I agree to Idea Net Neutrality = No one telling you what you can and cannot do on the web
Voting Disabled

156 votes

I disagree to Idea Net Neutrality = No one telling you what you can and cannot do on the web

Rank22

Idea#52

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech »

Net Neutrality = No one telling you what you can and cannot do on the web

The only people who would be against net neutral legislation would be those who stand to lose money from it. Don't let anyone tell you this is about the government controlling your internet. This is about companies trying to control your internet. Don't let them.

Support open access to the web. Support net neutrality.

Submitted by david.ddrew 4 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (25)

  1. Suppose my neighbors and I share a /n wireless so we can get phone service. Suppose we set up priorities for phone.

    Is that an Internet? Will that violate the new rules? We know from experience that regulators will twist rules to harm us.

    Regulations are a cancer that can only harm.

    Regulations tell us what we can or cannot do on the web.

    Let's work for good bandwidth and good content choices through honest market methods, not through dangerous coercion.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    Harm "us"? What "us" are you talking about? The only "regulations" I have ever been harmed by are the ones that have given industry obscene power over me, like Right-to-Work, or exemptions on anti-trust law.

    This is not honest market method. What is honest about monopolizing internet connections to feed you only the information the telco wants you to utilize? This is about as honest as power companies deciding which swaths of city they are allowed sole control over, or what prices health insurance companies decide they should charge people. There is no market in a monopoly. Are you really that dense?

    If everyone is allowed free and open access to the web (which REGULATING THE INDUSTRY would allow), then there will be free and open access to competition, which, OMG, creates a healthy market.

    You need econ 101 lessons, seriously.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. David, you need econ 232, seriously. Price theory shows there is a market in a monopoly.

    Or take econ 337 and you will learn that most monopolies are maintained by government intervention, including regulations.

    These regs will increase the monopolies in the Internet, not decrease them.

    We benefit from protection from fraud and breach of contract and theft. Attempts to "protect" beyond that simply make things worse.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. The great thing about the Internet is that it lets a small business get equal time with the big businesses. Keeping the net neutral would be a big boon to small business, which is the sector that grows the jobs most, and the sector to be preserved and grown. I am sick and tired of big businesses opening mock storefronts trying to sponge up google space so that small businesses don't get a fair hearing. Fighting for air time is hard enough with the net being neutral.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    I'm well aware of price theory, dsc. I'm especially aware of how much good it's doing us in all the wonderful industries that maintain mono- and oligopolies, like telcom, oil, electric, finance... Oh my, I believe you are starting to see where I'm going here.

    As far as regulation goes, you are right in that it's promoting a monopoly. I'd rather have a system where infrastructure is provided by the federal government and then leased to companies who would be able to compete with each other to provide additional support services (maintenance, customer support, etc.). In a case like this, companies could *actually* compete anywhere and everywhere, thus providing a completely open market.

    I'm sorry you have such a bitter view of protections. Fraud is perpetrated constantly, but often ignored, mostly because it costs too much to go to court. Same with breaches of contract and what good is reporting theft when it means that your insurance rates will go up as a result?

    Your enemy is indeed out there, dsc, but it's not me, and it's not the federal government. Wake up.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. You are right, david.ddrew, there are ways though state laws against fraud, breach of contract and theft. There are both civil and criminal avenues to get the bad guys.

    But, doesn't that show the federal regs are not needed? We just need to enforce the laws we have.

    The federal regs will do little to protect us and will harm us. That has nothing to do with fear of protection, that is simple economics.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. Cyber Citizen, regs always harm the small guy and hurt entry for new businesses. They are used in cronyism to help the big guy and to keep out creative competition.

    In this case, regs will be especially harmful.

    The Internet is important. Don't risk it with net neutrality rules.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    "Cyber Citizen, regs always harm the small guy and hurt entry for new businesses. They are used in cronyism to help the big guy and to keep out creative competition."

    Is that so? Then why is big business so against net neutrality?

    Next please.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    "You are right, david.ddrew, there are ways though state laws against fraud, breach of contract and theft. There are both civil and criminal avenues to get the bad guys."

