23 ms·

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect of the market doesn't make sense anymore. In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expression of ideas does this, but allowing companies to block this at their whim benefits nobody but the companies. Battling internet providers day in, day out is tiresome enough without having net neutrality on the chopping block constantly. I don't want to have to switch providers every time they start blocking content. How do I even know they are blocking or throttling content? Will they even tell me? The free market offers me no protections against this. A company could be lying to be and I'd never know. With a regulatory body, at least there's some oversight, and by default a good amount of protection. I think if enough people in society determine they want something, that becomes a public matter. Trying to shoehorn every problem into the free market is a lot messier, IMO.

ikeboy 12y ago
Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this. How many of your problems could be solved by this? What problems would still remain? (Oh, and is there any chance of getting people to support anything this complicated? No.)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > What problems would still remain? Among others, a limited, but greater than one, number of providers in an area all trying to push their own, e.g., video service and so all blocking/throttling Netflix and other competing video services.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    Interesting you mention Netflix; you may find these informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netfl... http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-a... I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Netflix is completely inaccessible or heavily throttled in an area and the public outcry can't stop it. The problems Netflix complained about were fixed by the free market without any NN rules.
    - remarkEon 12y ago
      This I think is the difference. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix in my area there would be a huge public outcry...but there is no other option. None. I Can't just "switch" providers (jesus even if I wanted just to cancel, Comcast gives me hell). And even if we all get on twitter/facebook/LastWeekTonight Comcast will not care - they have no incentive to care because, again, there's no other option.
      - ikeboy 12y ago
        I said above that that I do support net neutrality for any location with only one ISP. At the same time, the government should make it easier for new ISPs to open, by relaxing the regulations. Remember the days when a college kid could run an ISP out of their basement?
        redler 12y ago
        I said above that that I do support net neutrality for any location with only one ISP. You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building?
        remarkEon 12y ago
        So how do we create that if/then statement? If only one ISP in a location, then Net Neutrality? What happens if the location does get opened up to multiple providers? Do the new providers not have to follow the neutrality rules? As an aside, as anyone been able to show what it would actually cost providers to adhere to a net neutrality standard?
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  > The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? > In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. So regulation in some instances, but not in others. A known, well-established regulation is now much more complicated to a) understand and b) enforce. > You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this. Much harder than it sounds, I believe. Your solutions are band-aid fixes for the fact the the free market is not equipped to handle this problem. Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original. When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong. I just don't see what the big deal with regulation is. The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    >Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here: >I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not. The reason this is better is because you're only forcing them to provide information, not change business practices. >Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original. I'm supporting making the info public, which is needed for markets to be truly free. >When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong. I went through some of the problems with the obvious answer above. >The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms. I gave use-cases and reasons why a consumer might want it. Why are you ignoring those?
- delinka 12y ago
  "...but requires all the data to be provided publicly." Looks like regulation to me. "In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies..." More regulation.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not. Also, you didn't answer my question about whether you would support my proposal over the net neutrality one.
    - delinka 12y ago
      I'm reading you as very anti-regulation, which could certainly be my own fault. Many conservatives simply talk "anti-regulation" without giving credit to beneficial regulations. I'm not the one to which you raised your question. I think your suggestion is a fine one except that I wouldn't use it in place of protecting us from the monopolies we're experiencing, but in addition to net neutrality.
- redler 12y ago
  In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building? I'm not sure if this is unique to New York City, but the choice to bring a supplier into a building is often the result of an exclusive contractual agreement with that provider (I waited about five years for FiOS to arrive as the second option in my building, finally supplanting the incumbent Time Warner 10/0.5 "broadband" option). N.B.: My initial response was to your similar comment deeply threaded below.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    Keep the law exactly as I proposed, and let provider deal with it. They might choose on their own to just offer NN in the whole area in places like that. The important thing is that it's voluntary.

ikeboy 12y ago

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this. How many of your problems could be solved by this? What problems would still remain? (Oh, and is there any chance of getting people to support anything this complicated? No.)

dragonwriter 12y ago
> What problems would still remain? Among others, a limited, but greater than one, number of providers in an area all trying to push their own, e.g., video service and so all blocking/throttling Netflix and other competing video services.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  Interesting you mention Netflix; you may find these informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netfl... http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-a... I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Netflix is completely inaccessible or heavily throttled in an area and the public outcry can't stop it. The problems Netflix complained about were fixed by the free market without any NN rules.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    This I think is the difference. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix in my area there would be a huge public outcry...but there is no other option. None. I Can't just "switch" providers (jesus even if I wanted just to cancel, Comcast gives me hell). And even if we all get on twitter/facebook/LastWeekTonight Comcast will not care - they have no incentive to care because, again, there's no other option.
    - ikeboy 12y ago
      I said above that that I do support net neutrality for any location with only one ISP. At the same time, the government should make it easier for new ISPs to open, by relaxing the regulations. Remember the days when a college kid could run an ISP out of their basement?
      - redler 12y ago
        I said above that that I do support net neutrality for any location with only one ISP. You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building?
      - remarkEon 12y ago
        So how do we create that if/then statement? If only one ISP in a location, then Net Neutrality? What happens if the location does get opened up to multiple providers? Do the new providers not have to follow the neutrality rules? As an aside, as anyone been able to show what it would actually cost providers to adhere to a net neutrality standard?
orthecreedence 12y ago
> The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? > In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. So regulation in some instances, but not in others. A known, well-established regulation is now much more complicated to a) understand and b) enforce. > You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this. Much harder than it sounds, I believe. Your solutions are band-aid fixes for the fact the the free market is not equipped to handle this problem. Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original. When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong. I just don't see what the big deal with regulation is. The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  >Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here: >I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not. The reason this is better is because you're only forcing them to provide information, not change business practices. >Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original. I'm supporting making the info public, which is needed for markets to be truly free. >When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong. I went through some of the problems with the obvious answer above. >The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms. I gave use-cases and reasons why a consumer might want it. Why are you ignoring those?
delinka 12y ago
"...but requires all the data to be provided publicly." Looks like regulation to me. "In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies..." More regulation.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not. Also, you didn't answer my question about whether you would support my proposal over the net neutrality one.
  - delinka 12y ago
    I'm reading you as very anti-regulation, which could certainly be my own fault. Many conservatives simply talk "anti-regulation" without giving credit to beneficial regulations. I'm not the one to which you raised your question. I think your suggestion is a fine one except that I wouldn't use it in place of protecting us from the monopolies we're experiencing, but in addition to net neutrality.
redler 12y ago
In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building? I'm not sure if this is unique to New York City, but the choice to bring a supplier into a building is often the result of an exclusive contractual agreement with that provider (I waited about five years for FiOS to arrive as the second option in my building, finally supplanting the incumbent Time Warner 10/0.5 "broadband" option). N.B.: My initial response was to your similar comment deeply threaded below.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  Keep the law exactly as I proposed, and let provider deal with it. They might choose on their own to just offer NN in the whole area in places like that. The important thing is that it's voluntary.