"Netflix is a service that consumers can use THROUGH their broadband services, it does not compete with them, get your facts straight."
You need to read the context. Most people use Netflix through the mail. Getting movies in the mail competes with getting movings over broadband. It is a partial substitution. Partial substitutions keep prices below the theoretical "monopoly price".
And I also reject your suggestion that the courts no longer work. If that is the case we have much greater problems than Internet access.
Dave Kliman wrote, "what is to stop somebody from setting up a toll booth right at the end of the block you live on?"
I think this analogy is flawed.
The owner of the road will stop the person from setting up a tollbooth.
Suppose there are two highways along each side of a mountain range and I bought land and made a road to connect them and set up toll booths. Would you condemn those toll booths just because of your feelings about Driving. Would you really call for laws requiring me to limit my prices? Would you call for laws limiting the rules I put on what kinds of vehicles can go through? If my engineers say large trucks are too slow and damage the roads, will you call for laws saying I have to pay attention to your engineers instead.
Are you claiming you have some inherent interest in Transportation such that whenever I build a road segment, it automatically becomes yours.
Before I made the cross-mountain road, you had to go around. This saves time and money.
The road model makes it clear that NN is wrong and harmful.
(There may be some weaknesses in that cross-mountain road model. A model that matches better is one in which part of the mountain land is owned by a local government that would not sell but did make a exclusive deal so I could still make my road but other people could not make a road that crossed their land. Again it is government shenanigans that are the problem.)
This has a limited and harmful view of deregulation. In this view there is some large mass of regulations of which the quantity can be measured, say by pages or millions of words or something. To those with this view, the greater the measure the better, the less the worse.
We have laws that work to discourage the violations of our rights. To a great extent they stand against murder, assault, kidnapping, slavery, theft, trespass, vandalism, fraud and breach of contract--and thus harm emergent from those. We don't need anything more than those to protect our rights. These are based on morality.
Regulations (other than protocol standards) go beyond this. They are a myriad of additional rules that burden our nations. Regulations often get it wrong, and create great harm. So other other regulations are added to somewhat counterbalance. It is like throwing more and more weights on a tight-rope walking in an attempt to balance him out.
This is a bad thing.
Usually the removal of regulations is a good thing. However, since many regulation are somewhat countering some bad regulations, unbalanced deregulation, though a step in the right direction, can make things worse.
Regulations are not based on real morality. They are based on the vague notion that the more burdens placed on people, the less likely they are to do bad, a mock morality.
Some simply duplicate the protection of rights by existing law. They are redundant, not needed, but add to the burdens of the people anyway in red tape and anxiety. They add to the cost of government and thus take away prosperity from the people. Most add constraints that have no practical or moral basis. Like the others, they are a burden but more so. Many regulations are simply the product of a few people who think they know best and their way is the only way, petty dictators using the power of government to control others. Those, too, add to the plague or swarm of regulations that choke Americans.
This haze of a zillion rules on Americans is not a good thing. That means that balanced deregulation is a good thing.
Regulation is not some linear measurement of goodness in any sense.
Let's keep America free. Let laws protect rights. Shun regulations.
I would discourage my neighbor from theft or fraud by creating limits, but I would never wish for him to live in a swarm of wasps to somehow keep him from thinking of harming others.
Let's step away from the notion that deregulation is automatically a bad thing.
Idea writer kelvin.gallo wrote, "The FCC should make it a law that no one company can be the only service provide in any given area."
I wonder how the first company for an area can provide services without being shut down before a second one gets started. If they pay a second one to get started would they have antitrust issues.. I wonder what will happen if one of two providers goes out of business--would the FCC shut down the remaining one leaving people without any Internet service.
Such a rule would simply keep Internet access out of certain areas.
I think even a crumby service provider is better than none.
Even without competition, providers must abide by contracts and they want to keep prices low enough so they can get lots of customers. So, if people are want to improve service, I suggest good consumerism.
There is a flaw in the notion that government is accountable to the people and business is accountable to owners.
There is very little check against those in government. The businessperson, though, must be sensitive to customers
Which has the better check? The businessperson.
Also the businessperson interacts with the people on a mutually voluntary basis. The person in government must use force.
We sometimes find some businesspersons who accepts and even asks for favors, subsidies, tax breaks, tax burdens, regulations, pork and so on to help their businesses. Why does this happen? Because there is no real check on those in government. They have growing power and use it.
The best way to check those in government and even businesspeople who want to be part of government is to limit government. That is why the Constitution was written as it was.
Maybe "Net Neutrality" can be a certification made by some private company, much like UL certification. Internet access providers can proudly display the logo to attract more customers. No FCC involvement is needed.
Hey, shownlandden, I think you make a very good point. It is hard for people to know what is sold. In some places people get only an upper bound on bandwidth, not any minimum.
However, I disagree that it should be dictated by the feds. I fear that cramps innovation and can lead to control.
Commercial code requires clear definitions of service and product in contract enforcement. Perhaps that can be a force for good here.
Standards, reviews and a seal of approval by consumer groups can help here.
There might be other ways. Maybe a proliferation of test software that checks access providers and even submits data to a database.
Jusleslie, Thomas Sowell put it well with this story:
Suppose a flood washed all the labels off the cans at a grocery story. The cans were still in fine condition and the contents in good condition. They all contain good food. If the store sells them, it will have to sell them at great discount. Information has great value.
That is the nature of things. It is not a conspiracy.
I can spend a lot of time and money to find out what toy is best for a special kid. Or I can take that time and money and put it into spending more on the toy. That is my choice.
One good investment we can make concerning information is to make sure there is redundancy in access and to make sure government does not have control. Efforts to reduce the redundancy almost always involve government. Crying for government to use force to make sure people give us certain information will only harm us.
There is nothing wrong with trade. It naturally comes from freedom. Trade is the emerging spiral of betterment that creates prosperity, good things for us all. That some do it out of greed or not should not matter. We are still free to trade well, trade honestly, and to give as we want.
Violence, fishygirl.fl? If I sell low-cost access that limits download speeds to enhance browsing enjoyment, and some person in Washington says I can't, but I continue and the consequence is that my door is knocked down and my property and person are hauled away, is that not violence? Isn't that what you are advocating?
I care about the freedom for all. That includes Internet access consumers. That includes those in the access business. That includes those who don't even use the Internet but will be harmed by government control of the Internet.
I look at the broad picture, not just some blip that can better be handled by contract enforcement or fraud recourse, or even better consumerism.
Adding government power might create some mock freedom, but in the end, overall it will decrease freedom for all.
Consider Obama. I don't know where you stand politically, but Obama has to be an embarrassment to liberals everwhere. Obama wants the ability to shutdown the Internet. He wants to increase his ability to spy on what we do. Obama is more Bush than Bush. The next president, whether Democratic or Republican, will likely be worse. We should drag our feed against this trend.
I don't own any stock in big Internet access providers. I don't work for one. I don't have any as customers (though I did have a customer who had one as a customer). I am against harming or favoring any big business through government.
Those who are against NN are the ones fighting for the larger realm of freedoms, not those for NN, who take a myopic view of wanting high-class access without paying for it. It seems the NN set are all gimmee, gimmee.
You claim the bad guy is big business. In big business bad CEOs fail. Unless they can get help from government cronies. How can the government cronies do that? Because you gave them the power to. So where is the problem? Is it big business? No. It is big government.
Suppose you sold goldfish. Suppose your business tripled every year for ten years. Does that make you evil? Of course not. Success (in itself) does not make you bad.
I encourage you, fishygirl.fl, to abandon greed and stand for freedom for all.
(Though I might be a hypocrite, that does not apply to this subject. In this area, I am consistent in my desire for freedom.)
The Internet is not a commons. It is an emergent communications phenomenon.
The notion of commons is just an excuse for people to control others and especially their property. The failure of the commons is a good reason to consider private property solutions and honest agreements in addressing issues of shared resources.
Let the Internet emerge. Keep governments out of it. Let their propped up monopolies compete.
It is ironic that people fear "censorship" by big business but completely ignore government censorship of Internet content going into government agencies, government contractor facilities, reservations and especially military bases.
Fundamental economics exists. It is like physics. We can't vote to round pi to 3. There are patterns in how people make choices as described in economics. There are patterns in how like charges repel as described in physics.
If we try to ignore the consequences of messing with the market, we get burned. That happens whether we ignore physics or ignore economics.
Economics shows that the free market serves us best. Anything else can only make things worse.
Intervention in the market should be taken with trepidation. Any existing intervention is a candidate for some unwinding.
Let's put the Internet in the hands of the people. Let's let a fine Internet emerge from that.
Last mile problems are usually caused by bad city councilors. About 2/3 are stupid and almost all seem to be crooked. I'm not say bad decisions in Washington did not contribute to this. I'm just saying the big blame is on city government and those people who enabled the city government decisions, even starting back when cable TV started.
Ah, pitschni, I see you can repeat the big words you find in your economics book. But do you understand the meaning?
The efficiency argument concerning monopolies is overrated. Allocation of resources is better with the monopoly business than without its existence. Also, adding government interference can only decrease efficiency.
In most cases monopolies really do have competition. It can be from substitutions. For example, NetFlicks snail mail delivery of movies competes against high performance broadband. It is not a direct substitute, but it pushes broadband prices down. Some organizations by T1 connections to access providers of the next town. With good consumerism, even two suppliers allow consumers to shape the product. People pay more for homes in regions with more than one access provider.
Unless blocked by regulators and other government favoritism, competitors often enter in special markets and then generalize. Here it is government that keeps them out. Often to keep out competitors, monopolies are forced to improve product or lower prices.
Monopolies are the boogymen used by people who want to control us. People try to scare us into living in fear of monopolies in order to control us. They use big words from economics books without any real understanding. Please don't be a part of that. Please stand for economic freedom.
(And the economic issues don't even touch the moral issues. It is wrong to interfere with honest trade.)
I agree, p, that free market capitalism is better than the crony capitalism and casino capitalism you describe. However, why continue with the latter. We have seen that Obama has taken the latter and made it even worse.
Let's take courage and stand for the free market. Let's tear down government control of our lives and put down CEOs who live off the favors of regulators and lawmakers. (And since you brought up casino capitalism, lets stop the Fed from creating money out of thin air.)
You seem to be so close to standing for freedom. I encourage you to do that. Don't work for the artificial semblance of freedom.
Ah, lysacor, it is governments that have limited competition. So, why would we then call for more government?
Why not call for a removal of that which limited competition? When a city councilor called for the removal of wireless Internet antennas on the roof to beautify the town, did you go down and complain? When city councilors gave away right-of-way to their cronies, did you go to city council and complain? It seems you were part of setting up the lack of competition.
Why worry about silly concepts like "public trust". Focus on fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. If the AG is bought by the CEOs, then go to mass action.
Good consumerism is the best route. What access consumer web sites have you set up? Did you set up the lysacor seal of approval for Internet access providers? Did you write articles on reading contracts before buying Internet service?
There are honest approaches that should be taken before the use of force is even considered.
Basic right? Jefferson penned "inalienable rights." It has been described as life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
It is what we enjoy when people tend to abide by natural law. Murder, assault, theft, trespass, rape, fraud and breach of contract are all bad under natural law.
We are free when crooks and governments are so limited.
So, a right is not a privilege for one to have something but a natural obligation on others to not do direct harm to that one.
We have no right to newspapers, nor do we have a right to one with an editorial staff we like. We do not have free radio time, nor are stores obligated to sell radios that get all the stations. We buy information.
If we pretend that infringements on freedom protect new-found rights, then we destroy freedom and harm our ability to enjoy our rights.
Ah, fishygirl.fl, I have already explained to you the nature of freedom and you don't seem to be catching on. What is the issue?
Nobody forced you to sign on to some Internet access service. Yet you want to force providers to provide access in a package you want including a price you want.
If some access provider employee broke into your home, wired up Internet, took your money and tied you to a chair in front of a computer, you would have legal recourse. As it is, people are voluntarily buying Internet services. Yeah, some cities are blocking trade, but the access providers are no forcing you or anyone else to buy.
Yet, Net Neutrality will force consumers to buy only one product, even consumers who want low-cost access. It will force providers to do everything the same way (harming innovation) and limit what they can sell.
So, where is the real source of coercion? Government.
I don't see where you are coming from concerning the evidence. Many have shot down all that "evidence". I have contributed to that. I have not lied.