    You completely missed my point. The only reason these frauds are allowed to be perpetrated is because small business and the common man do not have the means to battle their position in courts like big business does. They do not have the luxury of an endless system of appeals like big business does.

    In my opinion, we should live in a world where federal regulation isn't even needed. Companies shouldn't ever be able to try to limit their competition through disingenuous means, but that's what they're trying to do by quashing a neutral playing field on the web. And history's shown in numerous cases that, if given the leeway, a company will greed themselves to death and pull the rest of us down with it.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. I am not a corporation and I am against this so called "net neutrality". Why would anyone trust the government to fix anything right now. Get a clue people. The net is fine the way it is.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. The internet is much like a highway. It has 8-lane segments and dirt roads. The telcos and ISPs are the traffic managers, routing the traffic on the cheapest "roads" while satisfying their customers as best they can.

    Whether or not you get your data from point A to point B depends on what "roads" you take, and that is all about network management.

    "Net Neutrality" regulation drafts that I have seen prohibit network operators from "discriminating" and mandate "equal access". These are mighty fuzzy words. Does "equal access" cover what we now call "abuse"? Does the ISP get to throttle "abuse" that overwhelms the network?

    Currently, network operators are free to manage their networks as needed. If a dirt road is overused, and there is a bottleneck in the "highway system", the ISP/telco spends money to fix it by upgrading that highway. They also change their pricing structure to pay for the upgrade so that joe-bandwidth gets charged more (or throttled), and mary-email gets her messages.

    from these discussions it sounds like there are a lot of joe-bandwidth users out there (individual and corporate) who want to use the FCC to get them more bandwidth without paying for it.

    The FCC has no authority to do this, and it should stay that way. Network owners have a right to operate their private property as they see fit.

    "Net Neutrality" rules are a very bad idea and should be rejected.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. david.ddrew wrote, "The only reason these frauds are allowed to be perpetrated is because small business and the common man do not have the means to battle their position in courts like big business does. They do not have the luxury of an endless system of appeals like big business does."

    Fraud is not only a civil law violation, but also a crime. The state AG can be involved. Also, even in civil law, in many cases, it is possible for people to join together in mass action. (Even class action can be used; though it is abused, the abuse would probably be less than the abuse it takes to enforce Net Neutrality regulations.)

    One link in the chain of things that NN Rule proponents must show is that these avenues have been exhausted or are insufficient for the future. The latter may be impossible, because US law is based on common law and thus adaptable in its protection of our rights.

    I'm no lawyer, but I do grok rights.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. It is simple to say "The government has no power over this".

    It is complicated and hard to determine exactly what will result when the FCC gets to decide what is "fair" and "reasonable".

    Currently, the FCC has precious little power over the internet. The so-called "power" of the ISPs is checked by competition and the freedom of new market entrants to challenge them.

    Those who believe that the "big" companies are so powerful should look at the Fortune 500 from 1980, 1990 and 2000 and notice that far less than half of them in any 10 year period even continue to EXIST, much less maintain their "power".

    The FCC will go on (effectively) forever, much like the ICC, which was started in the late 19th century to regulate the railroads. Long after it had any relevance, it still had great utility to the railroad and trucking industries, and continued to protect those interests until it was disbanded in the 1980s.

    Faith in governemnt to do the "right thing" is dangerously naive. The FCC should not have expanded power over the internet, even if we think that it might be for a noble cause. You can be certain it won't work out the way proponents hope.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. By the way, another reason to be cautious of encroachment by regulators is that any power they are granted is more easily "hijacked" by foreign governments.

    Note that the Iranian protesters used the internet to communicate despite the fact that the Iranian Gov't did not allow it. They managed this because the internet is effectively beyond the reach of the Iranian government. The reason it is beyond their reach is a combination of the fact that the servers are often not in Iran (in the US) and the US government has no power over content.

    If the US government acquires any authority to regulate content, which will be part of the package with Net Neutrality rules, that power will be subject to things like treaties and extradition.

    If there is no authority, it cannot be hijacked. If there is authority.... we'll see.

