3 ms·

> What is the difference? I'm buying the infrastructure to communicate from one, and the other does, well, does anything. Should anyone that uses the telephon

> What is the difference? I'm buying the infrastructure to communicate from one, and the other does, well, does anything. Should anyone that uses the telephone to do business, even exclusively, be a Title I carrier? No, that would be absurd because they don't sell telecommunication. > If a company is using their monopoly, be it a network or a service or a platform, to do anticompetitive things that violate the law and hurt consumers, how are they different? I mean, I could ask you the same about standard oil and Microsoft. How are they different? They both abused their monopoly. > Why do ISPs need special regulations that DON'T apply to other types of monopolies The same reason we grant phone, electric, water, sewer, and natural gas companies the same types of monopolistic leeway in exchange for some additional regulations: infrastructure is expensive and takes up space. It's difficult to have multiple of any of these providers in the same geographic market. How many water lines can you run in a street? Sure, we can run many phone and isp lines, but it becomes extremely messy and leads to other issues that eventually led to the types of regulations in exchange for monopoly were discussing. This isn't a new problem. Now, I'm not saying Google shouldn't be subject to antitrust law. I'm saying Google doesn't sell me telecommunication services and therefore it doesn't makes sense to regulate it as one. (Project Fi and Google Fiber both fall under their respective FCC regulations.)

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Bear in mind, neutrality laws could be just as applicable to platforms as infrastructure. What's the difference between Comcast deciding to charge differently for different types of content on it's lines, and Google deciding to charge differently for different types of content on it's cloud services? What's the difference between Comcast blocking say, video content it doesn't like, and YouTube doing the same? > I mean, I could ask you the same about standard oil and Microsoft. How are they different? They both abused their monopoly. This is my point: I don't see why we need specific laws carved out for ISPs, as opposed to laws that do equally apply to Standard Oil and Microsoft. The regulations that are being repealed don't solve the problem. They're extremely narrowly designed to regulate a couple businesses by an agency who's job isn't policing business practices, but what those businesses are doing that needs to be regulated is already supposed to be regulated a different way: Anticompetitive practices are already illegal, and we need to enforce those rules. This is an FTC and DOJ problem, not an FCC problem.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > Bear in mind, neutrality laws could be just as applicable to platforms as infrastructure. You had me here. No they cannot. Google is not selling telecommunication services. Should the Butterball turkey hotline be regulated as a telecommunication provider? No, no they shouldn't. Just because they use phones to do business does not mean they ate a telecommunication provider. Now, there are a couple things leading to your confusion, I think. Right now net neutrality is tied to Title II, which gives the isps some leeway in antitrust issues in exchange for more regulation. If you would like to discuss that issue, I'm all for it. However, Google is not a telecommunication provider and net neutrality doesn't need to be tied to Title II. (However, Congress would need to step in at that point.) So, if your point is why are we granting ISPs any monopoly privileges via Title II (which doesn't happen in quite a direct way), I refer you to why telephones, electric, gas, water, and sewer are regulated as utilities, that is given a monopoly in exchange for tighter regulations.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Why does it matter if Google is a telecommunications service or not? Anticompetitive business practices are illegal, are they not? What makes telecommunications services special in your book? Why not just let the FTC go after companies (telecommunications or otherwise) when they misbehave?
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      > Why does it matter if Google is a telecommunications service or not? Because we're discussing regulations that only apply to telecommunication providers? I have never said antitrust laws shouldn't be enforced. In fact, I believe net neutrality is important even if we had a bustling isp sector. Net neutrality is also not an issue because of local monopolies, although they make the issue more visible. So, until you convince me that Telecommunication regulations should apply to companies that aren't providing telecommunication, I don't understand your point. Specially that data cannot be modified or throttled based upon content or destination. I'll continue to agree with you that antitrust laws. I'm not sure what your argument is.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Bear in mind, neutrality laws could be just as applicable to platforms as infrastructure. What's the difference between Comcast deciding to charge differently for different types of content on it's lines, and Google deciding to charge differently for different types of content on it's cloud services? What's the difference between Comcast blocking say, video content it doesn't like, and YouTube doing the same? > I mean, I could ask you the same about standard oil and Microsoft. How are they different? They both abused their monopoly. This is my point: I don't see why we need specific laws carved out for ISPs, as opposed to laws that do equally apply to Standard Oil and Microsoft. The regulations that are being repealed don't solve the problem. They're extremely narrowly designed to regulate a couple businesses by an agency who's job isn't policing business practices, but what those businesses are doing that needs to be regulated is already supposed to be regulated a different way: Anticompetitive practices are already illegal, and we need to enforce those rules. This is an FTC and DOJ problem, not an FCC problem.

jimktrains2 9y ago
> Bear in mind, neutrality laws could be just as applicable to platforms as infrastructure. You had me here. No they cannot. Google is not selling telecommunication services. Should the Butterball turkey hotline be regulated as a telecommunication provider? No, no they shouldn't. Just because they use phones to do business does not mean they ate a telecommunication provider. Now, there are a couple things leading to your confusion, I think. Right now net neutrality is tied to Title II, which gives the isps some leeway in antitrust issues in exchange for more regulation. If you would like to discuss that issue, I'm all for it. However, Google is not a telecommunication provider and net neutrality doesn't need to be tied to Title II. (However, Congress would need to step in at that point.) So, if your point is why are we granting ISPs any monopoly privileges via Title II (which doesn't happen in quite a direct way), I refer you to why telephones, electric, gas, water, and sewer are regulated as utilities, that is given a monopoly in exchange for tighter regulations.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Why does it matter if Google is a telecommunications service or not? Anticompetitive business practices are illegal, are they not? What makes telecommunications services special in your book? Why not just let the FTC go after companies (telecommunications or otherwise) when they misbehave?
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > Why does it matter if Google is a telecommunications service or not? Because we're discussing regulations that only apply to telecommunication providers? I have never said antitrust laws shouldn't be enforced. In fact, I believe net neutrality is important even if we had a bustling isp sector. Net neutrality is also not an issue because of local monopolies, although they make the issue more visible. So, until you convince me that Telecommunication regulations should apply to companies that aren't providing telecommunication, I don't understand your point. Specially that data cannot be modified or throttled based upon content or destination. I'll continue to agree with you that antitrust laws. I'm not sure what your argument is.