It is like this. Suppose there is no bread in Fishigirlia. I make a bakery. I sell bread. Many people buy bread. They didn't buy bread before I made the bakery and did so afterward because they thought they would be better off doing so. One girls wants people to shoot at me because I have a monopoly. One guy wants all bread to be fancy wheat & nut and threatens to burn down the bakery if that is hot the case. If either one succeeds, bread and its price and availability will be harmed. (This doesn't even get to the part of the big shot threatening to burn my bakery if the town doesn't obey him, and talks the people into giving him that power.) This is the same as access providers and NN efforts.
(If you are concerned about the tax break my bakery got for being the first and because I know the king, then the people can petition the king to remove that tax break.)
When people are free, they are free to trade. People trade when they perceive they will be better off. People tend to be right in trade. In freedom, then people tend to be getting better off. That is profit. You cannot separate freedom and profit as you claim.
"Good honest trade" must include allowing people to shape products as they wish. Misrepresentation is fraud, of course, and there already is legal recourse for that.
I don't think there is a good understanding of what the service being sold is and both suppliers and consumers are at fault there. However, that does not need more regulations. That needs good consumerism. I encourage those who call for NN to work for that. That is one problem area, and there are honest avenues to address that.
Perhaps "extortion" is not the word you want. Extortion is the extraction of payment through a threat of force. It is coercion, a threat of violence. Selling limited product is not coercion. Nobody is forced to buy. But the threat of violence to force people to drop some of the services they sell is extortion. That is what you are calling for. I suppose getting regulators to do it paints it with an air of legitimacy and the word might not be used.
Some CEOs are not very competent and use regulators and politicians to grant them favors. Now that is nasty. But that does not mean profit is bad or evil. It does not mean that CEOs in general are evil. Normally, bad CEOs lose their jobs or their employers go out of business. But a system of government favoritism allows some who sell them selves to government officials to survive. Let's remove that. We can do that by minimizing the power of regulators and lawmakers. That means NO to Net Neutrality rules.
The best way to approach these problems is to encourage good consumerism, organize against misrepresentation, and keep Washington and city councils small in power.
There is also another dark threat we must not allow to grow. Big governments seek greater and greater control over citizens. This is a decrease in freedom. It harms us. Over the past year Washington has increased its scope of spying on citizens. Over the past year, the President has even called for the ability to shut down the Internet if he wants. It is always assumed that totalitarianism only takes hold in other countries. This is not the case. It can happen at home. Citizens and even those in public service who love the nation must fight against this threat. (This is hard for those in public service, because it means working to keep their power small, which is hard for anybody.)
I encourage you to change tactics and work for good by increasing freedom, not decreasing it.
Oh, lysacor, there are courts and police to enforce laws against theft, murder, fraud, breach of contract and so on. Those all apply. There need not be a multiplying of agencies. Creating those should be done with hesitancy.
I don't think I said there should be no courts or police. I think there is no fallacy.
The market works even when there is no competition. Monopolies can't get away with anything. Having competition is usually better. Often there are substitutions that force monopoly prices closer to competition prices, for example NetFlicks competes against high end broadband.
Contract enforcement is sufficient for keeping ISPs access providers in check.
As for your example request. Well, you do have broadband, right?
Or are you saying that the market does not allow you to control others? I think that is good.
Why do some people want to decrease our freedoms with Net Neutrality rules?
Maybe they just want to control people. Maybe they are trying to scare us with big bad business stories.
Maybe they are afraid themselves and are willing to give up liberty and prosperity for some rules.
Maybe they are too cheap or lazy to buy quality access, confront providers who misrepresent their services, or form consumer groups.
Maybe they really want quality uncensored Internet, but have yet to pick up a book on economics, rights or the like.
It is baffling.
Let's not let fear control us. Let's abandon our desires to control others. Let's encourage good, honest trade. Let's let the market work. Let's bask in liberty. Let's be diligent in protecting our freedoms from growing government. Let's keep the Internet in the hands of the people not in the hands of those in Washington.
It seems most who favor this Net Neutrality idea are lacking in an understanding of economics.
What is the fundamental thing we learn in economics once we grok supply and demand? If you mess with the free market, you can only make things worse.
People seem to want us to live in fear, I guess because they do. If we don't control people with laws, things might not be under our control!!! Oh, no, somebody is doing something and I didn't force him to do that!!! Why be afraid if people chose to buy or sell other than what you want in your utopia?
Come on people. Relax in liberty. Let the market work. If people really want a certain quality of Internet services, it will come. There will likely be innovations we never thought of.
We know from history that government interference can make things a LOT worse. It is hard for governments to back off from controlling us.
Um, matt.bestudio, it was the government that brought the bad economic situation, not the free market. The free market has not been allowed to work due to government intervention. Before bad-mouthing capitalism, try it sometime.
It was running on newly printed money, excess regulation, cronyism (in regs, subsidies, tax breaks, pork, grants, etc.), saving disincentives and high taxes that have harmed the market. Especially, the federal reserve has been using the Federal Reserve to create money out of thin air.
An economy is not run. It emerges from the actions of individuals. Attempts to manage the economy does not work.
You can't blame the bad economic situation on the free market. Washington has been chaining the market and growing toward a socialist/fascist system for years. Obama is just doing the same only more so. Obama is worse than Bush.
I don't get how you think being for small government is against democracy. What can be more democratic for this century than freedom? Majority rule, even over the rights of individuals, is a 20th century thing and it has failed. The constitution limits the power of the federal government and even reiterates some of what it cannot do. It was designed to be small. As those in power enhance their own power beyond constitutional boundaries and can do what they want to us, how is that democratic in any sense?
Many people work hard to protect our freedoms. I would never say they are not serious.
To bring this back on topic... Lets stand for freedom, let the market work, and get quality Internet access the honest way, rejecting methods that threaten our freedom and even the existence of the Internet itself.
I encourage people to not live their lives in fear. We can embrace liberty.
We should never hide in the corner and whine that Washington should take care of us no matter what it does to us.
Let's stand up for what is right.
People are using the "big corporation" boogyman to try to scare us. They are trying to manipulate us to give up our freedoms.
Freedom means freedom for all, rich and poor. The rich man has a right to be free in what he offers to buy and what he offers to sell. The same for the poor man.
We protect our freedoms with fundamental protection or consequence against theft, murder, assault, fraud, contract violation and threats of such. That creates our free environment. Our general rights emerge from that.
Access to the Internet is not a fundamental right. It is a good thing and widespread access is good for our freedoms. That good thing is threatened by those who want to scare us. It can emerge from the market. If government takes control it will go away.
Obama says he wants the power to shut down the Internet. That is a bad thing. Oh, he can say he will do it in an emergency, but it does not matter. This just simply illustrates that we must leave the Internet in the hands of the people. We must keep it free.
Um, lysacor, I would encourage people who have an interest in what they are buying to not buy any services in which the provider does not agree to provide something.
Consumers should look at contracts and check with consumer groups.
Unfortunately, often governments control what services are provided and people don't even get a contract. For example, people get a nice contract with life insurance but often get a brochure with medical insurance, what's provided is determined by state regulators.
Even so, you can still take the normal business recourse. This applies whether you are buying food, a house, or electricity. This is fundamental in this country. Often the AG will step in. Often you can join a mass action or encourage a class action suit.
You can even contribute money to consumer groups that review the services of access providers.
This is a free country. Nobody is forcing you to sit in front of a computer. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet. Nobody is forcing you to buy broadband.
I think readily available broadband with not filtering is a good thing. But government power will work against that. The market will work for that.
If you take care from whom you buy services, you will improve your access and improve access for all. If many people have similar priorities, then access will be protected.
OK, dntrpitt, did you go to the city council, town board or county board to insist they not give Verizon exclusive access? Isn't that what created the monopoly?
Some people live in the sticks where they are glad to have even one provider interested, even a crumby one.
If you wanted a monopoly, why are you complaining now?
Tell me the circumstances in which Verizon has blocked web sites. More likely they shape bandwidth to optimize performance for all customers.
Why are you saying you can do nothing about it? Look at the contract you signed. Are they in violation? Look at the ad you responded to. Is it a misrepresentation? Call the AG or join a mass action law suit. This is a fundamental response that is very mature and does not need extended FCC power.
You comments about HughesNet (which may well apply to other satellite access) is simply saying you want an alternative to Verizon, but you are not willing to pay the cost.
The comments about censorship is nonsense. Governments censor. You and Verizon make a voluntary agreement. If some content or protocol is not provided and you agree to that, then it is not censorship. It cannot force you to buy and you cannot force it to offer services it does not want to sell. Service providers have rights just like you.
I might get upset when a grocer does not have what I want on the shelf. They have done nothing wrong. I simply go to a store that has it. The first store loses my business.
You seem to want to buy the word "broadband". All you are buying is speed. Different services have different speeds. That has nothing to do with protocols or content.
It seems you supported making Verizon a monopoly and now the consequence is it costs bandwidth to get out from under that. You just want something for free.
What about the teen who pays $7,000 a year for school. The only other option is a government school. The school does not provide the services they promised, say swimming classes and honors physics. Do you get a law passed? Or do you insist they do as promised? If they don't respond to that, you can call the AG or sue. Or you insist on your money back and go to the government school and use the money to somehow get swimming access or physics equipment. That is no different. You might wish that every school has what you want and think it is good for mankind if that was so, but that is just wishful thinking. I think it would be bad for the country if you convince folks in Washington that all schools be required to have the classes you want. There is no reason for more laws every time there is a problem.
If you want government control of the Internet, you will get censorship, you will get China.
Ah, lysacor, murder is a violation of core natural law. People have a right to be free of murder, theft, assault, fraud, breach of contract, and threats of those. Laws to protect people from those are in place.
It is protection from those that help keep a market a free market. It is that same protection that makes enhanced Internet rules unneeded. If an access provider blocks or shapes communication and in doing so breaks a contract or commits fraud, there are ways to resolve that.
We should say not to rules like Net Neutrality that are needed.
It is silly to say that the market has failed. Government involvement has hampered the market. Every subsidy, bailout, stimulus, subsidy, tax break, tax on competitors, regulation, and expansion of the money supply and so on by government has hurt the market and created a great distortion in the market.
We should let the market work. It is government intervention that has failed.
The key word in "big business" is business. That means some people are try to make money by thinking about what consumers want and supply it at a price that lots of them actually buy it. That is, in being selfish, business people are very non-selfish and help people.
Now big business for the most part is just business that is big. Often there are advantages to consumers. However, some business owners or managers who do not compete well seek advantage through government cronies. (Small business owners usually cannot afford lobbyists or cronies.) Those managers who are incompetent get regulations, bailouts, subsidies, loans, tax breaks, regulations, pork, exclusives and so on so they can stamp out competition. Normally, they get fired or the companies go broke and better managers and companies step in.
So, the only thing wrong with big business is government is too big. It can do too much. It spends dollars as though it can just print more.
More federal power over the Internet will just make things worse.
Remember, greedy business is a good thing. It means they work even harder to provide good products at good prices. They are regulated by customers and owners. Bad businesses (except some propped up by government) are forced to fail. Government agencies have no such regulation; they have no motivational forces on them to do right. (A few individuals working for the government might try to do good, but they will not get far, the system is against them.) If a government agency does a bad job, it just gets a bigger budget and more power.
The market will bring about good Internet access. The government can only harm it and even destroy it. (See the movie Nightmare City 2035 as an example of the consequence of the government destroying the Internet.)
Let's celebrate business rather than denigrate it.
Well, dntrpitt, I'm surprised you say competition has nothing to do with this. You might consider getting a refund for your economics class.
Competition has everything to do with it. There is a market for being able to access all web sites. With competition businesses will have to offer it to survive. There is even a market for Internet connections that do not handle low latency applications well if the price is right. Would you insist that those with low incomes have to wait for your high-class connection before getting Internet?
The Target near my mountain has some groceries, but not much. It certainly doesn't have produce. If you force them to sell produce if they sell groceries, they might likely shut down the whole grocery section and I will have to drive to town to get groceries. If the coffee shop down the road is required to go all-you-can-eat, the prices will get too high for me and I might lose table service.
Every time somebody says he has only two choices, I usually find they have much more. Plus there are substitutions. One can get 1.5Mbps and NetFlicks instead of 10Mbps. One can use a USB drive if you are going to be there in person anyway. If you out in the sticks, you still have the choice to move to town and if in town you can move to another city.
If your high school principal bans blue jeans, go to another high school. If your parents are paying for the school and get a good deal, they might feel the ban on blue jeans is a reasonable cost. Or they might decide to homeschool you, and you and your parents can study in blue jeans.
If you go to a government school, there is another way to look at that. It is government-employee and business owner cronyism. Again, government involvement is at fault.
Talk to your parents about their business. I think you will find they do not want the government telling them what they can sell and how to package and price it.