    We already have *real* net neutrality. Leave it alone.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    Openinternet/Dar:

    The government is not wanting to regulate the internet, just the businesses that want to close traffic based on its content. The businesses we would otherwise have no way to arm ourselves against, as they are running deeply entrenched monopolies and oligopolies. The longer you continue to misunderstand this point, the further behind in the actual argument you are.

    If you want to talk about the rights of ISPs and such to regulate their own so-called "pipes," that's an argument worth having. It's another argument I'll gladly beat you over the head at.

    "What we most need protection from is the government. If we object to the actions of an ISP, we can take our business elsewhere. Once the statists in the Obama administration get their hands on the internet, we'll have no recourse until we throw the scoundrels out in 2012."

    I fully, and I want to stress this point: I FULLY support an open market, and all that comes with it, but as long as ISPs control stake and share in just about every market that exists, we have nowhere else to take our business. I believe open and unrestricted internet access is a right that sits in line with the first amendment.

    Where I live, I am obligated to have Cox internet and pay it (whether or not I even own a computer). Sure, I can get another ISP via satellite (a much less preferred choice), but that wouldn't very well be taking my money elsewhere, now would it, as then I would be paying TWO internet bills, and actually making Cox MORE money, as I'd be paying for their internet and not even using it.

    In this instance, what if Cox decided to partner exclusively with cnn.com. As part of the arrangement, CNN requested that Cox limit my access (or cut off entirely) to msnbc.com, news.yahoo.com, foxnews.com etc? Without these regulations on the BUSINESSES (not individuals), this can absolutely happen, and if for some reason you guys are right, and this starts swinging in the direction of the government regulating web content, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be right back here vocalizing against it.

    Until then, please don't argue on something you simply don't understand. It just muddles the conversation.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. It is you who don't understand.

    If there is a problem with there being no competition, then that is something to be fixed - by removing barriers to market entry. Net Neutrality rules will serve to RAISE those barriers, not eliminate them.

    The FCC cannot get into the business of regulating what is "fair" without regulating the _content_ of what is transmitted over the pipes. Without knowledge of what the content is, you can't make judgments on it.

    "content" has multiple meanings in this context. In some drafts, people talk about the rules prohibiting throttling on certain "ports" or certain "applications", but the case you cite above is explicitly about content, with the FCC in the business of saying whether or not I can block msnbc.com.

    Note that to do justice to the "fair" part, the FCC has to be in the business of tracking my response and bandwidth to various sites, and deciding if the ISP is "cheating".

    The discussion of this content regulation is long, with proponents of NN saying that ALL content should be treated EQUALLY. The trouble is that the words "all" and "equally" still demand that someone (the FCC) make judgments, and have the power to invoke some sanction if the rules are violated.

    What sanctions? The common sanctions are fines, and/or license revocation.

    Gee.... Let's license ISPs and web site operators, so we can track them better. The FCC could have a database of web sites, and response times from standard points on the net. The FCC could then go beat up on ISPs and telcos if response times are "inadequate".

    To say that this is a regulatory scheme on (evil) BUSINESSES is to miss the point. It's like taxes. You cannot tax the other guy. You always tax ME. You cannot regulate the other guy. You regulate EVERYONE.

    Handing power to government is a bad idea. It is always done for some ostensibly noble purpose, but generally ends badly. I want my freedom, and to keep it, I want you to keep yours, and that includes the right to run your ISP free of FCC interference.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    "It is you who don't understand."

    Oh, I doubt it, sir.

    "If there is a problem with there being no competition, then that is something to be fixed - by removing barriers to market entry. Net Neutrality rules will serve to RAISE those barriers, not eliminate them."

    What are you talking about here? That is an infrastructure question, not a net neutrality question. By not having a system of common infrastructure, companies are able to run the show in their own markets because initial infrastructure investment is huge. Basically, if a company is already in a market, other companies very rarely are willing to enter that market. The only exception is satellite, and that's only because its infrastructure expansion costs are tiny in comparison to typical cable/dsl providers, which would explain why they're typically the only other option. Some places don't even *have* high speed internet, as companies can't justify the cost to place lines.

    You: 0

    Me: 1

    "The FCC cannot get into the business of regulating what is "fair" without regulating the _content_ of what is transmitted over the pipes. Without knowledge of what the content is, you can't make judgments on it."

