstart competitors. If we want competition, we need net neutrality.
    - Dirlewanger 9y ago
      NN does not address the regulations in place that protect the incumbent status of existing ISP monopolies.
      - heurist 9y ago
        No, but it prevents ISPs from blocking upstart competitors. Without NN an ISP can slow down a competitor's site or prevent access to a competitor's website or any website that advertises them or any advertisement they might run. Will they do that? I don't know. It would be easy to hide under a cable package model, and I certainly don't trust ISPs to offer any consumer protection.
9y ago

rhcom2 9y ago

This reads like blogspam. Just a couple of very vapid points without anything new to say.

vernie 9y ago
With a side of extra spicy libertarian shitpics [0] [0] https://www.instagram.com/thinkliberty/ https://www.instagram.com/thinkliberty/
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  I think its relevant to post that, it does give an idea of the mentality behind the source. Shitpics might be juvenile but after looking at them it is not a bad description.

thrillgore 9y ago

With a domain like "think-liberty" the right newspeak circlejerking immediately makes itself visible and I don't even need to click the link. Yet I clicked through. The author's argument is flawed by blaming it on "big companies" like Google without realizing the scope or reach of telecom holdings. If i had a downvote here on HN i'd use it.

elihu 9y ago

> “Free speech will suffer without net neutrality” I’m not entirely sure what those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms of speech, as I’ve not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, ... That's an easy one. ISPs may artificially degrade the quality of service to or block some sites and not others depending on whether the ISP agrees with the content on that site, whether the owners of the site give the ISP a kickback, or a host of other non-technical reasons. It seems like the author of the article hasn't made a reasonable effort to understand the opposing viewpoint.

thinkvinny 9y ago
No, I understand, but this is also an overdramatic hypothetical. My point in the article was that this is actually happening under Net Neutrality, from private companies doing it. I do not believe it's wise to support the government control of broadband internet not being repealed, as an attempt to try and solve a problem that is clearly already not being solved while the government has control of broadband internet.

yairhaimo 9y ago

Automated TL;DR to save global hacking time (might not be perfect): I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly, and that list of net neutrality violations honestly, but I first want to state: While my arguments are against net neutrality I do not take positions against the sentiments these arguments are rooted in. I'm not entirely sure what those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms of speech, as I've not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, but I can say confidently that free speech is under attack, and has been, regardless of any net neutrality regulations. I do not consider this situation to be a glaring example of why we need net neutrality, I actually consider it to be quite the opposite. As best I can tell this is a situation dealing with agreements between two companies, and sure, Comcast should have been more prepared before taking on an agreement with Netflix, but that's still not a situation concerned with net neutrality. Using Net Neutrality to solve this problem, is a classic case of trying to solve the symptom, and not addressing the cure. I'm not sure this kind of situation has ever existed or been mentioned as a possibility by the ISPs involved in the Net Neutrality issue. I am not against the sentiment or the passion that people feel when they speak of their support for Net Neutrality, just as I'm not against the sentiment of those who want to ban guns because they care about human life, or those who want to continue the war on drugs to try and keep bad substances and ugly situations from those who are better left unexposed to such things.

ghrifter 9y ago
\> Automated TL;DR to save global hacking time wew. yes our precious "hacking" time for making web apps
dang 9y ago
Could you please not do this here? HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and reciting this kind of thing doesn't make for good conversation.

trentnix 9y ago

I also find myself to be skeptical of Net Neutrality. But I should be clear that I want the same end result as those who are pro-net neutrality - a transparent, fair, and working Intenet. I just simply don't trust the government to be the arbiter of that, and I don't trust a regulatory agency to be making wholesale decisions regarding the enforcement of Net Neutrality or regulating speech on the Internet. That doesn't mean that the government has no responsibility to enforce fair trade and transparent advertising. And it doesn't mean that ISPs are angels with customer interests in mind. I want purchasing options with a transparent understanding of what I'm purchasing and clear expectations on what's being delivered. And I want elected officials making laws that determine any regulation of the web, not an agency that allows elected officials to hide behind it's regulatory fiat. While you may not like the idea of the market correcting bad behavior, I find the government is even worse (and slower) at correcting bad behavior (and it is almost always overcorrects).

