8 ms·

That's what worries me about classifying ISPs under Title 2, also - not that the ISPs aren't completely in the backpocket of NSA already. But at least if the co

That's what worries me about classifying ISPs under Title 2, also - not that the ISPs aren't completely in the backpocket of NSA already. But at least if the companies remain private, things could change more easily than if they were much more dependent on government regulation.

innguest 12y ago
Yes, that is precisely the problem with Net Neutrality. We really don't want ISPs to be common carriers. Keep them private and competitive.
- revscat 12y ago
  There are downsides to keeping them private that are apparent to most customers of Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner. Nor has there been any indication that the private nature of the telecoms has served to act as a buffer against federal intrusion. If anything, the monolithic and centralized nature of the ISPs has made it easier for the intelligence agencies to get what they want.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  What are you talking about? The reality is ISPs are not competitive in the US and are monopolies. That won't change overnight either so we need Net Neutrality (ISPs would still be private???) regulation even if temporary right now.
- msandford 12y ago
  I would agree with you if there was real competition; if I had 5 or 10 or 15 choices in who I got broadband from at reasonable, consumer prices I'd be 100% against any kind of regulation. Personally I'd rather see the federal government overrule states which have made laws against municipal ownership of the last mile. And to start handing out small seed grants to get more places to install fiber everywhere and lease it to whatever company cares to re-sell it. For example I live in Houston where there utility company only owns the power distribution infrastructure. There are 100 (or so) companies that sell power at retail after buying it wholesale. http://www.powertochoose.org/ http://www.powertochoose.org/ I consider that to be excellent competition. Getting to choose between two power companies, however, I would not consider competition.
- innguest 12y ago
  I'm hearing the following rebuttals: - Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner is not real/enough competition, more like a monopoly This problem could be solved with the antitrust laws already in place. Despite being a libertarian I'm not opposed to breaking up these private monopolies that government policies have made possible. - Being private hasn't protected them against federal intrusion Being private citizens has also not protected us against the NSA spying on us. That does not mean the solution is more government intrusion to offset the existing one. I oppose the federal government overruling state laws in any sense (so I'd rather the laws against municipal ownership of the last mile be abolished by market forces) as that obviously stifles competition between states.
  - paulmd 12y ago
    The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you're ignoring a very basic tendency of market systems. Natural monopolies are Econ 100 level stuff, and utilities are the textbook example.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. Murray Rothbard once said: "In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!" If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind. Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc). And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  > Keep them private and competitive. Hah!
01Michael10 12y ago
What? The USPS is unique in it's relation to the US government and is not similar to a regular industry being regulated by the federal government. I much rather have the government regulating my ISP which (in theory) I have a say in then my local monopoly Internet service provider calling all the shots.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > I much rather have the government regulating my ISP You probably don't really wish this... because it will ultimately be bad (think of your local power or gas company). What you really wish for is more competition on a level playing field, ie. 6-10 ISP's per city who compete with each other for your business.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Yes, I would... Should I make a list of all the shit Time Warner has done and tried to do to me over the years? I don't have any issues that are comparable with my power/gas companies (which I have more choices with by the way). I have already addressed the competition thing in a couple of comments on this thread... It does not exist right now and it would take a while to be a reality so ending Net Neutrality right now just makes things worse.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      These are symptoms of lack of competition. That's not a reason to make the government regulate these businesses like you seem to want. Instead we need to spur growth of competition. We can look at the cities Google Fiber has rolled out to. In every instance, competitor's pricing has decreased while bandwidth speed has increased. That is what we are fighting for -- we are not fighting for a government set bare-minimum level of service for government set price. That will get your DSL-like service -- just barely "good enough" and no innovation because there's no real competition. We need to somehow get to having 6-10 ISP's in every major city. This will drive quality of service up, and pricing down. I also think it's a conflict of interest to be a content provider while also an ISP (comcast, time-warner, etc). Either deliver bits, or create the bits -- not both.
wahsd 12y ago
Being classified as a public utility does not necessarily mean it will become a government entity. As you identify, there is very little if any separation between American corporations and our government, which are quite clearly engaged in rather fascist heavy-petting. All we really need is competition, we don't even really need the ISPs to be classified as public utilities. What needs to happen, by whatever means necessary is for the delivery and content to be firewalled and enforcement of regulations that prevent the infrastructure from discriminating against content. Infrastructure (i.e., spectrum, wires, etc.) should not be able to discriminate between sources of content and should solely be competing against one another and be forced to break up once they reach a certain size and market share.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 players in most markets? A decade? The Internet will already be useless by then if Net Neutrality is eliminated.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted. The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition. Your second statement is just wrong...

