6 ms·
I feel like there isn’t much ‘clash’ (debate term) between what you’re saying and Ben Thompson’s article. Ben isn’t attacking the concept of Net Neutrality, he
by eksu 9y ago
I feel like there isn’t much ‘clash’ (debate term) between what you’re saying and Ben Thompson’s article.
Ben isn’t attacking the concept of Net Neutrality, he’s instead attacking Title II classification. Ben puts forward a few arguments.
First, he starts off with an offensive piece of matter, that regulatory burden from the 2015 Title II classification has a cost, and that cost is felt innovators who want to enter the market and by everyone who’s deprived of those potential services.
This directly removes small businesses chance to WIN — the ‘entire point of net neutrality’ as you put it.
Secondly, Ben attacks the notion that things in our pre-2015 status quo were bad enough to warrant Title II classification and the regulatory harms he outlined. He does this by showing that no significant harm existed before 2015, and by showing that the regulation has no solvency.
Ben shows three examples of net neutrality issues resolving themselves in the free market before these regulations were in place, showing that these harms were already in check. Then, even better than just a listicle of past cases, he gives you a mechanism that disincentives companies from violating net neutrality. Because of their fixed costs, they’re not in the market of alienating users.
Small businesses still don’t have the chance to WIN — the ‘entire point of net neutrality’ — in 2015 regulation because more harm is caused by zero rating, which isn’t affected by the 2015 classification.
You make a claim that ‘the rules Ajit Pai wants in place’ would allow Walmart to buy out Amazon at the ISP level.
Again, this is an example of something that the status quo wouldn’t have allowed to happened. You’re ‘postulating about future harms and foregone opportunities’ and then creating policy, but we already have a robust system to stop this behavior. FCC complaints like Vonage & Madison River solve, anti-trust solves, and our media ready-and-willing to raise a ruckus solves again.
I should also add that Ajit Pai isn’t proposing rules, he’s proposing removing rules, and going back to pre-2015 internet days. If the worst example you can come up with is a hypothetical Amazon vs Walmart, instead of a literal example, even though we lived in that world for 25 years, I think that speaks volumes.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoWe’ll just ignore the fact that every data communications expert refers to data services from the telco as “telecommunications”...When cable companies sell phone service over coax, there is no twisting of facts that can define that as anything but “Telecommuncations”, and they are therefore subject to Title II, and incumbents need to lease their last mile to competitors, just like the phone company. Period.
- dd36 9y agoPre-2015 rules were overturned by the courts in 2014. That’s why reclassification happened... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._... Apologies to those that have seen my comments 10x in this thread. It’s amazing how uninformed some people are about how this all came about. The FCC didn’t want to use Title II. It had a much lighter touch NN schema but Verizon destroyed it. The courts said the only way to do it is under Title II. If you hate heavy handed regulation, blame Verizon not the FCC. The funny thing is that all these additional rules the FCC has exempted ISPs from, it probably isn’t allowed to. But who is going to sue over that? Is Verizon going to shoot itself in the foot again?
- apple4ever 9y agoNo, the solution isn't Title II, but a new law. Title II is terrible, and should be opposed both by NN supporters AND opponents.
- ABCLAW 9y agoPerfect is the enemy of good. I'm sure there's a utopian piece of legislation which would be specifically tailored to ISP regulation. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Why remove Title II prior to getting that magical piece of legislation finished? Because it is PROFITABLE $$$$. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument about the merits of Title II vs. other regulatory control mechanisms. If it was, we'd be debating drafts of that piece of legislation, not the FCC's actions in implementing it.
- dd36 9y agoYes! Where’s the law? The money behind these moves doesn’t want NN. If a law is passed, this move by Pai is unnecessary. Sadly, it is likely any law that is proposed is weak and full of loopholes. But it will have a spectacular Orwellian title.
- manderson89 9y agoWould a law be better than Title II? Sure. Let me know when congress gets around to that. I'm not holding my breath. Until then, Title II seems like the only realistic option.
- jack6e 9y agoThank you for offering this rebuttal and clarification. Reading through the comments I was starting to wonder if I had read a different article than everyone else, or if the regulatory, misnamed "net neutrality", propaganda machine was really just that strong. But you caught the nuances and explained the consequences of this regulation exactly right.
- and0 9y agoYou can't compare the OP's point, that a tiered internet service would hurt small businesses doing business OVER the internet, to potential "new innovators" in the ISP space being burdened by regulations. That's an absurd false equivalence. (I'm also lost as to how a company that had the ability or tenacity to compete with Comcast / Verizon would look at basic regulation requirements / legal costs and give up? That's a weird glitch with the libertarian worldview that I could never figure out; how a John Galt-like figure could be an unstoppable titan of industry but also be completely ruined by simple regulations.) Also, why in "pre-2015 internet days" did we have zero competition / innovation in the ISP space? If you apply the same argument there, that pre-2015 wasn't any different so Title II isn't a big deal, then why can't we just keep it?
- masklinn 9y ago> Also, why in "pre-2015 internet days" did we have zero competition / innovation in the ISP space? Because the Bush FCC repealed line-sharing requirements when they moved dial-up and from Title II to Title I back in 2005. This means entrance into the ISP space is prohibitively expensive as you must build your network to get any client (huge initial/capital costs), which combined with the power of the incumbents mean no investor will be foolish enough to front the tens or hundreds of millions required to even step into the field. Which is why most of the attempted competition is from public spaces (municipal broadband) which incumbent telcos and conservative organisations[0] heavily lobby against. > If you apply the same argument there, that pre-2015 wasn't any different so Title II isn't a big deal, then why can't we just keep it? Because the reclassification was the result of courts deciding the FCC could not actually enforce its net neutrality regulations under Title I in 2015. "pre-2015" was literally struck down by court order after Verizon sued the FCC. [0] ALEC is one of the leading opponents to municipal broadband though by no means the only one, and "red" states lead the way in restricting or banning it
- xellisx 9y agoLast mile sharing was nice. You could get DSL from SWB, Earthlink, or whomever.
- 9y ago