If government steps in, let it be only to host courts so we can resolve issues with access providers who misrepresent what they sell.
First generation in this context refers to a definition of broadband classes based on bandwidth and has nothing to do with any protocols.
I think you will find that the reason your major high speed broadband is limited to Verizon DSL is due to shenanigans by city councilors or state representatives. Again it is the government people who are harming access services. Why not unwind that instead of taking away our freedoms?
We have laws and legal recourse concerning fraud, misrepresentation and broken contracts. Those are powerful tools; federal regulations are not needed.
I would rather have true freedom than be a puppet playing the role of a free person, my strings tugged by government regulators to form a parody of liberty.
Competition emerges where the free market is allowed to flourish. Competition will bring about the best Internet access. Let's let the free market flourish by keeping it free.
The government had only a small role in the creation of the Internet and then only because their inter-networking protocol was subsidized. If there was competition the core protocol might have been better, who knows.
Innovations flourish in freedom, including the free market. Let people try ideas. Some will flop. Some will fly.
There is no way Obama can dictate networking innovation.
The first amendment protects us from the government. Increased government power threatens the rights mentioned in the first amendment.
Violation of right by others is handle by existing law.
Nobody has the "right" to force people to sell them a communication service they want. That would violate the rights of the seller.
People can be good consumers and go to providers that are best at what they want. If there is limited competition, you can usually find the cause in city councilors and Washington regulators.
If your reps and Senators in Washington voted for domestic spying powers, then vote them out. The fact that the NSA seduces some business owners who are afraid of big government is the fault that you let government get big. Free all companies, even big ones, from government pressure.
And the opposite. Stop cronyism/corporatism where some rich people get government regulations, subsidies, grants, taxes and so on to harm competitors of their companies and to benefit their companies.
In both cases the solution is to stop big government. Forget about "AT&T lust".
The 20th century view of democracy as majority rule has failed. We must move to a 21st century view of democracy as freedom. We can collaborate over the Internet for our interests, joining together voluntarily.
Let's let the Internet emerge from individual action. Shun attempts by governments to control the Internet.
Perhaps we should apply this to labor. All workers must be on salary and not hourly. Employers can then demand any number of hours of work without caps.
Seriously, this is American. People should be allowed to sell or buy as they wish in voluntary exchange.
Competition? It is the government that limits competition, from city councils to the federal Senate.
Only the federal government can violate the Constitution. (Recent interpretations say local government can, too.)
Corporations cannot violate the Constitution. However, managers in corporations can violate peoples rights. Fortunately, we have laws and legal procedures in place to address this.
People are free to buy and sell any services they want, even those involving traffic shaping. We must not encourage regulators to violate that right.
Government control will harm musicians. A free Internet emerging from the actions of individuals (sometimes crazy individuals) is what benefits musicians.
Keep the Internet in the hands of people, not in the hands of government.
At first glance these might seem to be people who want good quality internet access for people.
Now, did these people first take honest approaches?
Did they create a consumer organization with a seal of approval that approved supplies might place in ads?
Did they create a consumer organization that reports on the kinds of filtering and other aspects of services for a bunch of providers? Did they organize to subsidize mass action law suits against those to misrepresent their services? Does that same organization tell people how to contact the AG concerning fraud?
Did they write articles on how to select an Internet access provider and what to look for in an offer?
No, there is not indication that they do any of these thing.
We can only conclude that proponents of Net Neutrallity don't care about the Internet at all. They just see this as a way to control other people.
(It could also be that a worship of government causes these folks to seek government solutions first instead of the honest solutions above, but I still think the desire to control others is part of it.)
Ah, undefined undefined, only governments and criminals can take away free speech. If individuals in telecoms are criminals, then call the police.
Be a good consumer. Buy good product. Enforce your contracts. The free market works. Depending on the benevolence of the actions of those in government does not.
Why not just buy the services you want from a supplier willing to sell that package. If may want what you want in access the free market will supply. In a free market there is recourse to fraud.
Of course, regulators and lawmakers have removed the free from the market, favoring cronies and setting up near monopolies. That should be unwound.
So, we need less government involvement, not more.
There is nothing wrong with business. And it is OK for it to be big.
What is wrong is when competition is limited by CEOs working with regulators and lawmakers to use regulations, subsidies, and contracts to give them advantages over competitors. Those CEOs who would not survive in a free market, now cheat.
What allows this? Big government.
So is the problem big government and big business? No. It is big government and big government.
We are more likely to be able to buy the open Internet access we want on the free market than we will under government control. If there are government interventions that prevent the market from being free and keep us away from open Internet, we must call for the removal of that intervention.
Here is the greatest concern for limiting access to information: Obama wants the power to shut down the Internet in an "emergency". (I have no reason to believe that McCain would not have drooled over the same power should he have been elected.)
More than ever we must remove the lure of buying regulators and lawmakers. That means removing government power, not adding to it. We have near monopolies because of the ability of regulators and lawmakers to favor the companies owned by their cronies.
This means less government control. This means No to Net Neutrality.
It is the 21st century. Let's not focus on majority rule, but focus on freedom. The open Internet will emerge from free individuals communicating in the environment of a free market. There is recourse for fraud and contract violation in place. That is sufficient.
Let the Internet emerge from free people, not be controlled by some "majority rule". And it certainly should not be controlled by some central government.
The Internet would have emerged with or without government participation.
Our freedoms are better protected by the free market than by government control. The government, when it steps beyond protection from fraud and contract violation, only harms the market. We see this in the monopolies and near monopolies built by government involvement in the market, removing the free market.
The idea that corporations would have the right to violate contracts without draconian federal rules is nonsense. There are already protections against fraud.
I think the existing laws related to fraud and contract enforcement can go far in bringing about the services we want. Though I am uncomfortable with class action suits, I think mass action suits can help in contract enforcement.
Good consumerism is important. Those who rant about Net Neutality might do the nation a better service by setting up consumer review organizations. We should read the offers by several suppliers and chose the one with the best service.
Competition is restricted by government involvement. That should be unwound and it should be limited by the limiting of government powers. It seems most regulations, contracts, subsidies, taxes, grants, exclusive "rights", and laws favor one company over another, often creating monopolies or near monopolies.
Let's allow private enterprise to flourish. Let's let the Internet emerge from the communication among people rather than be controlled by government.
The power of the federal government to infringe on those rights is enumerated and small. In particular, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to infringe on free speech.
Redundantly, in case it is not clear to any politicians, the first amendment says the federal government cannot violate those rights.
In no way does the first amendment say the federal government has the power to make sure everybody has a soapbox. Doing that will only violate our rights.
We are naturally free to offer services and to buy services. We have recourse in fraud and contract violation. These are important in our freedom. We must be free in what we buy and sell and how much we trade for what.
I stand against the government violation of those rights.
The Constitution focuses on limiting the feds in controlling our lives. The Constitution protects our rights.
The Constitution does not give the feds the power to force us to buy or sell only a certain kind of communication.
The free flow of ideas can only occur if communication belongs to the people and not to the government. We must limit the role of government in communications. We can choose the services we want from what's on the market and (assuming many of use want the free flow of information), then that will emerge on the market.
What are "corporate interests" but to make money? How do they make money but by providing the services people want? They will lose customers to others otherwise.
Of course, regulators, city councilors, Senators and so on are willing to sell themselves to CEOs who can't make money otherwise. The best way to keep the market free is to limit government and let these incompetent CEOs lose their jobs or let competitors take over market share by providing what the people want.
Let the market work. Put the Internet in the hands of the people.
We don't need "democratic ideas". We need freedom.
The Internet is emergent and must not be controlled or managed.
You are right that the Internet is important in protecting freedom today. That is why we must not increase government control. We need lots of alternate pipes, not central control. That means it must be in the hands of the people, not in the "majority rule" sense, but in the emergent behavior of free people, individuals of a free nation.
I appreciate your fight for freedom. I just think it will not come from government control, whether Washington or something global.
It seems people can propose anything, harmful or not, and if the preamble says the purpose is good, then the assumption is that the proposal must be good.
I stand against that kind of thinking. Let's look at content and repercussions.
The book Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt helps us in learning how to look at all consequences, not just labels. I recommend it.
Let's get beyond labels and fancy names.
We see that dr.simmer claims a label makes Net Neutrality good. I stand against this.
Or risk to freedom is in increased government control. Our freedom to buy and sell services is protected by well established law related to fraud and contract enforcement. We don't need more government for that--in fact that will improve with less government support of near monopolies.
This is why we must not have new Net Neutrality rules.
This is why we must move away from government regulation of the Internet. Subsidies, favoring regulations, special contracts, exclusive "rights" and so on are used to help the cronies of those in Washington and in local governments.
If we limit the power of city councils, state assemblies, DC regulators and even Congress, we will have less high-power lobbying and more freedom and better product in Internet access.
I encourage you to change your position, Dave. You have pointed out why you should change. We need less government involvement in the Internet, not more.
Let the people control the Internet, not the government.
It is hard to judge what will happen if things were different, Dave. We can have some contrafactual speculations, but we have to weigh those.
In this case, though, it is clear the Internet would have been created even without government involvement.
Many of us were doing internetworking in the generic sense in the olden days. We even had packet-switching protocols that allowed businesses and other organizations to cooperate in communications or to even sell communication services. Some organizations started centralized services which we all knew would evolve into generic services. People were able to make phone connections because of the private development of modems. Even communication to modems is based on private standards. Several of use worked on higher level inter-network protocols. We all expected an inter-networking protocol to emerge as the winner. Many considered that ready for standards work (private). That it was one subsidized by government should not be a surprise, but that does not mean government was essential.
As for the freedom issues, Dave, I think we can see that freedoms are destroyed by liberals (in the modern sense) as well as those of the "right wing." Obama is more Bush than Bush when it comes to loss of freedoms. Liberal writers such as Glenn Greenwald have pointed this out clearly, and he is one who foams at the mouth about the "right wing" even more than you. We cannot expect those on the right or left to protect our freedoms; we need a new dimension, a new paradigm, in looking at people and ideas. Right now it seems all in Washington are consuming our freedoms.
Protection of the Internet must be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of government.
The notion that the government created the Internet is as silly as saying saying the Wright brothers created airline flight. The Wright brothers flight was in the contest of a rash of advances by people all over the world. Since then engineers and other innovators have worked to build flight.
If the Wright brothers were contractors of the government, would people claim that as an excuse to nationalize planes? Would people then claim that all boxes should go FedEx at the same price no matter the size?
Let's drop this nonsense and go with what works. Let's let the market work.
As individuals we can be good consumers. As groups we can take mass action law suits against those who violate contracts or otherwise misrepresent services. As groups we can form consumer groups that evaluate broadband suppliers. As political activists we can call for less favoritism--less regs, less subsidies, less exclusive access, less special contracts--allowing better competition and sensitivity to the needs of customers. As innovators we can create tools that allow users to monitor and test service against contracts.
But, let's refrain from growth of government power. That threatens our freedom and entices poor CEOs to seek government favoritism.
How can a "Bill of Rights" require the government to limit our freedoms. That is an oxymoron. Government should not violate our liberties. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution itemizes a few of those.
These are all pretty silly but the best is #7. The idea of a "legitimate" journalist is not something that can be derived from the Bill of Rights. The first amendment does not license journalists.
We must protect our freedoms and not give in to people who want to control us and call it protecting rights.
Internet access providers must be free to include the above 7 in their contracts and also be free to say they do and competitors do not (if that is true). They must be free to set the price for that. Consumers must be free to buy such services. Both must be free to seek damages if the contract is violated.
However, we don't need a dictator to tell us what we can sell or buy. There is no freedom in that.
We must allow a person to ask any price he wants for his services, even creative prices.
If people don't like it they can go to a competitor. No competitor? Ask why. It can bet it is because of government subsidies, contracts, regulations and so on.
Consumer groups can provide info on who provides what services at what prices and especially which ones provide an open access. We don't need to ask for boots on our necks.
A would assume that doctor would buy high quality reliable services from a reputable firm. Why would you want rules that would prevent the doctor from doing that? We should unwind all rules and regs and special favors that prevent competition and prevent special product packaging.
People can support consumer groups and read their contracts. People can chose the supplier that provides what they want the most. People can use fraud laws to go after the bad guys.
No new FCC rules are needed. Removal of subsidies, rules, regs, special contracts, and exclusive rights would do best in creating emergent net neutrality.
Let the people have the Internet, not the government.
Americans are in business. That is the nature of our nation.
Many sell internet access services.
Some puny businesspeople get favors form city councilors or FCC regulators or Senators other government people. How can they do that? Those government people have the power.
