5 ms·

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality

25 points by jason_tko 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- judd_hustlebear 16y ago
  Perhaps you should keep reading. You'll find out that those who oppose regulation do so because the DO want an open and free internet.
Xuzz 16y ago
Funny that this is posted the same day that we see this from MetroPCS: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797
- 1337p337 16y ago
  That's pretty lousy, but people can switch cell providers. Especially easy since, if I recall correctly, MetroPCS is prepaid, so there are no contracts to hit your wallet if you do switch. It is significantly harder to switch governments, of course.
- judd-hustlebear 16y ago
  I don't see anything at all wrong with the Metro PCS offering. If you want any of their options, you're getting a fair deal. Completely unlimited internet access is still being offered, so no one is actually restricted or harmed.
jlizard 16y ago
Both sides say they want to keep the Internet free and open. Which side is lying?
- wmf 16y ago
  I don't think anybody is necessarily lying, but you might ask which side has actual experience in D.C.
itistoday 16y ago
Lot of nonsense in this article: > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget? THE GOVERNMENT. Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink? THE GOVERNMENT. I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful regulation known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out. Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.
- kiba 16y ago
  Two words: Regulatory capture.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
    - kiba 16y ago
      What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.
mindslight 16y ago
This (terribly wordy) article makes about 2 decent points: 1. The FCC is more than happy to step in and assume the power to regulate the internet, as every entity desires growth. 2. The more ISPs have to play to politics game, the more they will suck up to power, and look for ways to appease that power (ie gradual censorship). To actually convince anyone, I'd suggest cutting most of the hyperbole and trimming up the salient points. In addition: 3. Communication has always been tiered between bundles of lowest-common-denominator services, and general net access. Past innovations were driven by modems (at least $20/mo on top of a landline), while the masses had only dialtone. 4. Don't be scared by graphics showing lots of hypothetical pricing options, the highest priced tier (what one currently considers "standard") will be the standard $20-$40 more than the budget tier. (A quick litmus test as to whether something qualifies as internet access is whether it allows ssh/vpn. And there will always be internet access available, barring it being made illegal, in which case government certainly isn't the remedy) 4. The more non-packagable applications there are in widespread use, the more common the demand for standard commodity access. Bittorrent and VPN are quite embedded. 5. If you are worried about net neutrality, work at a local level. Cities already have the power to regulate who strings wires on public land, and can even build out public infrastructure! The incumbents have been somewhat successful scaring off community fiber projects, but they won't win that battle indefinitely.
jbooth 16y ago
First two sentences: "Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are DEMANDING Net Neutrality." I stopped reading there. Based on the other comments, looks like I didn't miss much. If you're doing this hacky a job of writing, you're either out of ideas and need to hit a deadline, you're getting a backhander from someone, or both.
T-R 16y ago
> This is ONLY a debate about whether control over our access should be in the hands of Internet Service Provider companies (ISPs) or… the Government. As far as I'm aware, no one wants government to regulate the internet - Net Neutrality supporters just want rules saying that ISPs can't regulate it either. The issue of censorship is irrelevant, and could even be made explicitly so, if that's what legislators who oppose Net Neutrality are actually worried about. > [ISPs] are regulated by YOU! Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit. > who’s regulating the FCC? The executive, legislative, and judicial branches. > which hypothetical scenario is more likely? The FCC overstepping its current authority, or ISPs delivering services that its customers are not happy about? ... I'm speechless. > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".
- sigil 16y ago
  > Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit. Which areas do you have in mind? "The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers." And given the trend of increased access identified in that FCC report, what leads you to suppose things are likely to stay a certain way? >> who’s regulating the FCC? > The executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Except the judicial branch, which the FCC decided to ignore after it started ruling the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the net. And except the executive branch, which already supports regulation of the net. It's a damn good thing we have three.
EEHF 16y ago
Freedom of speech, the right to drink from any fountain you want or the right to perform any other human action is not given to any man by a GOVERNMENT. Do you think man was not free to do any of these things before they elected a president? The only thing that GOVERNMENTS have done is provide a selected group of men with the power to deny actions to the rest, by using "regulations" that restrict actions. Don't forget that segregation was sanctioned and made possible by the GOVERNMENT. No individual has the power to institutionalize something like racism, only the GOVERNMENT has that power. GOVERNMENTS have done it in the past, and probably will try again in the future as long as we keep giving them the power regulate us.