okreallywtf 9y ago
I see this kind of sentiment a lot, and while I can kind of get where it is coming from can you cite some specific examples to back up your skepticism about the government as a regulator? Can you cite any examples where the government was doing a bad job of regulating and got out of the way and it improved? I'm honestly not sure what other options there are in many cases. Who else is going to do it? Just because government isn't working (I imagine it is working in a lot that we don't have to think about exactly because it is doing what it is supposed to do), doesn't mean that it can't work or it isn't the best tool we have. Its nice to think "let the market handle it", and maybe in some cases that is true but there are pretty clear examples where that isn't true (like power generation and distribution). I could easily blame the government for the issues this causes in my state where the power company is far too powerful and lobbies to effectively, giving them too much sway over the government. Is that "the governments" fault or is it the fault of the people for not holding the government accountable for not looking out for the interest of the people enough? I feel like those of us with cynical feelings about the government have a tendency to sit back and gripe but then not actually do anything to make it work better. I think that if we aren't actively trying to make the government better and work for us, we really don't have much room to complain (and I include myself in this because that has been me for quite a while, aside from voting and giving the bare minimum of thought to it I haven't really done anything useful). If we sit back and let whoever wants to run things run things we can't be surprised when we don't like what we get. At the end of the day the government is what we want it to be and how badly we want it to be that. Garbage in garbage out.

preinheimer 9y ago

I was enthusiastic when I saw the title, I'd love to read an impassioned plea by someone against net neutrality. I don't think this article is it. Net Neutrality would guarantee ISPs that blocked access to union websites would be fined[1]. Yes Net Neutrality would stop cheap plans like those offered in Portugal. But it would mean that a new messaging app would have a chance of finding traction, since it wouldn't need to convince every prospective user to start paying more for their Internet first. Net Neutrality would not solve the problem of consumers having 0-2 choices when it comes to ISPs. Solving that would require laying millions of miles of new copper/fiber or somehow relieving those ISPs of their buried assets and making them communal property. Most problems can't be easily solved, so we settle for managing the symptoms. [1] - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-t...

eli 9y ago
More realistically, it would make it impossible to start a new video streaming service or VoIP provider. Especially when the large ISPs own the or have partnerships with the entrenched competition.
briznian 9y ago
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617 https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617 I found this to be interesting.

mosselman 9y ago

What a horrible article: “Free speech will suffer without net neutrality..I can say confidently that free speech is under attack, and has been, regardless of any net neutrality regulations” - Ok, never mind then, lets end protecting people against sexual harassment in the workplace, because people have been getting sexually harassed in subways since forever. Lets stop putting protection mechanisms in electrical outlets, there are other ways in which children can electrocute themselves after all.

kparaju 9y ago

Sorry I can't access the article. think-liberty.com is not included in my ISP package. Can you copy paste the article to facebook.com? Thanks!

CapacitorSet 9y ago

The way some arguments are exposed is... weird. Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality”) boils down to "People say X will happen without net neutrality, X is happening, so we may as well let NN pass" [where X is "interruption of free speech"], while ignoring that free speech is not a binary and that circumventing net neutrality can be one way to deny free speech. Internet censorship is the most basic example of such a situation. Argument 2 relies on the concept that not only should users pay for their bandwidth and services for theirs, but large services ought to pay once more for their bandwidth w.r.t. "interconnection fees" - but then again, the sentence being discussed ("These ISPs are monopolies, and they need to be regulated”) isn't relevant to NN. Finally, when talking about Portugal he claims that "Portugal does have net neutrality", when the screenshot above is in direct violation of NN as defined in the link ("End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service.", Recital 6 of the "BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality"). At best, he is relying on a weird interpretation of this sentence, where "have the right to access" means "there is at least one plan which does that". Besides, the existence of a European regulation doesn't mean NN is enforced: the same regulation applies to Italy, but I can buy a plan boasting "free social&chat" and 10 GB towards select music services, through Telecom Italia no less (https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica).