Giving those with that power more power so they can sell favors to CEOs who can't compete, only decreases competition and decreases responsiveness to what we want in Internet access.
The way to keep America from being sold to the highest corporate bidder is to not offer it for sale.
That means limiting government, not expanding it.
Expanding the power of law makers and especially regulators means more cronyism between government and a few CEOs who can't compete without government favoritism.
We need to decrease government power to preserve American values.
After all, what is the greatest American value but liberty?
Regulators do not favor consumers or even competition. Regulators and law makers are the ones who create and sustain monopolies. They are the ones who box in consumers.
We already have mechanisms to protect us from fraud and breach of contract. We should let those work. We should let good consumerism work.
If we increase government power on the Internet we will find ourselves limited by that government.
Obama, more daring than even Bush, wants the ability to control and even shut down the Internet. We must not let any President have that.
We need to block the growth of government control of the Internet and unwind both local and federal actions that created the near monopolies.
We must fight for freedom and against expanded Net Neutrality rules.
The idea by pangasamaneesh that there are or might exist "pro consumer pro competitive regulations" is fantasy.
Government regulation hurt the consumer. They harm competition.
Washington, state assemblies, and even city councils set up a sign that they are for sale. CEOs who can't survive otherwise buy favors such as regulations and subsidies, limiting consumers and harming competitor.
We must limit the power of government and unwind the special favors already given.
That means LESS FCC power, not more.
We need to allow people to offer lots of communication services including Internet access services. By picking that which works best for us the whole economy will give us the best open Internet.
Let government get involved and we will have government controlled internet, a serious threat to our liberties.
I would encourage high school students to read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Or the text for the first level microeconomics class used at the local college.
Getting service with the features you want is more likely to come from market competition than from government regulations. Historically, we know that government regulation only limit what you can buy. We know that censorship is a problem with government.
Net Neutrality makes as much sense as the high school principal requiring all students to smile when in the hall to increase general morale.
Is something is to be done to protect access, then it should be the unwinding of regulation, subsidies, favors and such that limit market competition.
The best way to protect freedom is to limit the ability of government to take it away.
The only way "Big Business" will run the Internet is if government regulators and law makers give favors to the owners of a few.
If the government stays out then, we the consumers drive the Internet. Businesses will respond to market needs. The boogyman disappears.
The problem is not business. The problem is what might be called favoritism, cronyism, or corporatism. It is moving toward both fascism and socialism, and thus is harming us all. The problem is not that a few CEOs have weak moral backbones, it is the big government that seduces them into competing by selling their souls to politicians. The discipline of the market to keep such CEOs out of power is overwhelmed by the easy money from cooperating with politicians.
The problem is the power of politicians.
That is why we must limit the power of government and especially regulators.
The exclusive deals are part of government control. It is the government that has limited competition. This is not only at the municipal level, but also in Washington through special contracts, subsidies, favoring regulations and so on.
We should move away from limiting choices.
Businesses should be free to determine what services they provide. The local barber should not be required to sell candy. The same applies to internet access. If I prefer a barber that sells candy, I can switch suppliers.
We can be good consumers and look at our contracts carefully. We can form groups that compare services. We can choose what is best and if few restrictions is important than the market will optimize.
Adding even move government control will not solve the problem of government cronyism harming this business sector. We need less government control. We need freedom.
The market will work. We need to let it.
Remember regs are written to serve the big corporations whose major shareholders have sold their souls to politicians. The regs don't protect you and me.
We would be better off if the government would unwind its involvement. It stifles competition and limits creativity. It is position to censor content and Obama has stated he wants the ability to shut down the Internet in an emergency.
Congress has NO charge to protect free speech. It has an obligation to refrain from limiting speech.
Nobody is obligated to give anybody newspaper space or radio time or even a free soapbox. That has nothing to do with free speech.
Open communication is valued by most of us, so the market will respond if kept free. If regulations or subsidies or exclusive rights support the cronies of those in Washington or in city hall, then we are harmed. We need to roll back harming actions by those in government.
The FCC must now act decisively in the public interest by removing all rules that can harm natural market competition. It must remove all avenues to federal control of the Internet. It must encourage Congress to make all federal censorship of the Internet illegal.
People have been caring for each other for thousands of years without government involvement. The vast majority of this is by gift or by trade, very little by government force.
Health care started out private. It is naturally private. The idea of using guns to provide healthcare is a sick liberal idea.
Look over the past century and you can see the problems caused by government involvement in health care.
In particular, it set up regulatory incentives that created employment-based insurance groups that removed patients and doctors from cost considerations and other tradeoffs. Today most doctors have no idea how much their procedures, tests and prescriptions cost.
We need to run from such totalitarian notions.
We will prosper in freedom.
We should go the other way. We should remove regulations and subsidies that help the cronies of those in Washington. We should open doors that allow the market to work.
The "Commons" is nonsense invented by liberals as an excuse for controlling others. We must stand against this tendency of some to run people's lives.
Stand for freedom. Stand against nationalization of the Internet. Stand against Net Neutrality. Stand for the removal of cronyism whether in city hall or in Washington.
If there be government protection, let it be protection from fraud, theft, breach of contract, assault, murder, rape, vandalism and so on.
If basic protections as those exist and there are minimal other constraints, the market is a free market. It will optimize.
Liberals are afraid of the free market. They want to control. If it free, then they don't get to control others. They use phrases like "wild wild west" to try to scare others into letting liberals control them.
We need to keep liberals out of homes and out of our Internet. We need to stand for freedom.
Only with liberal newspeak can we say we regain freedom by taking away freedom.
If I have a contract that says my internet access will not block content, and the provider does, then there is a violation of contract. There are mechanisms in place to address that.
In addition market competition will cause companies to scramble to give the best service (speed and no GOP filtering as in the example). Wherever competition is week, it is because of government regs, subsidies and favors for particular companies.
That cronyism should be removed instead of more added.
Let the market work.
We are more likely to get censorship by the government than by businesses.
What can we do about "big corporations in bed with big government"?
Get rid of big government.
We need to decrease regulatory power and other government involvement, not increase it. This should be done at all governments, not just the federal level. Many problems with Internet access are at the city level.
To protect our freedoms and to allow the market to work, we must stand against Net Neutrality.
That amiss can be addressed by improved consumerism and the unwinding of government subsidies and regulations that support such things.
The so-called Net Neutrality is increased government power which can only harm our freedoms. We are better off removing the regulatory cronyism already in place.
I have never heard of an ISP complaining about web sites. They want to sell access services. There is clearly a problem in pricing and in the definitions of what one gets with bandwidth. This can be resolved, but Net Neutrality rules will get in the way.
There is talk about high speed negotiation between homes and the power company in shedding to prevent rolling blackouts. Some people are even talking about electric cars that can even negotiate and sell back stored electricity at needed times. Why not allow computers and routers to do load shedding? Some people who are ready to shed quickly and heavily might pay very little for access. There can be some creativity in pricing if the market goes for it. Of course, we won't see any packaging creativity under the re-codification and new codification of Net Neutrality rules.
The issue with ISP NAT errors is new to me. Where I live nobody would put up with getting private addresses behind a NAT firewall. People here would not consider that access. (The exception is that some small communities share a public IP address and a firewall, but they know the situation.)
You mentioned blocking all ports except HTTP. It seems to me that the service provided is not Internet at all but "web browsing" or something.
Even the idea of errors puzzles me. Even a router you pick up while at the supermarket with a simple firewall can handle a bunch of users easily. I suppose if the ISP went to a lot of work to put all users on the same public ISP, it is possible to run out of ports. That seems to be a lot of pain just to save public IP addresses.
Are we really that short of IP addresses? Or are some ISPs just goofy? Why are people putting up with a company that provides such crumby service? Did the prez of the company slip the mayor a bundle of cash?
What would be the most efficient and free way to have those companies fix those problems?
Individuals can go to another access provider. Even when it seems there are no others, there are usually several.
Individuals can report their findings on consumer reports web sites.
If those are violations of the contracts, consumers can point that out to the supplier, and if there is no response, see if the AG has a case for fraud, and if no satisfaction there, join a mass action against the company.
Some politicians and paper pushers show favoritism (or create unintended consequences) that create and support monopolies. They and their laws and regulations should be removed. For example, I know of a city council member who worked to beautify a city by getting rid of Internet point-to-point antennas and satellite dishes, but he was simply getting rid of competition for his cronies in the Internet access business.
So, another thing an individual can do is campaign against such nonsense at both the local and Washington level.
ashtonium wrote, "These corporations have shown that they control the market rather than vice-versa, they have already made moves en-mass to limit competition to the detriment of both small businesses and consumers, therefore, regulation is now needed to stop these practices and ensure that the internet stays equally open to all."
Economics describes well what happens and how the market forces work. They apply to all actors including those who throw force into the mix. It has been shown well that a cartel is fragile and cannot last without government support. Economists have demonstrated that it is the intervention of government that props up and stabilizes most monopolies.
To open up competition so the market can respond, there needs to be a removal of government subsidies and regulations that create favoritism, not add more.
The Department of Homeland Security already has plans to limit bandwidth and content as deemed necessary by whomever is the current President and as automatically triggered by those in Washington whether the President knows or not. The GAO has exposed this and seems to support this.
Surely that is more dangerous than a few businesses.
Dave Kliman wrote, "...this applies to these isps who have been coming to believe that the internet is theirs, and not ours, even though it passes over public lands and goes through public rights of way."
I don't think this is a good argument. I have walked along roads and even through parks, but that does not mean I am the property of the owners of those, and it especially does not mean you can control me. Perhaps I can say that I own me.
The Internet is an abstraction. It is what emerges. We cannot claim anybody owns flirting or boredom or the sense of mortality.
Whoops, remoteless, it looks like the comment you are responding to has been removed. I hope people don't think you are talking to yourself.
I have made a lot of comments. You are right there. But they are not carpet bombing. Each comment is made in response to a falsehood (in my understanding).
Nobody is paying me, though family and friends encourage me. I am taking unpaid time off from work. I do not work for any players in the access conflict. I am doing this because I love my neighbors including all of this nation. I care about liberty. It is my hope that people are free to make good choices.
Unfortunately, some don't like the notion of general freedom and want to have government create something that vaguely looks like freedom but is not. Some feel that the solutions to all problems mean getting to force their will on others. I think those have resorted to having my comments removed and you are left looking like you are speaking to an empty hall.
Dave, your qualification of top five applied only to being broken up. You called for ALL companies from being in more than one business. Rather, than calling me being silly, you should either revise your position or acknowledge your attack against Americans. If that was an error in quick tying, I certainly understand.
You can learn about monopolies in many microeconomics texts, such as Price Theory by David Freidman (or his Hidden Order for general reading). You can see government sustaining of modern monopolies in Freedomnomics by John Lott. I hear that the book Robber Barons has accounts of monopolies kept in place through government favoritism.
I know a lady who teaches piano and dance. You want the fed agents to beat down her door and take away her piano? I stand against you on this. She should be allowed to trade as she wants.
Ah. The telephone monopoly. And was it not government that forced that? Was it not government that kept out competitors? The breakup simply rushed what could have been done naturally much earlier by the removal of favoritism.
Net Neutrality codification and re-codification will decrease competition and will increases costs, especially if you count the subsequent government subsidies. Costs will go up even for access through the "good" access providers.
I don't think a direct public vote is a good idea.
The highest political good is liberty. At best, voting is a deterrent to tyrants. However, it can deteriorate into mob rule and be tyrannical. Let's not bow down to democratic processes.
In issues like this liberty should be our primary focus.
And I also oppose the notion that the President is an elected king and can do what he wants, especially to those who disagree. Again, the limiting philosophy is liberty and the limiting law is the Constitution.
Forced competition is an oxymoron. You can only allow competition, you cannot force competition.
Though at times there are natural economies of scale that favor a monopoly, most monopolies are sustained through government action, usually subsidies, exclusive access to resources, or regulations that favor the monopoly. This kind of favoritism is sometimes called corporatism, a cronyism that is somewhat fascist and somewhat socialist, but is against free competition, true capitalism, and the true free market.
The best way to favor free competition is to remove those government actions that favor monopolies. Adding more rules to counter past mistakes hardly work and burden us all.
This analysis by the GAO reports that a pandemic might require the federal government to limit bandwidth, protocols and content on the Internet and advised increased FCC controls and DHC power to enable this. This was generalized to apply to any emergency. The FCC must broaden its regulatory power, according to the report. This power is not to enforce neutrality but to remove it.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d108.pdf
It seems the threat to bandwidth and content is less from access providers and more from the government.