25 points by jason_tko 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

judd_hustlebear 16y ago
Perhaps you should keep reading. You'll find out that those who oppose regulation do so because the DO want an open and free internet.

Xuzz 16y ago

Funny that this is posted the same day that we see this from MetroPCS: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797

1337p337 16y ago
That's pretty lousy, but people can switch cell providers. Especially easy since, if I recall correctly, MetroPCS is prepaid, so there are no contracts to hit your wallet if you do switch. It is significantly harder to switch governments, of course.
judd-hustlebear 16y ago
I don't see anything at all wrong with the Metro PCS offering. If you want any of their options, you're getting a fair deal. Completely unlimited internet access is still being offered, so no one is actually restricted or harmed.

jlizard 16y ago

Both sides say they want to keep the Internet free and open. Which side is lying?

wmf 16y ago
I don't think anybody is necessarily lying, but you might ask which side has actual experience in D.C.

itistoday 16y ago

Lot of nonsense in this article: > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget? THE GOVERNMENT. Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink? THE GOVERNMENT. I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful regulation known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out. Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.

kiba 16y ago
Two words: Regulatory capture.
- itistoday 16y ago
  If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
  - kiba 16y ago
    What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.

mindslight 16y ago

This (terribly wordy) article makes about 2 decent points: 1. The FCC is more than happy to step in and assume the power to regulate the internet, as every entity desires growth. 2. The more ISPs have to play to politics game, the more they will suck up to power, and look for ways to appease that power (ie gradual censorship). To actually convince anyone, I'd suggest cutting most of the hyperbole and trimming up the salient points. In addition: 3. Communication has always been tiered between bundles of lowest-common-denominator services, and general net access. Past innovations were driven by modems (at least $20/mo on top of a landline), while the masses had only dialtone. 4. Don't be scared by graphics showing lots of hypothetical pricing options, the highest priced tier (what one currently considers "standard") will be the standard $20-$40 more than the budget tier. (A quick litmus test as to whether something qualifies as internet access is whether it allows ssh/vpn. And there will always be internet access available, barring it being made illegal, in which case government certainly isn't the remedy) 4. The more non-packagable applications there are in widespread use, the more common the demand for standard commodity access. Bittorrent and VPN are quite embedded. 5. If you are worried about net neutrality, work at a local level. Cities already have the power to regulate who strings wires on public land, and can even build out public infrastructure! The incumbents have been somewhat successful scaring off community fiber projects, but they won't win that battle indefinitely.

jbooth 16y ago

First two sentences: "Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are DEMANDING Net Neutrality." I stopped reading there. Based on the other comments, looks like I didn't miss much. If you're doing this hacky a job of writing, you're either out of ideas and need to hit a deadline, you're getting a backhander from someone, or both.

T-R 16y ago

> This is ONLY a debate about whether control over our access should be in the hands of Internet Service Provider companies (ISPs) or… the Government. As far as I'm aware, no one wants government to regulate the internet - Net Neutrality supporters just want rules saying that ISPs can't regulate it either. The issue of censorship is irrelevant, and could even be made explicitly so, if that's what legislators who oppose Net Neutrality are actually worried about. > [ISPs] are regulated by YOU! Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit. > who’s regulating the FCC? The executive, legislative, and judicial branches. > which hypothetical scenario is more likely? The FCC overstepping its current authority, or ISPs delivering services that its customers are not happy about? ... I'm speechless. > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".

sigil 16y ago
> Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit. Which areas do you have in mind? "The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers." And given the trend of increased access identified in that FCC report, what leads you to suppose things are likely to stay a certain way? >> who’s regulating the FCC? > The executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Except the judicial branch, which the FCC decided to ignore after it started ruling the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the net. And except the executive branch, which already supports regulation of the net. It's a damn good thing we have three.

EEHF 16y ago

Freedom of speech, the right to drink from any fountain you want or the right to perform any other human action is not given to any man by a GOVERNMENT. Do you think man was not free to do any of these things before they elected a president? The only thing that GOVERNMENTS have done is provide a selected group of men with the power to deny actions to the rest, by using "regulations" that restrict actions. Don't forget that segregation was sanctioned and made possible by the GOVERNMENT. No individual has the power to institutionalize something like racism, only the GOVERNMENT has that power. GOVERNMENTS have done it in the past, and probably will try again in the future as long as we keep giving them the power regulate us.