gaelow 9y ago

you lost me at not opening our platform to hate speech. Even for an open minded person there must be limits. I keep remembering that quote: "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out". They can build their hate internet if they want. With blackjack, and hookers!

xupybd 9y ago

Some things can't compete in open markets. Like roads, you're always going to have a monopoly on the roads you want to use. This is similar with the local loop there are massive problems with only one ISP operating in given areas, meaning competition will not regulate the market. So I think the net may be one of the few things you can't leave to the markets to produce the best outcome for consumers.

jstewartmobile 9y ago

Most libertarians I know are good people that I'm proud to know. At the same time, it's like they just skipped over the entire history of the late 19th / early 20th century. We had immensely powerful private entities short-circuiting the avenues of democratic self-government (just like we do now!), and it took TR--a Republican, not a commie--to point the finger and do something about it. Of course, bring any of that up with them and they'll just quote one of their Austrian school bone-readers back at you as though they have just refuted you with pure logic. And even worse, Democrats and Republicans clearly worship at the same altar, just in a quieter way. It's like people have more faith in questionable econometrics than in any innate sense of justice. Until something shakes the mainstream faith in money-money-money, the situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better.

randyrand 9y ago
I'm quite libertarian but also against monopolies and pro trust-busting. Some people think these two positions are at odds with each other. I happen to think it's the exact opposite. A large monopoly with complete control is not too different than the absolute control of an overbearing government -- something libertarians are quite against.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  It's probably time for new ideas. Clinton administration to present has shown that regulatory agencies are very easy to capture. "Hands off" hasn't worked that well either. The senior citizens who rule us are just going to keep squabbling over the same busted ideas that were popular back when they were still sexually relevant. It is going to be a long ride...
tooltalk 9y ago
You mean like AT&T? Wasn't AT&T's monopoly in telecommunication propped up by gov't from 1910's all the way through 1980's?
- jstewartmobile 9y ago

Pr0ducer 9y ago

ISPs should be regulated under Title II, as they are common carriers, not information services. I don't pay Comcast for information, I pay them for access. It's like a phone line, but in modern times. Imagine if phone carriers could do what ISPs are planning, where certain companies can pay for better, faster phone connections, and everyone else gets the crappy maybe it works, maybe it doesn't level of service. No one thinks that's ok. The internet isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. Any limits on my ability to use it in any legal manner I see fit is wrong.

jotm 9y ago

That Portugal example... you realize it's the same in several countries, including the UK? The difference being that Net Neutrality exists in EU, and instead of an "unlimited" package being much more expensive, it is the lesser packages that are cheaper. Subtle, I guess, but big difference. Most consumers don't give a fuck though, which is really bad.

thinkvinny 9y ago
Right, but nothing is being restricted. They have a plan that will give you everything, just like we have now. But then, they ALSO have plans, that cost substantially less, that only give you a smaller portion. It is a way to anticipate user behavior and offer solutions at affordable rates based on bandwidth use. There is no one forcing anything here, they're simply offering different plans based on use, while still offering the traditional plans, and that's exactly why it's not a net neutrality violation.

thinkvinny 9y ago

Hey everyone. I wrote the article, stumbled across this post. Thanks a lot for your feedback, I appreciate it. I just wanted to take a moment to address some of the things that were written here. Whataboutisms: The point isn't to divert, the point is to say that this is a problem that exists WITH net neutrality in place. The point is, the argument of free speech is being made a lot, and most of the arguments are overdramatic hypotheticals, all while freedom of speech is being shut down under Net Neutrality. Our Instagram account: I know, it's shit-posty, but that's how you get people to like your IG account. I don't make the rules, people love shitty memes. Anyhow, this article is just why I don't support net neutrality. I guess it can seem like hand-waving, but that's not at all what my intention was. I did as much research as I could on the matter, and I just didn't see enough that convinced me keeping broadband under title 2 was a necessity. I had been hearing a lot of arguments that didn't seem totally logical to me, so I addressed some of them as best I could. Thanks again for the feedback!

dreamcompiler 9y ago

In the absence of both competition and regulation, corporations will never act benevolently toward their customers. One or the other is necessary to keep capitalism ethical.