6 ms·

So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?

wnevets 12y ago
"government bad, me sad"
ikeboy 12y ago
I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      >In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I'd argue that there are lots of anecdotal examples that suggest the US internet market is stagnant. Our speeds compare poorly to other countries as do our costs. The sudden increases in speed that ISPs roll out whenever Google Fiber moves into an area seem like strong evidence that the ISPs are delaying service upgrades as much as possible. There have already been examples of ISPs throttling certain protocols or endpoints that don't align with their business plan. I would also point out that the FCC has not been granted any additional regulatory power. They could have made this move at any time and they can un-do it at any time as well. Congress can also take action to remove or re-define the FCC's power. I don't see this as "the" be-all and end-all action, but it seems worth trying to see if we can get the average connection speeds across the country up and the minimum cost down.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    This has absolutely nothing to do with absolute internet speeds, just with relative speeds.
- r00fus 12y ago
  > I don't see why we should stop the free market The telecom space hasn't been a "free" market in decades... and likely never will again. The only thing that happens if you remove regulation is that eventually we'll have a telecom monopoly again, while prices go through the roof and industry profits soar.

"government bad, me sad"

I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.

orthecreedence 12y ago
This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    >In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.
aeturnum 12y ago
I'd argue that there are lots of anecdotal examples that suggest the US internet market is stagnant. Our speeds compare poorly to other countries as do our costs. The sudden increases in speed that ISPs roll out whenever Google Fiber moves into an area seem like strong evidence that the ISPs are delaying service upgrades as much as possible. There have already been examples of ISPs throttling certain protocols or endpoints that don't align with their business plan. I would also point out that the FCC has not been granted any additional regulatory power. They could have made this move at any time and they can un-do it at any time as well. Congress can also take action to remove or re-define the FCC's power. I don't see this as "the" be-all and end-all action, but it seems worth trying to see if we can get the average connection speeds across the country up and the minimum cost down.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  This has absolutely nothing to do with absolute internet speeds, just with relative speeds.
r00fus 12y ago
> I don't see why we should stop the free market The telecom space hasn't been a "free" market in decades... and likely never will again. The only thing that happens if you remove regulation is that eventually we'll have a telecom monopoly again, while prices go through the roof and industry profits soar.