    Actually this is quite easy to do. It's the way things are now: If it's on the web, it's not to be tampered with. Period.

    You: 0

    Me: 2

    ""content" has multiple meanings in this context. In some drafts, people talk about the rules prohibiting throttling on certain "ports" or certain "applications", but the case you cite above is explicitly about content, with the FCC in the business of saying whether or not I can block msnbc.com."

    Again, if it is IP transmission we're talking about, it's not to be tampered with. This sort of "hands off" definition ensures that the internet remains untampered with by private and public interests alike.

    You: 0

    Me: 3

    "Note that to do justice to the "fair" part, the FCC has to be in the business of tracking my response and bandwidth to various sites, and deciding if the ISP is "cheating"."

    Ah, the beauty of the web. A system of people all checking each other. This, I have no worry about, as the open source community would probably put something together very quickly. From there, the sheer numbers would undoubtedly give the FCC any and all information they could possibly want from the state of the web on a website-to-website basis. But for the sake of generosity, I'll give you the point, because I haven't actually written the program yet.

    You: 1

    Me: 3

    "The discussion of this content regulation is long, with proponents of NN saying that ALL content should be treated EQUALLY. The trouble is that the words "all" and "equally" still demand that someone (the FCC) make judgments, and have the power to invoke some sanction if the rules are violated."

    Again, no it doesn't. All means "hands off." That simple. If I tell you not to touch any of the apples in that basket, it means don't touch any of the apples in that basket. Where's the confusion?

    You: 1

    Me: 4

    "What sanctions? The common sanctions are fines, and/or license revocation."

    How about they have to give up part of their operating area in an auction? Of course, they'd be allowed to participate in the auction, but having put the infrastructure in, it'd sure suck to have to pay for it all again. This should prove sufficient chilling effect to ensure that a company won't, within reason, touch any content on the lines. Unless you're positing that a company should *never* receive any punishment for being unethical or breaking federal law.

    You: 1

    Me: 5

    "Gee.... Let's license ISPs and web site operators, so we can track them better. The FCC could have a database of web sites, and response times from standard points on the net. The FCC could then go beat up on ISPs and telcos if response times are "inadequate"."

    If they're not arbitrarily limiting bandwidth, then this shouldn't be a problem, should it? Once the FCC ensures their systems aren't arbitrarily limiting traffic, that's all that's needed. Abuses are extremely easy to detect. Not long ago, 4chan.org was down for all of 10 minutes, and the entire internet lit up against Comcast.

    You: 1

    Me: 6

    "To say that this is a regulatory scheme on (evil) BUSINESSES is to miss the point. It's like taxes. You cannot tax the other guy. You always tax ME. You cannot regulate the other guy. You regulate EVERYONE."

    No, actually it's quite simple. It's simply maintaining the status quo, and ensuring it's being maintained. It's how it's been all along.

    You: 1

    Me: 7

    "Handing power to government is a bad idea. It is always done for some ostensibly noble purpose, but generally ends badly. I want my freedom, and to keep it, I want you to keep yours, and that includes the right to run your ISP free of FCC interference."

    I completely agree. Oh, except for roads, police protection, fire protection, weather alert systems, national defense, health research, food inspection, drug inspection, corrections institutions, waste disposal, dumping regulations, public parks, public transit, copyright protection, agricultural development, student grants, disaster relief, and scientific and advanced technologies development (including the internet). Of course, that's just the short list.

    You: 1

    Me: Done. Have a nice day.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. david.ddrew wrote, "Where I live, I am obligated to have Cox internet and pay it (whether or not I even own a computer). Sure, I can get another ISP via satellite (a much less preferred choice), but that wouldn't very well be taking my money elsewhere, now would it, as then I would be paying TWO internet bills, and actually making Cox MORE money, as I'd be paying for their internet and not even using it."

    Wow. I sympathize.

    This kind of problem is caused by cronyism in city and state government as well as Washington.