Allowing the FCC to expand and establish so-called Net Neutrality rules will harm freedom on the Internet. It will run counter to goals.
TCP/IP is the name of a suite of protocols built on the IP protocol, of which TCP and UDP are fundamental protocols upon which many higher level protocols are built. I don't think the writer intended to refer to just TCP.
Deprivatize? Is that the same as "nationalize?" As in socialism?
Why take Internet access from Americans and give it to the government so it can be the gate-keeper of our access to the Internet?
The IP protocol is general. I would be hesitant to use the word egalitarian. In its original basic form, it has no encryption. Even the destination computer is exposed to all who handle it.
It is possible for cities to prevent cable or DSL. It is possible for cities to outlaw the alternative DSL companies. They can outlaw the tiny antennas needed for land point-to-point microwave links. They can outlaw the tiny dishes to access the satellite Internet access suppliers. They might be able to outlaw T1 lines, but I think that would be hard. They can outlaw local dial-up services, but it would be hard for them to prevent people from calling out of town. They can outlaw line merging on those. They might require all libraries and coffee shops to use only the access owned by the cronies of city politicians. They can outlaw wide area wireless broadband. They can deny permission to lay down fiber in easements. They can outlaw neighborhood networking.
But they can't keep you from moving to another city. (Or can they?) Silly neighbors may have enabled crooked politicians, but you don't have to stay in that city.
I believe it is wrong to steal, or to defraud, or to break one's word. I think people are free to defend themselves in this.
I think it right for people to desire a protection in this.
It is OK for people to have property. It is OK for people to keep it, give it away or to trade it. That also applies to services.
It is wrong to threaten people with harm to prevent them from doing those things with their property. It is wrong to steal, defraud and break agreements.
When people are allowed to trade, there is a market. When people tend to be free of the above violations, we have the free market, we have capitalism.
Capitalism naturally emerges from morality.
Having hooks in a person is control by threats. Since capitalism is contrary to that, the above statement is an oxymoron.
(Of course, by metaphor one who like strawberry cheese cake might say the desert has hooks in her, but that is something else.)
New net neutrality rules and the expansion and recodification of any current rules are beyond fundamental protection from fraud, theft and broken promises. They attack our freedoms.
It would be cool to have flat unconstrained access. Only the market can safely bring this. Let it.
The ISPs are regulated by the market (unless government distorts the market). Government has no such regulator, we are protected by the thin thread of a few good people in government and there is no reason to think they can prevail.
Analogies are not isomorphisms. They are illustrations of how some things are alike. The focus is on the similarities. Anybody can point out differences, rather than address the issue discussed in the similarity.
At UPS packages are prevented from being loaded onto a delivery truck if the scheduled delivery is the next day, even when the next day is expected to be a busy delivery day. At FedEx and the post office packages are opened regularly.
Even so, the market tends to keep those to a minimum.
I have little sympathy with the notion that non coercive means are too expensive. Those putting a lot of money and effort in trying to get expanded Net Neutrality rules, could have easily used that effort in honest methods:
1. Sue suppliers for fraud and contract violations
2. Petition the AG for fraud action.
3. Take mass action in #1.
4. Create consumer groups to rate and certify and relabel suppliers and services.
5. Petition cities, states and the feds to remove barriers to competition.
6. Petition those to remove subsidies and other favoritism to ISPs.
7. Create ad campaigns to educate consumers.
8. Simply going to another Internet access supplier.
Instead, "because its cheaper", they want to harm ALL ISPs (claiming that by some magic it will only harm "bad" ISPs. They want to expand government spending putting an economic burden on us all. They don't even both to try to demonstrate that Net Neutrality expanded codification or recodification would even have a positive impact on their stated goals. They put fingers in their ears when people point out that politicians and their business cronies will exploit the rules to their own advantage.
I encourage people to work for emergent neutrality in the US expression of Internet in a way that is suitable for a free people, rather than throwing sand in the gears and hoping that will slow down bad guys. We have methods in place to address bad guys, we don't need to add to the myriad of regulations that the nation is choking on.
If you don't like the product, go to another supplier.
Have few choices? Then ask why.
(Since you live in California, you can guess why. Limitations and favoritism by city and state politicians, subsidies by the feds. I feel sorry for folks in California, they have it worse than folks in most states.)
rickymujlca wrote, "There are about five ISPs in the whole country and that creates virtually no choice. "
Hmmm. Perhaps there are more than you realize. In the town where I live there is both cable and the telephone company DSL to several ISPs. There are also a handful of alternate DSL companies. There is a microwave link company where you put a tiny antenna on your roof and that connects to several ISPs. There are two satellite companies available, the last time I checked. At least two wireless phone companies offer computer Internet access in this area. There are many local and national dial-up access companies. Some of those local ISPs can have a T1 link to my place. There are plenty of libraries and coffee shops, a couple of which bypass the above. And if all of those got into a conspiracy, I could call a friend or drive to a nearby town to get my data out. If that became a pain, I could move.
Perhaps we are using the term ISP in different ways.
The local grocer has the right to sell sugar-added or "blend" juices. And most do. This frustrates me when I'm looking for pure X juice. Many groceries do not even sell pure juices (except maybe grape, apple, orange and grapefruit).
Now, should I petition the FCC to force all stores to sell only pure juice?
There is nothing wrong with people limiting the products they sell.
Often I find a product online that is almost what I want with some deficiency. Should I get the FCC to change the product?
Escape Velocity, I think that a good ad or PR campaign from a consumer group will be able to swing the label change. The consumer group might even have a way of certifying services that are neutral (and not limited).
I suppose it is possible that all grocers will gang together and refuse to sell Cocoa Puffs, but I doubt that.
I suppose it is possible that UPS, USPS and FedEx will block all shipments from brown-box-reshipping, but I doubt that. (OK, maybe USPS and FedEx might open the shipment, but that is a different issue.) It is more likely that the feds will force them to block shipments.
The federal government control over the owners of access hardware means only one gate-keeper and that is dangerous. On the market we have several.
The VPN service many not be a panacea, but it can work with a multitude of other market forces for an emergent open Internet. The idea of new rules or the stricter recodification of rules is dangerous and may not even work--for that matter, it might backfire.
It seems there is a market opportunity here. Companies can offer for a small fee the ability to make VPN connections and access the Internet through their Internet access. Perhaps some complaining here can make big bucks by providing the service they see as important.
(This does not address BitTorrent issues, but does address most issues.)
It seems no matter what angle we look at this we see that the market provides a better solution than expanding government control.
(There might also be a market for a site that can do a variety of tests like those done by kiram9.)
The highest political good is liberty, not democratizing. Democratic processes might tend to limit despots, but in themselves often harm people, and often enable politicians and others who want to control people.
The process suggested may well work for a voluntary club or church covering a narrow scope, such as how to spend the money members all voluntarily threw in, but it is not suitable for a free nation. We expect to be free from a state religion, even one that calls for democratizing the process.
The American ideal is liberty.
Because of this, we much approach regulation with trepidation.
There is a major flaw in the Superhighway model of the Internet.
Highways are typically government owned and controlled. The government controls what goes on the highway.
Because of this, it is understandable that those who want government control of Internet traffic will like this model. However, because of that bias, it is a poor model or a model in need of balance.
I like the idea of a grocery store better. The ISP is the grocery store and the products are the content suppliers.
I don't think we need federal rules to make vegan groceries sell meat and we don't need to force all stores to have a refrigerated displays so they can sell products that need those. We have plenty of choices in grocers, even in small areas. And we can always to to the city to shop. And we can move to where there are good grocers. We don't need government owned grocers. And I reject the notion that government invented the supermarket. Some groceries have a wide range of choices, some serve narrow markets.
Now there are some who claim that their location does not have much in ISP competition (or potential competition) as we see in grocers. I suspect those are the same ones who petitioned their city councils to limit options in Internet access in the name of "city beautification" or something. In most cases, there are more options than people claim there are. In a few cases, some mayors and governors need to go to jail.
We don't need new Net Neutrality rules or a recodification of existing policies to make them harder. We need to let net neutrality naturally emerge among interactions of the free individuals of this nation.
My neighbor is currently allowed to wear a very wide brim hat. That uses excess resources on walkways and in elevators. I have no fear of that. I am not every week at city council meets asking for an ordinance against wide hats. If a wide hat becomes a nuisance, there are many ways to address the issue and people will try non-legal ways first.
Fortunately, in the case of business, competition discourages a lot of behavior, and as a safety net, criminal and civil law discourages a lot.
We must not push our nation into a binding of fear. Fear is used by despots to gain power.
Lets support an emergent net neutrality, not an explosion of rules from nice sounding principles.
Law suits, fraud criminal charges, and benchmarks by consumer groups will bring these about. But the strongest force will be competition, if we can get government at all level to allow it.
The above are mentioned as principles in the commission meeting. If codified (or "recodified"), they will expand into hundreds of pages of regulator requirements.
These principles are not needed. State criminal and civil law applies in most cases. Removing legal barriers to competition will effect beneficial changes faster than any regs can. Removing subsidies will help, too. Consumer benchmarks and private certification can help consumers buy.
In general, regulations add to government spending, creating a drag on the economy as it borrows, taxes or prints to fund that spending. That drag decreases technological growth that is needed to keep up with peoples desire for full flat fast broadband. Regulations add to the miasma of rules that can bring down startups and other businesses. It is a drag on business where none is needed, current criminal law and civil law are sufficient. Regulations have unintended consequences that even the best of regulators did not foresee. They create mechanism for favoritism among the worse.
We don't have to trust any business person to trust the market. It might not be perfect, but it is always better than government control.
Let net neutrality emerge from the people, not be effected by chains on the Internet, that is, chains on the people.
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.
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.
Though I (like everybody) have limited resources in being able to review statements and analyses and tend go to whom I trust, I try to look at the merit of statements themselves rather than judge by who made them. I try to go beyond "x likes this and x is bad , so this must be bad."
I, too, am concerned about the "lawful" parts of the principles.
However, if strictly interpreted and nothing else was added, compliance can be trivial by ISPs applying such principles to _all_ content and so on.
(Recent Internet decency laws already put ISPs in awkward positions. An ISP employee should never be put into the position of being required to look at pornography.)
There are probably implications of the "lawful" wording that we don't understand yet.
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.
But, as the guy who installs the Black Rock Ridge router, won't I be a supplier? (In fact, are not all ISPs also consumers.)
"This has NOTHING to do with QoS!"
How do we know? Did the FCC promise not to put that in any of the rules? Does that emerge?
Consider this policy statement some have brought up:
A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Now, some services need a certain quality to work? Others do not? Will I need to turn off all QoS to comply? Or do I need to allow QoS for all services that normally require it? Or is my router supposed to recognize certain protocols and follow some formula for fairness as defined by FCC rules? How do I know whether my router has some sort of systemic weakness that is discriminatory as defined by rules?
And, suppose I, as a micro-ISP, do block video streaming because of the load and all of my neighbors agree, will I still be in violation?
The rules have not been written yet, but we do have a lot of experience with federal rule-making. We know there will be rules with extensive consequences and lots of paperwork. Surely NN RULES proponents have looked into this. Surely they can answer my questions.
"If you think regulating huge enterprises that we all depend on every day is a bad idea, you must LOVE what deregulation has done for our financial industry."
When you have a couple bad regulations harming people but mostly keeping the consequences of each other in check, and then you remove one, then in that case deregulation harms. We saw that in finance.
But over all regulation is molasses in the workings of our nation and misses the mark of addressing fundamental wrongs. We see now how it is a drag on the economy. (I know it is not the only drag; taxation and "printing" dollars also are hard on the economy.)
Now, I fully expect the NN RULES people will get an explosion of rules out of the NN policies. I have to live with that, so I'm trying to figure out how to cope.
If my Black Rock Ridge router is set up, will there be a way I can test it for compliance. Will the FCC set up a series of web sites I can connect to and make sure all protocols are handled legally the same? Will this cost me a fee?
Would it be OK to get some sort of gadget to slow down certain protocols so I comply?
Or will the NN rules that come from NN policy prevent me from even having a community router?
If my neighbors and I all sign something that says we will not use VOIP, would it be OK to block it then?
1kko wrote, "This isn't a compliance issue. It's to ensure telecoms cannot: manipulate your packets (change the content) inadvertently redirect to the wrong address from the packet header, spoof packets from servers, charge someone extra running a server to allow costumer base access to content on that server."
Those are all things handled by fraud law.
I mean, how do I comply with the rules that come out of the 6 principles of NN. I don't have time to deal with FCC violations.
