3 ms·

You 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

by and0 9y ago

You 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 Because the Bush FCC repealed line-sharing requirements when they moved dial-up and from Title II to Title I back in 2005.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 ago
  Last mile sharing was nice. You could get DSL from SWB, Earthlink, or whomever.
winston_smith 9y ago
I don't have an opinion about what you and the parent are arguing, but could I talk you out of using the "false equivalence" phrasing? I find it creates more heat than light. "False equivalency" (sic) was coined when a pundit complained about Jon Stewart's speech at the famous rally. Jon said that people who disagree have many of the same hopes and fears, and the pundit wanted to get back to being polarized. So he's misrepresenting Jon's statement as "all sides are the same" and then refuting it with "no, my side is better". So for "false equivalence" to make sense as a refutation, the original claim would have to be "these things are equal in every way", so that we can just say "false!", but why would someone ever make that claim? Nobody ever says "this is a true equivalence", so we shouldn't expect "this is a false equivalence" to be a useful refutation. But please don't let me stop you from pushing back on crappy arguments. It's great to point out ways that a purported similarity doesn't hold up! Just watch out for the loaded term. (Likewise, "you can't compare" is sort of nonsensical -- all pairs of things can be compared, and they're almost always different in some way, which is why they have different names! Usually people just mean "those things are actually pretty different in the ways that matter here", but it sounds like they're saying "I forbid you to compare them" or "Those things have nothing in common whatsoever!")

by and0 9y ago

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 ago
Last mile sharing was nice. You could get DSL from SWB, Earthlink, or whomever.

winston_smith 9y ago

I don't have an opinion about what you and the parent are arguing, but could I talk you out of using the "false equivalence" phrasing? I find it creates more heat than light. "False equivalency" (sic) was coined when a pundit complained about Jon Stewart's speech at the famous rally. Jon said that people who disagree have many of the same hopes and fears, and the pundit wanted to get back to being polarized. So he's misrepresenting Jon's statement as "all sides are the same" and then refuting it with "no, my side is better". So for "false equivalence" to make sense as a refutation, the original claim would have to be "these things are equal in every way", so that we can just say "false!", but why would someone ever make that claim? Nobody ever says "this is a true equivalence", so we shouldn't expect "this is a false equivalence" to be a useful refutation. But please don't let me stop you from pushing back on crappy arguments. It's great to point out ways that a purported similarity doesn't hold up! Just watch out for the loaded term. (Likewise, "you can't compare" is sort of nonsensical -- all pairs of things can be compared, and they're almost always different in some way, which is why they have different names! Usually people just mean "those things are actually pretty different in the ways that matter here", but it sounds like they're saying "I forbid you to compare them" or "Those things have nothing in common whatsoever!")