4 ms·

This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President Obama calls for a free and open internet." Which reads more like the actual intent

by sejje 12y ago

This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President Obama calls for a free and open internet." Which reads more like the actual intent? Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.

mpweiher 12y ago
They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  Broadband ISPs haven't been regulated like common carriers for almost two decades. Meanwhile consumer access to the internet has been oppressed and stagnant? I don't see the evidence for that.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Or you need competition (see how ISPs work in Britain and some places in Europe). Or you need socialization (see how ISPs work in South Korea). Regulation isn't the only solution.
  - thenmar 12y ago
    Isn't the competition in Britain only possible because regulations require companies to share infrastructure?
    - philbarr 12y ago
      Yes, British Telecom is forced to lease out the lines so that other companies can act as ADSL based ISPs. However, if you want cable into your house you only have one option: Virgin Media. Since they paid for and created all the cable in the first place.
    - coob 12y ago
      Yes.
  - mpweiher 12y ago
    The very strong competition in (for example) Germany was enabled/created by strong regulation. US ISPs have managed to fend off regulation and thus removed competition, resulting in monopolies or at most duopolies in most areas. Competition and regulation are not opposites.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Certainly they aren't mutual exclusive. You'd get my full agreement there. And touche to 'symbiosis' of regulation and competition. I do hope that this is the route we are heading.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery". It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even so, the apparent contradiction should make us think before jumping in.
  - rudolf0 12y ago
    Well, it depends if you consider monolithic monopolies or governments a greater threat to freedom. In the case of US ISPs, most people simply have no choice and are locked into one company. This creates a difficult situation and allows ISPs to easily collude. You theoretically have freedom to switch to another company, but in practice it's not possible because most people would have to up and move their entire family.
  - djur 12y ago
    The Roman republic was preserved so long in part because Roman law and tradition forbade the bearing of arms within the city, and the entry of armed legions from the provinces into Italy proper. The loss of Roman liberty corresponded directly with the progressive breakdown of those regulations, starting with Sulla marching into Rome, Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and continuing with Augustus' Praetorian Guard. Sometimes liberty is best preserved by limiting the ability of the powerful to bring that power to bear. The alternative is "might makes right", or private tyranny.
  - vor_ 12y ago
    Monopoly of force is necessary to maintain order in a state.
  - nathan_long 12y ago
    Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing. Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of people from being tricked or coerced into one. Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no slavery). Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in the public interest to outlaw it.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Such as the executive orders authorizing the wiretapping of the internet?

by sejje 12y ago

mpweiher 12y ago

They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.

twoodfin 12y ago
Broadband ISPs haven't been regulated like common carriers for almost two decades. Meanwhile consumer access to the internet has been oppressed and stagnant? I don't see the evidence for that.
xnull2guest 12y ago
Or you need competition (see how ISPs work in Britain and some places in Europe). Or you need socialization (see how ISPs work in South Korea). Regulation isn't the only solution.
- thenmar 12y ago
  Isn't the competition in Britain only possible because regulations require companies to share infrastructure?
  - philbarr 12y ago
    Yes, British Telecom is forced to lease out the lines so that other companies can act as ADSL based ISPs. However, if you want cable into your house you only have one option: Virgin Media. Since they paid for and created all the cable in the first place.
  - coob 12y ago
    Yes.
- mpweiher 12y ago
  The very strong competition in (for example) Germany was enabled/created by strong regulation. US ISPs have managed to fend off regulation and thus removed competition, resulting in monopolies or at most duopolies in most areas. Competition and regulation are not opposites.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Certainly they aren't mutual exclusive. You'd get my full agreement there. And touche to 'symbiosis' of regulation and competition. I do hope that this is the route we are heading.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 12y ago
This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery". It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even so, the apparent contradiction should make us think before jumping in.
- rudolf0 12y ago
  Well, it depends if you consider monolithic monopolies or governments a greater threat to freedom. In the case of US ISPs, most people simply have no choice and are locked into one company. This creates a difficult situation and allows ISPs to easily collude. You theoretically have freedom to switch to another company, but in practice it's not possible because most people would have to up and move their entire family.
- djur 12y ago
  The Roman republic was preserved so long in part because Roman law and tradition forbade the bearing of arms within the city, and the entry of armed legions from the provinces into Italy proper. The loss of Roman liberty corresponded directly with the progressive breakdown of those regulations, starting with Sulla marching into Rome, Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and continuing with Augustus' Praetorian Guard. Sometimes liberty is best preserved by limiting the ability of the powerful to bring that power to bear. The alternative is "might makes right", or private tyranny.
- vor_ 12y ago
  Monopoly of force is necessary to maintain order in a state.
- nathan_long 12y ago
  Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing. Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of people from being tricked or coerced into one. Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no slavery). Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in the public interest to outlaw it.
fleitz 12y ago
Such as the executive orders authorizing the wiretapping of the internet?