Like reporting on router settings: I don't want want to release info that would help hackers. What is the minimum I have to supply on my community router settings?
Will there be only one manufacturer of NN compliant routers? Will it have an NN setting so I can make sure I comply? Will I be able to get government money to help pay for it?
If my router doesn't have much memory, will that illegally harm certain protocols under derived rules? How do I know if it has enough memory?
Will I have to reserve a port for law enforcement?
How do I check to see that the router + Internet connection meets the minimum legal latency requirement for game protocols and VOIP protocols?
Do I have to let routing protocols through? QoS?
I'm not saying these questions are more important than the above Black Rock Ridge questions.
It looks as though there are a lot of people commenting who favor government Net Neutral policies and the plethora of rules that will grow from that. OK, supposing we get FCC enforced rules, how will that affect us technically?
Of the few families up here on Black Rock Ridge, I'm considered the more tech savvy. I volunteered to set up a router so we can all have Internet access.
How do I set that up so I don't run afoul of NN rules and have the feds break down my door?
Do I deny all QoS requests or do I allow all QoS requests?
Can I get by with turning off all priority options and firewall options, or do I need to hire a certified NN consultant to set up my router?
Can I get a cheap router or do I need to get a NN certified router?
Do I have to let one of my neighbors inadvertently hog all the bandwidth?
What do I do to make sure I comply? I don't want to have to buy another router in a few months and have to learn how to set that up.
Dave Kliman wrote, "...commercial code isn't all we need. of course it is a major start, but a car without brakes is not very useful, and a world without regulations on those who would game the system and hurt us all would be just as bad. net neutrality isn't about controlling. it is just about making sure nobody tries to take control of the rest of us. it is our only defense against those people."
I think I understand your position better.
Because core laws against fraud, breach of contract, theft, murder, assault and so on address fundamental rights, they target wrongs best. We don't need a rash of regulations.
I understand your concern about people gaming the system. But that is what regulations are all about. The are tools for people to game the system. They have make the system extremely complex.
Whether it is big government or the guy who set up a toll booth in the middle of a road, it is usually government that that hurts us.
We have recourse in those laws that protect our fundamental rights. We do have protection against fraud and contract violation.
Net Neutrality rules will only add to the dust cloud of regulations choking our nation.
It is a stretch to say we would not have ICs without government or an internet without government. Those were coming. The government can show favoritism or dump things on the market, but these were coming.
I don't think that "the government invented the Internet" is a good argument for government control.
That makes the one-sided comments look pretty silly.
I actually thought this was set up as an FCC discussion to get input. The FCC web page described it as such.
I consider such tactics as removing my comments as petty. All of my comments had to do with the discussion whether you are able to comprehend them or not.
Proponents of Net Neutrality rules have failed to show they are needed.
1. They have failed to show that the established protection against fraud and breach of contract are insufficient. They have not throughly pushed in those routes. This, of course, will be hard for them to show.
2. They have failed to show that reasonable efforts to remove subsidies and rules limiting competition have been made. Economists have shown that this is is where most of the problems are. I'm not saying they have to remove all of those, that is hard, but they should at least show a reasonable effort.
3. They have failed to show that Net Neutrality rules would actually bring about any neutrality on the Internet. They have not enumerated the side-effects of such rules.
4. Through the harm of taxes and borrowing, government spending costs lives. Proponents of Net Neutrality have not shown that the benefits will be worth those lives lost (as in lives saved, for example).
5. They have not sufficiently pursued consumer information methods and certification. They have not demonstrated that these are inadequate, with or without the above methods.
This is just the first 5, but it is enough for now.
Essentially, proponents of Net Neutrality have not even tried to make things better.
I see starmanmatt is responding to comments of mine no longer visible here. Since I make an effort to keep my comments civil, I see my comments are censored for statements against Net Neutrality. It seems the FCC is not really interested in a discussion.
Many of us were working on public computer communication. People used BBSes, peer-to-peer hopping, piggybacking on other networks and other methods. Companies were working on national networks.
The concept of a higher intenetworking protocol was well established. TCP/IP was just one among contenders.
Through universities and government contractors the federal government dumped their network on the market, stifling competition, but innovators simply moved to using that. What we see as the Internet is much greater than the tiny seed of that network dumped on the market. Little was contributed but a network and a protocol that was satisfactory.
The Internet is an abstraction that was grown by the people on the property of the people.
We don't want government control of that. The movie Nightmare City 2035 (distributed in Japan and, I think, Thailand) is a warning concerning that.
Laws and regulatory rules to augment that can only hurt our freedoms (including free speech).
If Aunt Jan deposits $5,000 in cash in two different accounts on the same day, the feds will be after her even though she is not involved in drugs. One man is serving a long term in jail because of this.
If Grandpop Bob has an open bottle of wine in the fridge of the RV at the seat-belt stop he will be hauled in under open-container law.
If I hire a kid to paint slogans on my fence, he can get arrested even though he has my permission. For that matter, I can be fined for not reporting he was painting and for buying the paint. If I don't pay the fine, I get arrested.
There are way too many laws that are made just for the convenience of law enforcement.
We need to focus on the basic applicable laws, in this case, those against fraud and theft as you suggested (including breach of contract).
Those are sufficient for going after those who deliver less than what they sold.
There are already mechanisms for which many small customers of a large supplier can seek justice in fraud and contract violation.
I am very much against rules in place just to make things like this more convenient. That just adds to our already very complicated legal environment and are mechanisms for abuse.
We don't want extra laws expanding the scope of contract violations and fraud. That would harm the very notions.
We don't need such laws.
If I offer you a quantum computer of such and such spec and I take your money and give you an empty box, that is fraud. We don't need new laws to cover quantum computers.
(Concerning federal powers. Yeah, in the middle of the 20th century the Congress effectively violated the spirit of the Constitution in giving away legislative power, and recent Presidents including the current grab power unconstitutionally, but that does not mean it is a good thing. Because we do have laws against fraud and such, federal oversight is not needed in most cases, except perhaps for protocol or coordination.)
max.eisenburger wrote, " have still not seen a single post from the anti-net neutrality side that clarifies how net neutrality creates greater "government control of the internet"."
I'll try to spell this out.
I don't think anybody is against lower-case net neutrality. Most people would rather buy from an ISP that had flat broadband even if the price was cheaper elsewhere.
What people are against are Net Neutrality rules. The proposition is regulatory rules by the FCC and added laws and presidential decrees to support those. Now the FCC is an agency of the federal government. Most of use got here through the URL www.fcc.gov or similar. Rules are control.
That should be sufficient to demonstrate this.
However, this also leads to severely detrimental control. That is harder to demonstrate because it brings in a lot of history and people see history through ideological eyes.
The president has called for enhanced armed enforcement of regulations through armed regulators. These will be supported by regulatory armed response teams.
Regulations often have undesirable effects, often because the incentives created go well beyond the label of the rules. Often they work counter to goals.
History has shown that regulations that are supposed to protect people turn out to be or evolve to be rules that support a few businesses or organizations.
Those who claim harm by some rules usually get some compensatory subsidy or other favors helping to keep out competition and otherwise distort the market.
Information gathering in the support of regulation enforcement is typically a burden on industries and create a database that is used for trolling by law enforcement. We can reasonably expect, based on history, that the NN step will lead to a loss of privacy.
Both subsidies and enforcement add to government spending. Already the federal government is running of increasing debt, most of which is in obligations by the federal reserve to print more dollars, creating an inflation tax that destroys jobs and otherwise burdens the economy.
So, it is easy to demonstrate that NN rules are (by definition) government control, that they are burdensome control and they risk abusive and expensive control.
Well, max.eisenburger, the courts and police enforce laws against fraud and allow recourse against contract violations. That those exist is well established.
Those are the proper avenues for recourse, not adding to federal power.
Well, maverick2k5, I appreciate your enumerating your points clearly. That helps discussion. (The nasty comments in between do not, though, and I suspect you regret those.)
In reason #2 as to why you feel we need rules, we see one reason why we should not have the rules.
These rules are the tools of cronyism among the rich associated with industries or companies and powerful regulators and politicians. They will settle into a position of keeping monopolies in place with narrow requirements and reporting requirements.
We have seen this with toy companies keeping out small manufacturers with rules and even getting the feds to pay for their incoming inspections.
We should not set up tools for big cronies to use in controlling markets. We should not set up tools for those with political agendas to use either.
Well, we already have the police. We already have civil and criminal courts. Those are sufficient. Adding to that creates noise and takes away our liberties.
I don't think anybody against Net Neutrality rules have (related to this issue) spoken out against recourse against fraud and contract violations.
(The dig against private fire departments is unnecessary. I have used a private fire department in the past and that has worked. Let's keep this civil.)
So, it is because states have laws and procedures providing protection in trade that we do not need these rules.
So, chris.mccamic, are you saying the rules are needed because people are too lazy or too cheap to call the AG or their lawyer, or join a class action suit?
I see that as a poor reason for decreasing our freedom.
We are better off using the force of the government in protection against fraud and in contract enforcement.
The highest political good is liberty, not mob rule mislabeled "cooperation." Cooperation is when we freely collaborate and trade. Forcing rules on people is not cooperation.
With the laws in place Net Neutrality rules are not needed.
Dave Kliman, if your concern is limited competition, then why not campaign for removing government subsidies and removing laws that form barriers to competition in this realm?
chris.mccamic wrote, "What we are paying for is free and open access to use the infrastructure as we see fit."
In that you speak against Net Neutrality rules.
If that is what is in your contract or that is what the ISP offered and you accepted, then you already have legal recourse. No federal rules are needed.
An important part of a free market is protection against fraud. Are there FCC rules or other laws that prevent you from protection against fraud? Then go after those! Don't destroy the Internet because of a contract violation. Use the law!
Stand up for what you bought. Go after those who violate contracts. Go after rules that prevent you to do that. Leave the Internet alone.
I have spoken out for network freedom for the last 40 years. I have seen attacks come in lots of disguises. This is just another disguise.
Government enforced neutrality will decrease network freedom.
NO to Network Neutrality rules.
Options have grown over the years due to market evolution. If things are better now than in the past, that is because the market responded to desires for more network freedom. It is silly to say the market would shift back just because a few people don't force their will on the rest of us.
I can't force the deer in my woods to have so-many offspring. But I can let them. I have faith they will multiply. I don't have to force pairing at all. I let it happen. It seems some people can't believe anything will happen unless they force it. Control over others is important to them. We should not give them power.
barnesnoble90210 wrote, "...FCC regs are needed to stop monopolies from taking away Net Neutrality."
There is no evidence of that.
Has removing subsidies and rules that block competition been tried? Has a flat broadband seal of approval been tried? Has suing companies for contract violations been tried? Has the state AG gone after companies for fraud?
I am for a natural emergent neutrality of the net, but I am against increased government control of what can be done on the Internet.
The SuperHighway analogy for the Internet is a bad model.
I suggest another. It is flawed, too, but it is much better than the SuperHighway.
We are goats on islands in a sea of many islands. Each island has several bridges to other islands in such a way that all of the islands are connected together.
Trolls have built the bridges. They charge for you to cross or check that you have a TrollPass. If not, you can't pass.
To get from the home island to good grazing a goat has to choose a bridge. Trolls are greedy and do all kinds of things to entice goats to cross their bridges.
Now, some trolls don't allow goats to drag houses across their bridges, blocking traffic. After all, all that traffic means more money for the trolls. Houses have to be dragged across other bridges.
A troll might try to block what goats go across or what they can carry, but it will lose money. Greed will cause it to change its mind.
Now suppose the storm troopers took over the bridges. They control who can cross if anybody. Or what they can drag behind them.
The problem is that the one who commands the storm troopers is the one who now controls the goats. We now have control in one central place.
We have troll-haters trying to put storm troopers into place. I am against that.
If the government is in control, we have one gate-keeper, one noted for working with cronies who have a stake in government actions.
If the people who own resources control those, we will have many "gate-keepers" each trying to adjust policy to please customers so they can maximize profit. If one tends to block, then consumers will go to other sources.
Which is better for the Internet? Clearly the latter.
This century dictators have tried to shut down the internet in their countries, especially communications to the outside. It failed. Why? Because there were many commercial holes. People started running TCP/IP over all kinds of media. So what was the force for freedom? The freedom of people to buy equipment and use communication services on the market. The market.
We need to keep the Internet resources owned by the people of our nation, not the government over the nation.
Suppose Aunt Ruth has a tiny trailer park in the mountains.
Cell phones don't work well. There is electricity, but no phone; it would cost Aunt Ruth over $200,000 to get a cable up to the park which she does not have.