    A similar situation is sweeping cities right now as entrenched cable and DSL companies are getting city councils to outlaw point-to-point wireless Internet, even though the roof-top or attic antennas are a tiny fraction of the size of TV antennas. They call it beautification but it is really just cronyism.

    Many politicians and a few business people wink and limit competition.

    We see this in the agreements for alternate DSL and in how many utilities can take advantage of the city easements.

    We see this in federal subsidies of technologies and even specific providers, harming competitors to providers, often those with other technologies. Often protocols or benefit profiles are selected in criteria that essentially lock in certain suppliers.

    Some technologies have weaknesses but many can be overcome when suppliers can compete without barriers set up by governments.

    Economists have shown over and over again that if you find a monopoly, a small fraction of the economies of scale demand it, but most of the time there is a government propping it up.

    If it is true that the market wants equal access to content and an Internet friendly to all protocols (and I think there are a sufficient number of people who want that), then competition will push that way. We can trust that.

    So, if we want to keep the Internet open, we should go after cronyism (and goofs) that limit competition. We shouldn't be adding regulations to counter bad legislation. We get twice as much bad stuff that way.

    (And notice how many city councils "forgot" to put device and access flexibility clauses into easement use agreements.)

    Let's approach an emergent net neutrality through removing barriers to competition in regulations and legislation.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. david.ddrew Idea Submitter

    "Economists have shown over and over again that if you find a monopoly, a small fraction of the economies of scale demand it, but most of the time there is a government propping it up.

    If it is true that the market wants equal access to content and an Internet friendly to all protocols (and I think there are a sufficient number of people who want that), then competition will push that way. We can trust that."

    We recently found an interesting oligopoly in the finance market. A few very large companies running the entire show. The result? Cronyism amongst the companies. Ratings agencies paid by the companies they were rating for ostensibly favorable ratings.

    And what happened? Bad securities were bought and sold to the tune of 50 trillion dollars. This is what happens when you trust markets outright. Companies will always team up to try to squeeze just a little bit more out of the market, but end up harming everyone else in the end. You can't trust companies to have the general populace's best interests at heart.

    You can bet that in the high times, not one person in those companies took a step back and said, "Hey guys, wait a second, something doesn't smell right. If we're wrong about these securities, we could destroy the entire market." We know that this was the mentality because we're now subject to the result.

    In any case where a company's profit margins compete with your best interest (your freedom), you need public intervention, and, like it or hate it, our government is that wooden paddle.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. Ah, david.ddrew, I think you are confusing the market with individual businesses. The market will work for general interest even when individual suppliers or consumers do not.

    But who spiked the punch in the high times? It was the quasigovernmental Federal Reserve. Who provided false security? Who pushed companies into bad loans? It was the feds. The cronyism problem was not among the companies, those are fragile. The cronyism problem was a few bigshots in some arenas and politicians and regulators. It is not even legal for us to know what the Federal Reserve is doing in all this, even though they have governmental powers--they are the 4th branch of the federal government.

    We are much safer letting the market work. We have seen the consequences of government involvement. And we know there is only one federal government and it is claiming priority over states and local governments. That means only one gatekeeper and one that cannot be trusted. We are better off letting the people be the gatekeeper.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. “Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.

    Heavy-handed regulation could destroy private investment in the Internet, in turn forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Internet functioning, bringing government ownership and control.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. Net Neutrality = Our beloved government telling you what you can and cannot do on the web

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. Again, I still dont understand the debate here - the internet is already open. You can post and read whatever you want. If you don't like what your particular internet company is doing about BW or blocking content (usually content that would be harmful to their network or yours), then change providers. Be an infromed consumer. Do your homework. Internet companies are businesses and they have to pay to build & keep their infrastructures. Competition keep them on their toes & we the consumers benefit with improved service and price. If the governement steps in to "regulate" net-nutrality, who is in charge of bulding those infrastructures? Certainly not these businesses. We the taxpayers, yet agin, would have to pick up that tab. How much more of your paychecks are you willing to give up people?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. Let me guess, you think making a profit is bad, right. You still live with your parents don't you?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. The "Internet Neutrality" movement is being promoted by people that wish to stifle dissent or differing points of view.

    The Internet is already neutral.Let us keep it that way!!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed