End Of Net Neutrality

[CrossCuT]

This is kind of a big deal people. I hope you are all saying No.

 

Read full article here: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-murder-of-net-neutrality-20140429,0,3234289.column#axzz30No7dneg

 

Although its a bit long so I tried to trim it down to some main quotes. 

 

 

First, some background. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers can't discriminate among content providers trying to reach you online -- they can't block websites or services, or degrade their signal, slow their traffic or, conversely, provide a better traffic lane for some rather than others.

That's important because control over traffic flow gives ISPs tremendous power, especially those that control the last mile of access to end-users -- cable operators such as Comcast and telecommunications firms such as Verizon and AT&T. Without regulation, they'd have the ability to force content providers to pay up for unrestricted transmission to their customers.

 

 

 

Wheeler's proposal, which is scheduled for a preliminary vote by the full FCC on May 15, has been assailed as a full-scale retreat from the open-Internet principle traditionally upheld by the commission, and explicitly supported by President Obama. Wheeler claims he's not backing away from net neutrality at all, and that assertions to the contrary are the product of "a great deal of misinformation."
 

 

 

So here's what's in store for you. If the FCC approves the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal, Comcast will have less incentive than ever to bring its customers the fastest Internet connection at the most reasonable price. If the FCC approves Wheeler's net neutrality proposal, Comcast will have more leeway than ever to squeeze content providers, and consequently the public, for more money for barely adequate service. And every other Internet service provider in the nation will take advantage of the rules to the max.

The public's only option is to scream bloody murder. Make sure your congress members are aware that you know what's at stake. Remind the White House that, as a presidential candidate in 2007, Barack Obama came out foursquare for the "incredible equality" of the net-neutral Internet and specifically in opposition to the gatekeeping that Wheeler's proposal would allow. He should be held to his commitment.

 

The corporatocracy has already taken control of radio, and then television; now they want control of the internet. Without a place to spread information and ideas freely, it will be impossible to ever evolve past the monetary system that holds us in place. We will become stagnant, living in a world of war, hunger, and poverty. The corporatocracy is protecting it's interests; profits over people.

[Winchester]

Why do you feel you should be able to have a third party set price ceilings?

[arfink]

I have a strange sinking sensation that our libertarian brethren here will reject the idea of classifying ISPs as public utilities.

 

On the bright side, if anything horrible does happen to the internet it will just drive the further development of direct P2P mesh networking hardware, likely using the new swath of spectrum the FCC opened up for public use. (500mhz range IIRC)

[Winchester]

I don't believe in granting monopoly privileges to anyone. Including the hilariously named "public utilities".

[CrossCuT]

Why do you feel you should be able to have a third party set price ceilings?

 

 Because unregulated systems based on monetary gains will lead to inequality; just look at literally every monetary system that exists in the world. The less regulated, the more inequality it creates.

[CrossCuT]

I don't believe in granting monopoly privileges to anyone. Including the hilariously named "public utilities".

 

So we should encourage private monopolies to avoid social justice?

[Winchester]

 Because unregulated systems based on monetary gains will lead to inequality; just look at literally every monetary system that exists in the world. The less regulated, the more inequality it creates.

Which monetary system do you think of as unregulated?

[Winchester]

So we should encourage private monopolies to avoid social justice?

There have been in the past company towns. Of course, they did not arise in a free market, but it's possible they could.

 

Monopolies were grants of power. For instance, the steamship monopolies granted in the 1800s. A "private monopoly" arises not because of special protections (for instance, licensing schemes like taxi permits), but because the product is preferred over others (for various reasons, but price always seems to be the major factor). I put "private monopoly" in quotes because I find it bizarre that someone would oppose letting people choose more of one product than another. It is true that companies could cartelize, giving themselves an advantage. One could point to Windows as an example of a "private monopoly". There are other OS, but Windows dominates. In spite of the complaints, it functions most of the time, and peopled prefer it. If a much better OS comes along and overcomes the advantage of Windows, it will win a larger share of the market. Of course, Windows did not develop in a free market.

[RC Patriot]

Which monetary system do you think of as unregulated?

BITCOINS FTW!

I agree with you on almost everything, Winchester, but I don't understand what you're saying about monopolies. It sounds like you think they're okay in a free market economy?

[NotreDame]

 

The corporatocracy has already taken control of radio, and then television; now they want control of the internet. Without a place to spread information and ideas freely, it will be impossible to ever evolve past the monetary system that holds us in place. We will become stagnant, living in a world of war, hunger, and poverty. The corporatocracy is protecting it's interests; profits over people.

 

 

how is being for regulation by the fcc supposed to be a stand against the corporatocracy?  They are one and the same.

 

Now as for the rest about the monetary system and war and hunger and poverty and all that?  You might want to edit those two sentences, because I agree with them.
 

[blazeingstar]

I'm all for it.  But I wasn't until my friend who works in the telecom industry clued me in.  Most small telecom companies are extactic at this ruling.

 

Why?

 

Because people and companies aren't stupid.  If Comcast, say, give preference to all NBC/ABC/CBS loading but not to others, companies will fill that void. 

 

The Cable companies They have NO control over 3G and 4G networks that most cellar companies use.  So could they throttle back non 't-mobile' video content....sure, but they don't have a loyalty to the networks so they have greater flexibility.  Not only that, this affects many streams of data and with more companies relying on work from home ventures it could give rise to new internet companies that focused on business' and those who worked from home.   Perhaps, just like years ago when the first business people got cells through their company, internet will come from your workplace or school.

 

We now have the technology to reasonably create wireless networks (though that comes with security issues).  Anywhere there's bad weather, it's very clear that towers are better than lines (although underground lines trump all of that).

[Winchester]

BITCOINS FTW!

I agree with you on almost everything, Winchester, but I don't understand what you're saying about monopolies. It sounds like you think they're okay in a free market economy?

As a libertarian, I believe in private property rights. This precludes "regulations" regarding price controls, interference with mergers, licensing schemes, and so on.

 

Monopoly has always been a grant of power by the state. That's what the term properly means. Historically, a monopoly was a grant of power by the state. If a company naturally dominates the market because people prefer their widget to the widgets of other companies, I see no reason to have a third party interfere in these choices to protect people from their preferences. I don't think it's wise in the long run, but the real issue for me as a libertarian is the property rights issue.