4 ms·

-sarcasm- I, for one, support net neutrality. I can't wait for the people who brought us the amazing FCC to regulate the hell out of the internet. Maybe while

by haseman 17y ago

-sarcasm- I, for one, support net neutrality. I can't wait for the people who brought us the amazing FCC to regulate the hell out of the internet. Maybe while they're at it they could stop me from getting rick-rolled so much... -/sarcasm- I'm skeptical of politicians...which is exactly why I support the concept of net neutrality but I could never support letting the US Government enforce it.

fuzzmeister 17y ago
Since net neutrality does not seem to be in the economic best interest of the ISPs and wireless carriers, government is likely the only way to enforce it.
- tptacek 17y ago
  In the presence of real competition, network discrimination wouldn't be in the best interests of many ISPs, because they'd shed customers over it. Customer turnover is a huge issue for ISPs.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Which is why the telecoms would fight anything that might actually force them to compete even harder than they're fighting net neutrality regulations. Large, entrenched corporations only support "free markets" insofar as it makes convenient political cover for "let us do what we want".
- haseman 17y ago
  Better the devil I know (corporate greed) than the devil I don't (lobbyist driven re-election hungry politicians) In the same way, the government has exactly zero economic interest in a correctly regulated network. Over time, laws have a way of favoring those who are connected over those who are not... Goldman Sachs springs to mind as an example of just such behavior.
  - spoiledtechie 17y ago
    Government always has an interest in regulating bad behavior... Some parts of the internet show bad behavior, but they are punishing the whole lot just to enforce a few. People are wholey very good creatures. But there are times when a person can become evil and that is what the government is for...
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      How does it have an interest in regulating bad behavior? How do people in government benefit from such regulation? In practice, it seems government has an interest in threatening regulation in order to extract concessions (campaign contributions) from regulated groups. There is little connection between the well-being of society and the incentives facing politicians.
  - bluedanieru 17y ago
    I consider government "the devil I know" at least compared to corporations like Verizon and Comcast. I may have little say in the functioning of American government, but I have precisely zero say in the operations of large corporations. It seems self-defeating to abandon the only measure of societal control all citizens have equal access to, because of some cynicism of politics.
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      Your purchasing decision probably means more to Verizon or Comcast than your vote does to an average bureaucrat. "Large" corporations are dwarfed in size by the US government, which is the largest corporation in the world.
    - haseman 17y ago
      What evidence do you have that the US Government would be capable of regulating the internet?
bluedanieru 17y ago
If you don't support the only realistic method to ensure net neutrality then you can't really claim to support net neutrality.
- haseman 17y ago
  Not at all. I support the concept of a neutral network and a fair playing ground on the internet for all. I also think the government and the FCC isn't an institution that can provide it. How is that inconsistent? What evidence is there that the US Government can magically regulate this very chaotic environment? They regulate the radio waves. There's money to be made there but it's a total disaster and a near monopoly to boot. They regulate the wireless spectrum...and the US has, hands down, the worst cellular network of any first world country. (I'll admit that this isn't all the US' fault, but they contribute to the problem) What makes you think turning over the reigns of network priority will be any different?

by haseman 17y ago

fuzzmeister 17y ago

Since net neutrality does not seem to be in the economic best interest of the ISPs and wireless carriers, government is likely the only way to enforce it.

tptacek 17y ago
In the presence of real competition, network discrimination wouldn't be in the best interests of many ISPs, because they'd shed customers over it. Customer turnover is a huge issue for ISPs.
- camccann 17y ago
  Which is why the telecoms would fight anything that might actually force them to compete even harder than they're fighting net neutrality regulations. Large, entrenched corporations only support "free markets" insofar as it makes convenient political cover for "let us do what we want".
haseman 17y ago
Better the devil I know (corporate greed) than the devil I don't (lobbyist driven re-election hungry politicians) In the same way, the government has exactly zero economic interest in a correctly regulated network. Over time, laws have a way of favoring those who are connected over those who are not... Goldman Sachs springs to mind as an example of just such behavior.
- spoiledtechie 17y ago
  Government always has an interest in regulating bad behavior... Some parts of the internet show bad behavior, but they are punishing the whole lot just to enforce a few. People are wholey very good creatures. But there are times when a person can become evil and that is what the government is for...
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    How does it have an interest in regulating bad behavior? How do people in government benefit from such regulation? In practice, it seems government has an interest in threatening regulation in order to extract concessions (campaign contributions) from regulated groups. There is little connection between the well-being of society and the incentives facing politicians.
- bluedanieru 17y ago
  I consider government "the devil I know" at least compared to corporations like Verizon and Comcast. I may have little say in the functioning of American government, but I have precisely zero say in the operations of large corporations. It seems self-defeating to abandon the only measure of societal control all citizens have equal access to, because of some cynicism of politics.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    Your purchasing decision probably means more to Verizon or Comcast than your vote does to an average bureaucrat. "Large" corporations are dwarfed in size by the US government, which is the largest corporation in the world.
  - haseman 17y ago
    What evidence do you have that the US Government would be capable of regulating the internet?

bluedanieru 17y ago

If you don't support the only realistic method to ensure net neutrality then you can't really claim to support net neutrality.

haseman 17y ago
Not at all. I support the concept of a neutral network and a fair playing ground on the internet for all. I also think the government and the FCC isn't an institution that can provide it. How is that inconsistent? What evidence is there that the US Government can magically regulate this very chaotic environment? They regulate the radio waves. There's money to be made there but it's a total disaster and a near monopoly to boot. They regulate the wireless spectrum...and the US has, hands down, the worst cellular network of any first world country. (I'll admit that this isn't all the US' fault, but they contribute to the problem) What makes you think turning over the reigns of network priority will be any different?