However, a local line-of-sight ISP has a tower on a nearby mountain. For $300 a month plus an investment in hardware, she can get Internet access. She sets that up with a few /n routers and covers the trailer park. Suppose there are no local laws against reselling communication. She sells access for $10 a month. That doesn't even cover the monthly bill but she considers the rest needed to keep people in the park, even those who haven't signed up.
She sets up her router to give priority to web and email. Also with priority is VOIP in certain hours and FTP after midnight. But, she thinks boys should go out and play, so she blocks common game ports. Besides she is worried the link will get overloaded.
Now a fed swat team bashes in her door and takes all of her equipment. They even show up at the line-of-site ISP. She has to go to court. Residents are wondering whether they should rent from a criminal. Channel 10 has called her a public enemy.
This is what the proponents of Net Neutrality rules want.
This is part of why I say...
NO to Net Neutrality rules.
(Of course, rules proponents will claim they only want to go after mega-corporations not aunts. This exposes their true purpose. They don't care about the Internet. They just want to hurt people who own stock in, or dare to work for, a large company.)
Freedom is for all. Freedom applies to all activity, including speech.
Freedom does not mean people have to give you what you want to do what you want to do. It means that people, and in particular those of the government, cannot stop you from doing what you want.
You can buy some particular communication service. You cannot force somebody to sell you more than what he wants to sell. That would be a violation of that person's freedom. If that person promised something more, that is a different issue. There are fraud laws to handle that.
Net Neutrality rules harm freedom. They also let the camel's nose into the tent.
Government involvement is a tar baby. I agree with you, recinader.
Public networking started before the ARPA net was assumed by the public. The fact that the feds dumped internetworking on the market (harming those building networks) does not mean they own internetworking.
Public internetworking is emergent in the activities of all the people of this free nation. Let's keep it free.
NO to Net Neutrality rules. (Open doors to allow emergent neutrality of the net.)
Your concerns have some merit. I expect Net Neutrality rules will lead to the government requiring ISPs to log everybody's Internet habits and their handling of the associated packets to show they are treating everybody fairly. That will lead to a loss of privacy.
Most ISPs do not bother with what people do. The market favors that. No rules are needed.
rkenned wrote, "Also, do yourself a favor and never ever recommend to a gamer that he should use a satellite connection. You make a fool out of yourself when you do."
If you read what I wrote, I said it was an Internet option and that the latency is too high for most games. Game developers can develop methods to counter that with predictive methods. But I never recommended it to a gamer.
It is an alternative for Internet access. So is phone, dialup, and sneakernet. None of those are hot for games, except maybe chess.
Having said that, we might wonder... Why is satellite latency so high? How can it improve to compete?
With Net Neutrality rules, inventors will go do something else rather than risk problems with the feds.
Yeah, the feds do not have a magic wand. The create incentives and distort the market. They harm the economy. They cannot wave say magic words and make things perfect.
Neither can the market, but the market can do a much better job of getting us to where we want to be.
I expect much of that money will go to making sure we use the Internet properly.
Much will go to enforcement of rules such as Net Neutrality, expanding rules to make sure ISPs keep records of the type and pattern of everybody's TCP/IP transactions so they can prove they are complying.
And I think that the companies that people are complaining about will get much of that money along with blocking of competition.
The lesson of George Orwell's 1984 is clear. It is the government that can get out of control.
Most of the economic problems we have now is the "printing" of money over the years and high government spending. Much of it is over regulation.
Where deregulation causes trouble is the _unbalanced_ deregulation, leaving in regulations that cause a distortion of the market, but were partially countered by other harmful regulations.
It is easy to see with the banking and housing problems that it was regulations that caused the trouble.
Where we need more regulations are in limiting government agencies and quasi governmental organizations such as the Federal Reserve and Freddie Mac. It was actions of those what have hurt us.
Regulations are just a vague noise in an attempt to harm others. Our rights and freedoms are protected in the blocking of such things as fraud and breach of contract. Those are already protected.
Also, regulations tend to favor certain businesses over others, often creating monopolies.
It is regulations that are the problem, not people out to provide a service that people obviously want.
I, too want a neutral Internet, argronick. But what will really work?
Will handing over the keys to government regulators and politicians make it neutral? Not likely. We will get greater and greater control over content and bandwidth shaping.
But what about private control? Well, in the private realm we have multiple ways to access the internet. If one squelches, we have others. We always have dialup, phone, satellite and sneakernet options. And if there is only one broadband option, it is because governments are subsidizing the monopoly or are blocking entry.
That gets us back to the first issue. So it is government that is creating the situation in which people are calling for single-gatekeeper control of the Internet.
Net Neutrality rules will backfire. They will decrease the neutrality of the net.
And suppose I did own an ISP. Don't I have rights too? (I do not.) Even so, I would want to have my rights protected. Can't I set up my routers and sell product as I see fit? If customers reject my crumby product, isn't that my fault? I don't need some politician to dictate my product for the benefit of his cronies.
It is clear:
No to Net Neutrality rules. Yes to emergent Internet neutrality.
fishygirl.fl, I did listen to your clarification. And I accepted that.
It was metasaurus who dragged this on. He said I misquoted you and I showed the exact quote.
I understand your concern about bullies. Fortunately, the market discourages bullies. But government does not. It encourages bullies. It is important that we not set up the federal government as the bully. We have little recourse to bypass that except by becoming criminals. On the market we have alternatives. We can bypass several ways.
I am interested in civil debate. I have been polite in all my statements and I have attempted to be clear in my position.
Let's stand together against bullies. Real bullies, not phantom bullies. Let's work together to identify those.
If the feds control the Internet, there is only one gatekeeper. It will be controlled for the benefit of the controlling party and the cronies of politicians and regulators.
If a business controlled access to the Internet and harmfully blocked that, people would find some other access. Of course, the feds may make that hard; we should call for the removal of subsidies and rules that discourage competition.
You can't compete by "maintaining" a scarcity of bandwidth. That is bad economics. Your competitors will eat you alive.
If people are really concerned about an open Internet, they would call for removing barriers to competition.
If the Internet is controlled by one entity, the federal government, as I understand the suggestion, we have a risk of Internet control.
On the other hand, if we have a free market and there are multiple choices to Internet access and Internet communication, then if one tries to control, we can switch to another.
Which is better? The latter, of course. The free way.
As Americans we are creative enough to bypass blocks, but it is harder with the federal government blocking.
I am not against net neutrality in its common meaning. I would enjoy an open Internet.
I am against Net Neutrality RULES.
I would be happy if my neighbor finds true love, and I might even cook dinner to help. I would stand against the guy that would tie him up to keep him from meeting his sweetheart at the library. But I would not shoot him if he does not fine true love.
What is the best way to encourage an open Internet. Give control to one entity? Or let there be alternatives in access to the Internet? Clearly FCC rules start us down the road to one entity controlling what we can do with the Internet. Market competition allows us alternatives. Clearly, the way to an open Internet is to remove government barriers to competition.
IF there was broadband access competition in some market and IF the consumers in that market wanted flat broadband, at least one company would emerge with a flat broadband access product.
That should be pretty obvious given today's technology.
amin wrote, "Despite the venomous nature of your response, that is true."
I read what I wrote several times, and I don't see the venomous nature. I would like to improve my writing. Can you show me what was venomous? I did not attack you. I did not use loaded words. I stated simple facts.
Just because somebody does not agree with you does not mean the words are venomous.
Well, lysacor, if you can run an ISP better than these, why not create one and compete? You would put them out of business with you flat broadband and you would make big bucks in expanding your services.
Wouldn't that be more honest than using force to harm those companies?
Why push for Net Neutrality rules when you can simply compete and put them out of business? If governments have barriers to your entering that market, I would support your call to remove them.
There seems to be almost religious animosity against big business.
A small business is some folks working hard to trade to people what they want more than the money in their pocket. The business folks earn money. The customers are better off. If they wouldn't be they would not have traded. Everybody is better off. Often business is fun, because you get to do cool stuff, customers are happy, workers and owners are happy.
What is a big business? It is like a small business only bigger.
There is a concern, though. Because big businesses involve some influential individuals, they are important to politicians and regulators. This invites cronyism. A few, a very few, rich individuals who interact with Washington in a way that harms us. The best solution to that is to limit what Washington can do. With a few exceptions the person in Congress does not represent us. Only the rich crony is really represented.
And what are Net Neutrality rule proponents after? More power for those in Washington. That will harm us and in particular harm the Internet.
At first I thought this was satire, it is so wrong.
Rights are derived from obligations in natural law. People are obligated not to assault, murder, rob or defraud people. The are obligated to do what they agree to do.
Those are rights.
People make up "human rights" as excuses to violate the true rights.
That fits in well with what people are doing with their calls for Net Neutrality rules.
Rather than seeking market solutions, they first call for force (that is violence) on others.
metasoarous wrote, "... fishygirl never said ANYTHING along the lines of monetarily free internet being a right for everyone."
Not so. I quote: "You can't exercise free speech without access!"
Free speech does not mean government subsidized speech. It does not mean a free Internet. It does not mean free printing presses. It does not mean that all printing presses or printing services must be 4-color by law. A printshop must be free to print only two spot colors if the owner wants.
The Net Neutrality mentality wants to prevent the printshop owner from using a 2-color press. I think a 2-color press is fine for some limited market, but most people would take their work elsewhere. If some city has a low requiring that company be the only printshop in town, the problem is in the city law, not the printshop or lack of federal rules on printshops.
The starmanmatt wrote, "No, I am not God. I'm not even a god. But it seems to me that you seem to think Henry Hazlitt must have been one, to be able to speak of 21st century electronics in a 20th century treatise on economics."
Amazing, huh!
Actually, it is simple economics, good economics. Those principles have not changed. The have to do with the basic nature of man.
(For that matter, right and wrong has not changed, either. Both apply.)
We can apply good economics principles to this. This is clearly a bad idea.
I think most who comment want the same thing, a good Internet where ideas can flourish.
However, some feel the government is good and omnipotent and can and will force good things to happen. Perhaps this is a sort of statolatry. The ideas is to create some shape of emergent freedom by the force of law.
And others feel that is dangerous and would be bad for the Internet. They claim a free market (market limited by the protection of rights) would allow an optimization of a good Internet, emergent from the actions of individuals. This is based on economics and morality.
I am among the latter. I think those who call for Net Neutrality rules are blind to the harm the rules and their implementation will cause to the Internet.
Like you, I encourage people to wake up. Look at how the world works. Look at what ideals really matter.
Traffic lights are a safety protocol. If I owned some streets, I would probably use them. It would be my right. It's my property.
Public networking is emergent from trade among free people. The proposed rules will limit such trade. There is no rational claim to some ownership of public networking, no more than we can say the government owns dancing or idioms.
Rules are a taking. Will there be a compensation? Probably not. Or maybe Comcast expects to use this to get even more federal money and keep out competitors.
It is impossible to "allow freedom to happen" by adding rules. Only the limiting of government and core rights violations will "allow freedom to happen". That means NO to net neutrality and NO to limitations on suing communications companies.
There are already mechanisms to protect against fraud and contract violations. States have this responsibility. This is not the domain of the feds. And states do have mechanisms set up.
You are right to look at the freedom of all. That is why I emphasize the core rights that we infer from natural law (or God's law, if you prefer, the natural law inference is common ground for both theist and nontheist). Just as we want to protect the rights of consumers, we must protect the rights of those who sell services and own routers.
The traffic lights of the Internet are TCP/IP, not the FCC. Those are the protocols. We don't need the government to enforce TCP/IP.
So... Allow states to protect people from fraud and breach of contract, but keep the feds away from the Internet:
The government's "trying to control everything" is enabled by individuals wanting to control their neighbors.
Suppose I think I have a good way to supply flat broadband at a good price with low latency. And I can deploy it in cities where Comcast dominates. I could make big bucks and lots of people will get the service they want. We can all be happier.
Should I do that?
No way! There are people who want to control me and limit me. They will cal for rules and those rules will evolve to take from me.
The call for Net Neutrality rules shout loud and clear, "No startups, no innovation, no competition!"
The solution to "corporate socialism" is to remove the socialism. That means removing tools that can be exploited by cronyism, not adding them. The proposed rules and especially what they become will only add to this problem.
Dave Kilman, wrote "...they never did what they promised..". If there is a contract violation, you have legal recourse. No FCC rules are needed.
Dave Kilman wrote, "...just give us...". Ah, now we get to the root of this.
Many people are considering starting their own businesses. There are lots of opportunities to create specialty ISP access companies. Kilmans words say clearly, don't innovate, don't start a business, I will take things from you.
