4 ms·

Isn’t removing neutrality a de-regulation? To enforce neutrality would be a regulation.

cma 8y ago
Imagine the government collecting everyone's taxes to put in electricity based on common will, and then once it is hooked up it corrupt politicians say a new unaccountable king gets to decide who gets to plug in. The king has a profit motive, so for the most part you can pay him extra, in addition to the taxes you already paid, to let you plug in. Was inserting that king really a deregulatory step? Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft. (king/comcast/att/etc.)
- koboll 8y ago
  Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
  - fnordfnordfnord 8y ago
    Didn't the King get a bunch of federal subsidies to build out his infrastructure or something like that? Does that ring a bell?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Aside from some stimulus money recently, no. Instead, they were subject to special extra taxes, like cigarettes: https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026 https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026. Telecom is unusual in that welfare is funded by taxing companies that provide the service rather than using general tax dollars: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone. If would be like charging Panera a tax on bread and then using it to buy food for homeless shelters.
      - smolder 8y ago
        Which would be reasonable if Panera bread had a protected Monopoly on bread selling, and great profit margins. The analogy breaks down but isps also way under invest in service and maintenance relative to demand. Because they can.
  - kahnpro 8y ago
    In most cases the king didn't fund his own infrastructure, he convinced the people to pay for it.
- xtreme 8y ago
  Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but "inserting a king" is absolutely an act of deregulation in this context. Because earlier there would be only one supplier of electricity (the government) but now anyone would be able to sell electricity for a price that they see fit. Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
  - dmix 8y ago
    > For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding. I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
    - smolder 8y ago
      Their success is due to corruption and the lack of competition they are afforded. They barely do enough aside from collect money to avoid being displaced, despite how protected they are. Our ISPs suck terribly.
Whitestrake 8y ago
Attempting to enforce deregulation is regulation.
chriscappuccio 8y ago
Yes, removing "network neutrality" is de-regulation.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
No, because the FCC is preventing state and local governments from introducing their own net neutrality regulations. It is a regulation to prevent net neutrality in totality.
- Spivak 8y ago
  This really isn't as simple as, "The hypocrites! They claim to be eliminating regulation but really introduced them." Someone who is in favor of small government typically doesn't have much problem regulation the government itself especially when it's to preempt the creation of regulation. And if you actually want to have !NN and have a consistent set of rules for ISPs nationally then you have to "occupy the field" to prevent state/local governments from enacting 50 separate different not-quite-NN rules which will: not actually allow your deregulation to take effect, create even more complicated regulations, and then open yourself up to blame for all the problems the state regulations cause. I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.

cma 8y ago

Imagine the government collecting everyone's taxes to put in electricity based on common will, and then once it is hooked up it corrupt politicians say a new unaccountable king gets to decide who gets to plug in. The king has a profit motive, so for the most part you can pay him extra, in addition to the taxes you already paid, to let you plug in. Was inserting that king really a deregulatory step? Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft. (king/comcast/att/etc.)

koboll 8y ago
Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
- fnordfnordfnord 8y ago
  Didn't the King get a bunch of federal subsidies to build out his infrastructure or something like that? Does that ring a bell?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Aside from some stimulus money recently, no. Instead, they were subject to special extra taxes, like cigarettes: https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026 https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026. Telecom is unusual in that welfare is funded by taxing companies that provide the service rather than using general tax dollars: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone. If would be like charging Panera a tax on bread and then using it to buy food for homeless shelters.
    - smolder 8y ago
      Which would be reasonable if Panera bread had a protected Monopoly on bread selling, and great profit margins. The analogy breaks down but isps also way under invest in service and maintenance relative to demand. Because they can.
- kahnpro 8y ago
  In most cases the king didn't fund his own infrastructure, he convinced the people to pay for it.
xtreme 8y ago
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but "inserting a king" is absolutely an act of deregulation in this context. Because earlier there would be only one supplier of electricity (the government) but now anyone would be able to sell electricity for a price that they see fit. Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
- dmix 8y ago
  > For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding. I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
  - smolder 8y ago
    Their success is due to corruption and the lack of competition they are afforded. They barely do enough aside from collect money to avoid being displaced, despite how protected they are. Our ISPs suck terribly.

Whitestrake 8y ago

Attempting to enforce deregulation is regulation.

chriscappuccio 8y ago

Yes, removing "network neutrality" is de-regulation.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

No, because the FCC is preventing state and local governments from introducing their own net neutrality regulations. It is a regulation to prevent net neutrality in totality.

Spivak 8y ago
This really isn't as simple as, "The hypocrites! They claim to be eliminating regulation but really introduced them." Someone who is in favor of small government typically doesn't have much problem regulation the government itself especially when it's to preempt the creation of regulation. And if you actually want to have !NN and have a consistent set of rules for ISPs nationally then you have to "occupy the field" to prevent state/local governments from enacting 50 separate different not-quite-NN rules which will: not actually allow your deregulation to take effect, create even more complicated regulations, and then open yourself up to blame for all the problems the state regulations cause. I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.