5 ms·

Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can pr

Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.

gojomo 12y ago
If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement, rather than dictating service/pricing details? And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?
- alexqgb 12y ago
  Because this is about keeping the power of ISPs in check, which is far easier to do when they only have one set of customers. Give them two (i.e., upstream and downstream) and they're in a position to play one off the other in classic middle-man fashion.
- hga 12y ago
  "If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement" Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos. And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact. It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)
- lutorm 12y ago
  As far as I remember the FCC announcement, they already said they would not "dictate service/pricing details".
- nemo 12y ago
  What specific pricing details do you believe will be effected? The plan as proposed involved forebearance to avoid that.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    If the FCC ruling-majority can 'reclassify' (on their own discretion) and 'forbear' (on their own discretion) then these same commissioners, or a future set, could similarly and unilaterally keep adding more of Title II to the mix.
    - nemo 12y ago
      So in theory they might do something they were saying they wouldn't do or someone might some day do that thing. Sure, there is a remote possibility. You're talking about it as a certainty, though.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      If they could, that's true whether or not this set of commissioners chooses to use Title II right now, so it's not an argument against this FCC action. It's also not necessarily true; forbearance is not a matter of pure discretion, is a conditional mandate in the law -- a shall rather than a may.

Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.

gojomo 12y ago

If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement, rather than dictating service/pricing details? And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?

alexqgb 12y ago
Because this is about keeping the power of ISPs in check, which is far easier to do when they only have one set of customers. Give them two (i.e., upstream and downstream) and they're in a position to play one off the other in classic middle-man fashion.
hga 12y ago
"If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement" Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos. And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact. It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)
lutorm 12y ago
As far as I remember the FCC announcement, they already said they would not "dictate service/pricing details".
nemo 12y ago
What specific pricing details do you believe will be effected? The plan as proposed involved forebearance to avoid that.
- gojomo 12y ago
  If the FCC ruling-majority can 'reclassify' (on their own discretion) and 'forbear' (on their own discretion) then these same commissioners, or a future set, could similarly and unilaterally keep adding more of Title II to the mix.
  - nemo 12y ago
    So in theory they might do something they were saying they wouldn't do or someone might some day do that thing. Sure, there is a remote possibility. You're talking about it as a certainty, though.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    If they could, that's true whether or not this set of commissioners chooses to use Title II right now, so it's not an argument against this FCC action. It's also not necessarily true; forbearance is not a matter of pure discretion, is a conditional mandate in the law -- a shall rather than a may.