4 ms·

Net Neutrality advocates were always going after the wrong solution. They never focused on the root of the problem, local competition. Specifying a quality ISP

Net Neutrality advocates were always going after the wrong solution. They never focused on the root of the problem, local competition. Specifying a quality ISP service in a dynamic market over a long period of time is a hopeless endeavor. If you fix the root issue (competitive market), like the EU did with local loop unbundling, or voiding local govt issuing monopoly contracts to ISPs, then you don't need to try and specify a bare minimum for internet access. The other thing naive leftists don't realize is complex regulation always favors corporations over consumers. Sure you may get a headline "win" in year 1, but by year 10 history has shown regulatory capture will set in. The rules will be so complex, the FUD will be so thick, consumer interests will not be protected. The lobbyists love complex regulation.

Spivak 4y ago
This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the actual real-life NN debate. The proposed national NN regulation existed to supersede the fact that the federal government can't force states/cities/towns to unbundle their loops and get local govts out of the exclusivity contracts they signed. That kind of reform is a stretch goal while in the mean time you can pass a law that obviates the major pain point for everyone instantly. You're right about complex positive-rights regulations but the proposed NN regulation was a small set of restrictions on what ISPs aren't allowed to do. Once the various execs cry it out over lost future profits the regulation costs nothing and turns internet service into a known quantity you can purchase from anyone who offers it and know what you're getting.
- jpadkins 4y ago
  your response presumes that lobbying / citizen action can only happen at the federal level, which is not true (in fact citizen movements are at a large disadvantage in big $$ federal politics). NORML and the marijuana effort shows that local/state can be very effective in actually get results in policy change. I also believe that the "federalization" of all issues is bad for the country and bad for culture. It makes everything super high stakes, and doesn't allow for the country to have a range of options to match citizen policy preferences. There are very, very few issues 350M+ people have strong policy alignment on. The rest of the issues should be sorted out at the state & local level. Going federal on every issue just increases the concentration of power in our society.
Nevermark 4y ago
The net neutrally rules are actually not intrusive. They don't require ISP's to do something, just refrain from complicating something. Wheres local loop unbundling, etc., is extremely intrusive in terms of telling businesses what they must do, and then courts handling lots of practical and legal requirements to make it work, with respect to many different build outs of varying costs, local laws, etc. It does make me happy to think that every local monopoly or duopoly is getting new competition from Starlink, and potentially other low orbit satellite constellations.

Spivak 4y ago

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the actual real-life NN debate. The proposed national NN regulation existed to supersede the fact that the federal government can't force states/cities/towns to unbundle their loops and get local govts out of the exclusivity contracts they signed. That kind of reform is a stretch goal while in the mean time you can pass a law that obviates the major pain point for everyone instantly. You're right about complex positive-rights regulations but the proposed NN regulation was a small set of restrictions on what ISPs aren't allowed to do. Once the various execs cry it out over lost future profits the regulation costs nothing and turns internet service into a known quantity you can purchase from anyone who offers it and know what you're getting.

jpadkins 4y ago
your response presumes that lobbying / citizen action can only happen at the federal level, which is not true (in fact citizen movements are at a large disadvantage in big $$ federal politics). NORML and the marijuana effort shows that local/state can be very effective in actually get results in policy change. I also believe that the "federalization" of all issues is bad for the country and bad for culture. It makes everything super high stakes, and doesn't allow for the country to have a range of options to match citizen policy preferences. There are very, very few issues 350M+ people have strong policy alignment on. The rest of the issues should be sorted out at the state & local level. Going federal on every issue just increases the concentration of power in our society.

Nevermark 4y ago

The net neutrally rules are actually not intrusive. They don't require ISP's to do something, just refrain from complicating something. Wheres local loop unbundling, etc., is extremely intrusive in terms of telling businesses what they must do, and then courts handling lots of practical and legal requirements to make it work, with respect to many different build outs of varying costs, local laws, etc. It does make me happy to think that every local monopoly or duopoly is getting new competition from Starlink, and potentially other low orbit satellite constellations.