10 ms·

Not to argue your point (which is 100% right IMHO), but this decision is pretty right on the merits. They refused to classify the providers in a way that gave

Not to argue your point (which is 100% right IMHO), but this decision is pretty right on the merits. They refused to classify the providers in a way that gave them express statutory authority to promulgate these regulations, and the court called them on it. I want to see this happen, but the right way is for the FCC to stop pussyfooting around and classify them as common carriers, which they are, so it can regulate them as such. They are just afraid of the political whining.

gretful 13y ago
politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
  - zem 13y ago
    without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The rich get the treatment they can pay for, and most providers give better service to those who can afford to pay more. I can understand the objection to that at a meta level, but I don't see the need to single out the internet for special consideration.
    - danielweber 13y ago
      > rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
        macspoofing 13y ago
        >When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
        zem 13y ago
        actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.
      - atmosx 13y ago
        > It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      >without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user. I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality. // For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.
      - virmundi 13y ago
        I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.
        Kliment 13y ago
        Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.
  - hgsigala 13y ago
    Corporations get first amendment rights at the cost of the people's.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    > I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      >So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
      - ganeumann 13y ago
        >By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
        macspoofing 13y ago
        >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
        wwweston 13y ago
        Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.
hgsigala 13y ago
Danny, in your view, what would the political ramifications be? Corporate lobbyists or actual politicians fighting against this label?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Both. The last time anything like this was proposed (and then it had the support of Google, etc), there was a huge showdown. The problem you have here is simple: The messaging is very hard to get to politicians in a way that makes it clear what a big deal this is, and how bad it's been. They have no concept of things like "broadband speeds". On one side, they get told by the telecom union, verizon, comcast, ex-FCC chairs who are now lobbying, etc, that "if you impose these rules, we'll lose jobs and money, and it'll make the world a worse place. Plus, regulation has been stifling us for years. We want to do amazing things like increase speeds in your area, but we can't afford to invest if we have all these regulations, and if these guys won't pay their fair share" (The telecoms have their own made up presentations about how they really didn't waste billions of dollars and give people nothing in return but higher prices) There is a lot inaccurate with this message, but it's still hard to counter. When what you mostly have is industry groups and tech companies arguing on the other side, it is hard for politicians to not believe their main beef is "we don't want to pay for this". The "consumers are already paying these costs, people shouldn't pay twice" argument doesn't really fly. If it affected politicians and their constituents ability to watch football, this would be easy. Instead, it usually seems like it just affects some confusing and far away thing they don't want to bother understanding, or worse, take the telecom companies side on. This would be a lot easier if there were millions of tech people arguing on the right side here, but that never actually happens (I'll also point out Google took a huge hit back then for getting what it could out of this, when it was fairly clear even then that the FCC's position was going to be a loser in court. It was raked over the coals by everyone, including the same organizations now commenting on this court decision saying how the FCC should do something different. It was clear the FCC wasn't going to change its mind then, and Google at least got people something out of this nothing. Of course, i'm quite biased here).
  - rayiner 13y ago

gretful 13y ago

politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.

macspoofing 13y ago
I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
- zem 13y ago
  without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The rich get the treatment they can pay for, and most providers give better service to those who can afford to pay more. I can understand the objection to that at a meta level, but I don't see the need to single out the internet for special consideration.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    > rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        >When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
        zem 13y ago
        actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      > It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user. I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality. // For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.
    - virmundi 13y ago
      I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.
      - Kliment 13y ago
        Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.
- hgsigala 13y ago
  Corporations get first amendment rights at the cost of the people's.
- atmosx 13y ago
  > I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
    - ganeumann 13y ago
      >By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
        wwweston 13y ago
        Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.

hgsigala 13y ago

Danny, in your view, what would the political ramifications be? Corporate lobbyists or actual politicians fighting against this label?

DannyBee 13y ago
Both. The last time anything like this was proposed (and then it had the support of Google, etc), there was a huge showdown. The problem you have here is simple: The messaging is very hard to get to politicians in a way that makes it clear what a big deal this is, and how bad it's been. They have no concept of things like "broadband speeds". On one side, they get told by the telecom union, verizon, comcast, ex-FCC chairs who are now lobbying, etc, that "if you impose these rules, we'll lose jobs and money, and it'll make the world a worse place. Plus, regulation has been stifling us for years. We want to do amazing things like increase speeds in your area, but we can't afford to invest if we have all these regulations, and if these guys won't pay their fair share" (The telecoms have their own made up presentations about how they really didn't waste billions of dollars and give people nothing in return but higher prices) There is a lot inaccurate with this message, but it's still hard to counter. When what you mostly have is industry groups and tech companies arguing on the other side, it is hard for politicians to not believe their main beef is "we don't want to pay for this". The "consumers are already paying these costs, people shouldn't pay twice" argument doesn't really fly. If it affected politicians and their constituents ability to watch football, this would be easy. Instead, it usually seems like it just affects some confusing and far away thing they don't want to bother understanding, or worse, take the telecom companies side on. This would be a lot easier if there were millions of tech people arguing on the right side here, but that never actually happens (I'll also point out Google took a huge hit back then for getting what it could out of this, when it was fairly clear even then that the FCC's position was going to be a loser in court. It was raked over the coals by everyone, including the same organizations now commenting on this court decision saying how the FCC should do something different. It was clear the FCC wasn't going to change its mind then, and Google at least got people something out of this nothing. Of course, i'm quite biased here).
- rayiner 13y ago