innguest 12y ago

Yes, that is precisely the problem with Net Neutrality. We really don't want ISPs to be common carriers. Keep them private and competitive.

revscat 12y ago
There are downsides to keeping them private that are apparent to most customers of Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner. Nor has there been any indication that the private nature of the telecoms has served to act as a buffer against federal intrusion. If anything, the monolithic and centralized nature of the ISPs has made it easier for the intelligence agencies to get what they want.
01Michael10 12y ago
What are you talking about? The reality is ISPs are not competitive in the US and are monopolies. That won't change overnight either so we need Net Neutrality (ISPs would still be private???) regulation even if temporary right now.
msandford 12y ago
I would agree with you if there was real competition; if I had 5 or 10 or 15 choices in who I got broadband from at reasonable, consumer prices I'd be 100% against any kind of regulation. Personally I'd rather see the federal government overrule states which have made laws against municipal ownership of the last mile. And to start handing out small seed grants to get more places to install fiber everywhere and lease it to whatever company cares to re-sell it. For example I live in Houston where there utility company only owns the power distribution infrastructure. There are 100 (or so) companies that sell power at retail after buying it wholesale. http://www.powertochoose.org/ http://www.powertochoose.org/ I consider that to be excellent competition. Getting to choose between two power companies, however, I would not consider competition.
innguest 12y ago
I'm hearing the following rebuttals: - Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner is not real/enough competition, more like a monopoly This problem could be solved with the antitrust laws already in place. Despite being a libertarian I'm not opposed to breaking up these private monopolies that government policies have made possible. - Being private hasn't protected them against federal intrusion Being private citizens has also not protected us against the NSA spying on us. That does not mean the solution is more government intrusion to offset the existing one. I oppose the federal government overruling state laws in any sense (so I'd rather the laws against municipal ownership of the last mile be abolished by market forces) as that obviously stifles competition between states.
- paulmd 12y ago
  The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you're ignoring a very basic tendency of market systems. Natural monopolies are Econ 100 level stuff, and utilities are the textbook example.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. Murray Rothbard once said: "In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!" If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind. Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc). And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
> Keep them private and competitive. Hah!

01Michael10 12y ago

What? The USPS is unique in it's relation to the US government and is not similar to a regular industry being regulated by the federal government. I much rather have the government regulating my ISP which (in theory) I have a say in then my local monopoly Internet service provider calling all the shots.

Alupis 12y ago
> I much rather have the government regulating my ISP You probably don't really wish this... because it will ultimately be bad (think of your local power or gas company). What you really wish for is more competition on a level playing field, ie. 6-10 ISP's per city who compete with each other for your business.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Yes, I would... Should I make a list of all the shit Time Warner has done and tried to do to me over the years? I don't have any issues that are comparable with my power/gas companies (which I have more choices with by the way). I have already addressed the competition thing in a couple of comments on this thread... It does not exist right now and it would take a while to be a reality so ending Net Neutrality right now just makes things worse.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    These are symptoms of lack of competition. That's not a reason to make the government regulate these businesses like you seem to want. Instead we need to spur growth of competition. We can look at the cities Google Fiber has rolled out to. In every instance, competitor's pricing has decreased while bandwidth speed has increased. That is what we are fighting for -- we are not fighting for a government set bare-minimum level of service for government set price. That will get your DSL-like service -- just barely "good enough" and no innovation because there's no real competition. We need to somehow get to having 6-10 ISP's in every major city. This will drive quality of service up, and pricing down. I also think it's a conflict of interest to be a content provider while also an ISP (comcast, time-warner, etc). Either deliver bits, or create the bits -- not both.

wahsd 12y ago

Being classified as a public utility does not necessarily mean it will become a government entity. As you identify, there is very little if any separation between American corporations and our government, which are quite clearly engaged in rather fascist heavy-petting. All we really need is competition, we don't even really need the ISPs to be classified as public utilities. What needs to happen, by whatever means necessary is for the delivery and content to be firewalled and enforcement of regulations that prevent the infrastructure from discriminating against content. Infrastructure (i.e., spectrum, wires, etc.) should not be able to discriminate between sources of content and should solely be competing against one another and be forced to break up once they reach a certain size and market share.

01Michael10 12y ago
Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 players in most markets? A decade? The Internet will already be useless by then if Net Neutrality is eliminated.
- mseebach 12y ago
  One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted. The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition. Your second statement is just wrong...