3 ms·

What worries me is that this is the easy to notice stuff that is brought up (AT&T blocking Skype, etc.) what is really pernicious are things like network "optim

What worries me is that this is the easy to notice stuff that is brought up (AT&T blocking Skype, etc.) what is really pernicious are things like network "optimization" where there is a huge potential for abuse. Want to influence the next election? Delay requests for a particular party's website by 10s each. Want to promote your new streaming service? Make competing ones timeout on every 10th request. Concerned about journalists writing bad articles about your company and your abusive practices? Make their site take twice as long to load. ISPs are in a position of immense power and in the US there is inadequate competition for a pure market solution/consumer choice. This is something that needs government protection.

cookiecaper 9y ago
With you all the way until your last sentence, which seems to contradict the rest. When there is an immense concentration of power and concern about shady figures subtly influencing and corrupting things, the emphasis should be on diffusing that power out over a variety of diverse vessels instead of centralizing and condensing it further. Governmental apparatuses are just as, if not more, susceptible to corruption and influence than commercial ones, and I suspect the symbiotic relationship of regulatory capture and "government oversight" plays a major role in the interest in maintaining the status quo. The best answer to our telco issues is to use government influence to make sure that the power is evenly dispersed among the people. Babysitting the 5-6 major entrenched players is a stopgap at best and probably just a waste of time. Have to change the market circumstances so that the natural fluid, self-healing, and self-monitoring rhythm of the free market is in full swing.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  So, I'm in agreement, but I'm not sure how to get from here to there. I think I'd rather a stopgap solution than one that would put me in a bad spot for the next decade+ while deep infrastructure issues are addressed. What I really wish is that Internet was just another boring utility like electric or gas.
chasing 9y ago
You wouldn't even have to be sneaky: Get control of Comcast (for example) and simply block everything you don't want people to see. And block places where people would complain about it. "The New York Times doesn't load for you? Too bad." A handful of companies have a chokehold on the media environment. Net neutrality helps prevent them from exploiting it. And, right, maybe most wouldn't. But one of these companies deciding it wants to be a propaganda machine would create an enormous problem for the concept of an American democracy based upon an informed public. (Something we're already having troubles with...)
andrewla 9y ago
The new rules require transparency almost on a level with what the Title II regulations required. Just as under Title II a company could not legally engage in these practices, under the new rules a company could not legally engage in these practices without publicly disclosing them.

cookiecaper 9y ago

With you all the way until your last sentence, which seems to contradict the rest. When there is an immense concentration of power and concern about shady figures subtly influencing and corrupting things, the emphasis should be on diffusing that power out over a variety of diverse vessels instead of centralizing and condensing it further. Governmental apparatuses are just as, if not more, susceptible to corruption and influence than commercial ones, and I suspect the symbiotic relationship of regulatory capture and "government oversight" plays a major role in the interest in maintaining the status quo. The best answer to our telco issues is to use government influence to make sure that the power is evenly dispersed among the people. Babysitting the 5-6 major entrenched players is a stopgap at best and probably just a waste of time. Have to change the market circumstances so that the natural fluid, self-healing, and self-monitoring rhythm of the free market is in full swing.

michaelbuckbee 9y ago
So, I'm in agreement, but I'm not sure how to get from here to there. I think I'd rather a stopgap solution than one that would put me in a bad spot for the next decade+ while deep infrastructure issues are addressed. What I really wish is that Internet was just another boring utility like electric or gas.

chasing 9y ago

You wouldn't even have to be sneaky: Get control of Comcast (for example) and simply block everything you don't want people to see. And block places where people would complain about it. "The New York Times doesn't load for you? Too bad." A handful of companies have a chokehold on the media environment. Net neutrality helps prevent them from exploiting it. And, right, maybe most wouldn't. But one of these companies deciding it wants to be a propaganda machine would create an enormous problem for the concept of an American democracy based upon an informed public. (Something we're already having troubles with...)

andrewla 9y ago

The new rules require transparency almost on a level with what the Title II regulations required. Just as under Title II a company could not legally engage in these practices, under the new rules a company could not legally engage in these practices without publicly disclosing them.