3 ms·

> 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 telecommunic

> 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
    Why are we discussing regulations that only apply to telecommunication providers? Why shouldn't Internet companies be subject to identical neutrality provisions? Why should a platform like YouTube be permitted to make judgment calls on how to handle content on it's services, but ISPs can't make judgment calls on how to handle content on theirs? You haven't given a single reason for why telecommunications companies are different.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      For the same reason we prevent phone companies from doing the same. Until you're ok with phone companies not letting you call the Butterball hotline because they support another turkey company, I don't think you have a point. Moreover, even without any antitrust issues, the number of ISPs, especially in rural areas will always be limited by start up costs. In cities it'll always be limited by space on lines poles or conduits underground. I guess until you convince me phone operators shouldn't be regulated as common carriers, you won't convince me isps shouldn't.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        It feels like you're actively avoiding the question. Let me show you: If phone companies blocked you from the Butterball hotline because they support another turkey company, that would be what's known as an "anticompetitive business practice". Now, if you removed the special exemption telecoms get, the FTC would fine them for that, and tell them they can't do it. In the same way, if ISPs were to prioritize their own video services or block a competitor's, that would also be against antitrust law, and the FTC could fine them for it. Hilariously, the common carrier designation actually prevents this from happening. At the risk of aggravating the moderators, to ask this a third time what is so special about telecommunications companies, that, unlike other monopolies, need a whole different form of regulation?
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        > At the risk of aggravating the moderators, to ask this a third time what is so special about telecommunications companies, that, unlike other monopolies, need a whole different form of regulation? I mean, you could ask the same thing about electric utilities. What's special is that as a society, we've decided that we don't want dozens and dozens of companies running infrastructure through public land. We grant some private companies space, for rent, but that also comes with the burdens of public process. In more space-constrained areas like telephone poles, streets, and conduits, it's often better to have a small number of companies utilize the space, but at the cost of additional regulations. Electric, gas, phone, and water companies have captive audiences, but at the same time need the PUC to approve rate increases and are required to meet certain performance guidelines. I'll also ask for the third time: Why should ISPs be different than the phone company?

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
  Why are we discussing regulations that only apply to telecommunication providers? Why shouldn't Internet companies be subject to identical neutrality provisions? Why should a platform like YouTube be permitted to make judgment calls on how to handle content on it's services, but ISPs can't make judgment calls on how to handle content on theirs? You haven't given a single reason for why telecommunications companies are different.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    For the same reason we prevent phone companies from doing the same. Until you're ok with phone companies not letting you call the Butterball hotline because they support another turkey company, I don't think you have a point. Moreover, even without any antitrust issues, the number of ISPs, especially in rural areas will always be limited by start up costs. In cities it'll always be limited by space on lines poles or conduits underground. I guess until you convince me phone operators shouldn't be regulated as common carriers, you won't convince me isps shouldn't.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      It feels like you're actively avoiding the question. Let me show you: If phone companies blocked you from the Butterball hotline because they support another turkey company, that would be what's known as an "anticompetitive business practice". Now, if you removed the special exemption telecoms get, the FTC would fine them for that, and tell them they can't do it. In the same way, if ISPs were to prioritize their own video services or block a competitor's, that would also be against antitrust law, and the FTC could fine them for it. Hilariously, the common carrier designation actually prevents this from happening. At the risk of aggravating the moderators, to ask this a third time what is so special about telecommunications companies, that, unlike other monopolies, need a whole different form of regulation?
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        > At the risk of aggravating the moderators, to ask this a third time what is so special about telecommunications companies, that, unlike other monopolies, need a whole different form of regulation? I mean, you could ask the same thing about electric utilities. What's special is that as a society, we've decided that we don't want dozens and dozens of companies running infrastructure through public land. We grant some private companies space, for rent, but that also comes with the burdens of public process. In more space-constrained areas like telephone poles, streets, and conduits, it's often better to have a small number of companies utilize the space, but at the cost of additional regulations. Electric, gas, phone, and water companies have captive audiences, but at the same time need the PUC to approve rate increases and are required to meet certain performance guidelines. I'll also ask for the third time: Why should ISPs be different than the phone company?