These words harm our economy.
I encourage you, Dave, to stop threatening people with theft.
Well, fishygirlfl, I have found sentiments I agree with you on.
If you look over the comments, you will see that by far most of the name calling and derision is by those who favor regulating their neighbors, though.
casnyder wrote, "I get very annoyed with the internet culture that is assuming unlimited bandwidth is available to everyone - the number of webpages that automatically stream high-resolution content to you the moment you stray onto them w/ no opt out option is wasting my precious bandwidth, and is the height of rudeness."
I have to agree with you.
Businesses seem to say, "We don't want to sell to f'ners or hicks!"
Organizations seem to say, "In a perfect world all would have high bandwidth, and we must punish you for not fitting into our model of a perfect world." (Or it may the the same as the business case, "We only want to communicate with big-money donors.)"
I think we are seeing some that in the discussion. People want to control others who do not fit into their model of a perfect world. Tiny nanodictators want rules on us and hope to gain support of other would-be dictators to control us.
It is ironic that many liberals complain about conservatives wanting to control others, but we see liberals working to control others even more.
We should be careful about one thing. When conservatives are in power they will probably build on the control the liberals build and expand it and use it in ways the liberals do not like.
The bottom line is that it is Washington takeover. Politicians, rule makers and paper pushers are working to control our lives. Often to the benefit of cronies; I would not be surprised if Net Neutrality leads to federal money for Comcast to expand its network capability.
There are better non-regulatory methods to address these issues.
It seems to me, starmanmatt, that you speak against your own cause. You point out that regulating the Internet had bad consequences. Yet you assume that will not happen with your proposed Net Neutrality rules. Did you become God in the last few years? Things will not change. Your Net Neutrality rules will harm.
Over a half century ago, before public networking, Henry Hazlitt spoke against the Net Neutrality rules in _Economics in One Lesson_. I encourage you to read it.
If you want Net Neutrality rules, make them just apply to government pipes. If you want better bandwidth options in buying internet services, then campaign for the removal of subsidies and rules that support monopolies in Internet access. If you are really serious, start a competing company and market your services based on your broadband fairness.
The free market in the US has been chained for some time. We seem to have a mix of market, fascism and socialism, today.
The free market is the moral and practical basis for prosperity. It will seek optimal solutions of real people both consumers and providers.
The best solution to bandwidth options is good market solutions. The government can encourage this by removing subsidies, product narrowing rules, and support for those in local governments.
The net neutrality rules will only make things worse.
I am getting pretty tired of statements of how the government created the Internet. This a a gross distortion of history.
Emergent public networking grew out of BBSes, peer-to-peer phone-call packet switching, and piggy-backing on other networks. These existed before and independently of any ARPA.
Several internetworking protocols, layered protocols, emerged. Among them was "TCP/IP", but there were others.
As networking needs grew, there were needs for better internetworking. Businesses were working on this. Through colleges, the federal government dumped its network on the market. This hurt backbone development but innovation switched to using this.
Public internetworking assumed this basis. Innovators build the modern Internet on this.
So, government did not "invent" any modern Internet. The internetworking was already there and some technology was assumed by that.
An honest way to do this is a seal of approval by a consumer group.
If there is misrepresentation, then a class-action suit can be used. The state can get involved. Standards in representing bandwidth will emerge.
I would hope the industry and consumer groups work together to create such standards before some judge declares them, though. Unfortunately, many have no interest in working with the industry but simply want to put more rules on people.
Consumers have a burden here, too. People need to read their contracts. FCC rules however, tend to preclude contracts and agreements; what we get is at the whim of the FCC and we can't sue.
The best way toward such labels is through the market and not FCC rules. So...
I suspect, dbg, from the voting that most come here and vote down because someone said so. I imagine some can give a good argument, but from the discussion I have seen, I suspect few.
I agree with your sentiments. Let it grow naturally.
Most of us have not looked closely at economics. Most of use have not studied the foundations of our rights. Most of us have not looked at the practicalities of government. We get distracted by quick promises, and just don't have time to learn the consequences. Often we are thinking of ourselves and and step on the rights of others without thinking. I think the voting here is a reflection of that. It is my hope that we see a growing in Americans in respect for others and especially in the careful respect of the rights of others.
In the US we consider liberty a high ideal. There are fundamental rights we cherish, those of life and property. We celebrate the protection of those and go after bad guys who violate contracts, commit fraud, steal, murder, rape, and lie in court. Emergent in those rights is the right to speech. It is so important that we give no powers to the federal government to limit it AND explicitly ban the federal government from limiting it, both through fundamental law, the Constitution.
Access to the Internet is not among those rights.
However, forcing people who own or work at Internet businesses to provide such access violates rights. Also, government control (which this will bring) will create government censorship of the those with such access.
People will chose services most important to them, in time the market and peoples desires will create widespread Internet access. Trying to force this will harm the economy and violate rights.
Let's allow the Internet to emerge among us.
NO to nationalization of the Internet. No to Internet fascism. No to increased government Internet rules.
Mentioning John McCain is a red herring. It distracts from the issues.
The issue is that some people want to limit how people agree in Internet access. That is wrong.
NO to Net Neutrality rules.
Some people are concerned about the limitations in choices of Internet services. An issue is lack of competition. However, it is the action of the FCC and other government entities that have set this up. Rather than adding more rules, the sensible thing would be to remove those government edicts that encourage or force monopolies.
The Internet is of the people because it emerges from the actions of individuals in our free nation. Many people cooperate in business, small and large, many people work alone. As consumers and suppliers we work together in communication and the Internet, as we now know it, emerges.
Government regulations spoil that.
NO to net neutrality rules. (OK, rules for government agencies is good, they should be prevented from blocking.)
Fawsmith, those are distortions of the truth. We had highways and states were cooperating on creating corridors before the feds took over. The ICs and microprocessors enabled NASA projects. I used ICs in the mid 60s well before moon landings. Networking was developing on its own in the private sector, many had developed high level internetworking protocols, the internet at that level is just an arbitrary set of protocols. Socially, networking started out with bulletin boards and packet switching phone calls across the country. As people established backbone networks on phone and television networks, the feds started making its network available through schools. Essentially, the ARPA net was dumped on the market. In all cases, the feds got in the way or were not needed.
McCain is just a red herring.
It is disingenuous to claim stackla despises government (I can't say one way or the other), all he is saying is what happens when government gets power. He is just describing how the world works.
If people don't like how some networks charge they can go to others. If there are not others, that is the fault of regulators (and other government entities). Rather than force net neutrality rules, why not remove the rules and incentives that limit competition?
It is more rules that will restrict the Internet.
Greed? Don't fight it! Use it to allow the Internet to grow and to respond to the people's desires in full access Internet.
With growing government control we have to fear that there will be the inhibitions.
Well, seraphim_owps_u, I'm not sure what you mean by "I should be able to choose for myself whether to go there".
I can understand the desire for a full high bandwidth access to everything. But that doesn't mean you have a right.
As for bandwidth shaping, I'd be willing to trade a little download time in exchange for better phone and game latency.
If you have such a desire and others do, then it will be reflected in buying. That means it will be reflected in what is sold. Broadband suppliers will be fighting to get the NewTrality seal of approval. But they are not. There is not really a market for it. People want simple low-cost service.
But when the market is there. As more people want full access, the market will respond. There is the problem of the FCC and other government entities maintaining monopolies in some areas, but that is best addressed by removing rules, not creating them.
I often shudder when I hear the word "should". It usually means somebody is trying to force something on me. I hope that doesn't apply in your case.
fawsmith, you have it backwards. You want new regulations. That puts the burden on you. You have to show that it is needed.
Historically, we know that regulations only make things worse and will be used in ways not expected. There has to be heavy evidence before rules are created.
You say net neutrality is not one-size-fits all, and then immediately say all providers must supply the same flat bandwidth across content. That is like arguing a law doesn't require one-size-fits-all in shoes because all lengths are available, just not all widths and colors.
Let the market work it out.
If you don't like what Comcast is doing, then remove barriers to competition in regulations. Remove incentives for setting up monopolies in federal subsidies. It is regulations that set up the situation. Why not remove those instead of calling for more regs. More regs just feed the pockets of big companies and their cronies.
It is the forced neutrality that will stifle innovation. It is not neutrality itself, which may be a company's policy. Companies must be free to have policies of neutrality, but that in itself does not stifle innovation.
You are right, Tony, that local server technologies can decrease total load but in some configurations they can cripple local performance. Providers respond in a way that can support customers based on their experience and deployed technology. The copyright part is a red herring. As the dust settles we will see how this goes. It may require some sort of metering.
You say you are limited to a single supplier, Tony. Is that because you do not consider satellite to be broadband? Or is that because you don't want to use the small DSP suppliers? Or do you live in the mountains? Of course, that is just broadband. You can still email with dialup.
And what is wrong with WalMart and Comcast doing those things? It is their property. You don't have to shop at WalMart or buy services from Comcast.
Does your game server work with long latencies? Change it so it does. Then encourage gamers to drop Comcast and go satellite. Work with a satellite provider.
What are the DSL competing companies in Comcast areas? Work with them. Comcast will lose money if they don't do something.
(Now it could be that Comcast is counting on Net Neutrality rules to set the stage for them to get government money for bandwidth and to block competition.)
But you are not taking legal action, you are taking regulatory action.
Did the company directly harm you? Sue them.
Some years ago I created a phone interface for a product. The company sold the product to another company that dropped the SDK interface. All my work was gone. I did not get Uncle Sam to hurt people involved. If we had an agreement that would have been different. I could have asked them to compensate me.
There are lots of things that happen on the market that can harm our businesses. Most of them do not require legal action. Very, very few require regulatory action.
The market may or may not harm us. Regulations always will.
Well, fishygirl.fl, I'm glad you have given up on the "right to the Internet" idea. You are right, free access is silly.
If there are just a FEW companies, then no regs are needed. The market will sort things out.
If the feds get involved then we will see freedom of speech limited. That is certain. If no, then we might see some market limitations for people ins some areas for a short time.
Weigh that and the conclusion is clear: NO on net neutrality rules.
(Funny how neutrality proponents do not ask for removal of rules that stifle competition of Comcast and others. It makes me wonder of the motives of those pushing Net Neutrality. Maybe Comcast is pushing it so it can get government money to increase bandwidth.)
Not everybody has the same Internet desires. The market can create specialized markets. Not everybody can afford guaranteed bandwidth. Some find it important.
This ain't rocket science. If an ISP doesn't do what it says, then go elsewhere or take legal action. If you don't like the bandwidth shaping in the contract, then go elsewhere. A few can't but those who can will twist the arm of any supplier enough so it hurts the bank account.
So, there might be some limitations temporarily for some. Well, if the market says it is OK, it may last longer.
But with government regulations, we know there will be increasing limitations. That will hurt.
Let's go the safer route. Let's just say NO to Net Neutrality rules. The idea sounds nice, but it is not consistent with the reality of how the world works.
I can imagine a situation where grocers limit the items on their shelves to only those supplied by suppliers willing to jump through their hoops.
So what?
There is no club of ISPs willing to lose business just to hurt you. There is competition. They want your business. They want the business of those who want to trade with you.
We can't call for regs every time we imagine something.
Take courage. Work hard at your business. Work hard at keeping the feds out. If all did that the economy would be in better shape and the Internet would be kept free.
No to Net Neutrality rules. (Except neutrality rules applying to federal agencies and rules prohibiting incentives that create monopolies.)
Many proponents of "net neutrality" actually think they are doing a good thing. But the bottom line is "what they are trying to do to us". They say it is good, some even call it freedom, but it is just the opposite, more rules on us.
It seems that for some people the way to solve any problem is to control other people.
twodaylife, it is silly to say one is a product and the other is not.
If I have a choice among two TVs at the store and one has only VHS (imagine the olden days) and the other has UHS, too, I can chose based on price and other factors such as my needing a remote because of my leg. Most likely the one with VHS only will not get many sales. But using this to make rules about channels a TV can handle is dumb.
Market forces will bring good change. Regulatory forces will harm.
Why is Comcast the only server is some areas? Look to government regulations. In some areas the issue may be the cost of infrastructure, but in most cases it is local and federal politicians that limit the number of providers.
Actually, people all over the US can go to satellite. It not suitable for phone or some sorts of games but it is a real alternative.
Also, many people assume there is only one when there are really several small providers competing.
Already Comcast is hurt by this and people will jump to competitors when they can. Many though are happy with the service for the price and will not change.
By getting rid of government intervention we improve the situation. Adding government intervention will only make it worse.
You say that people don't want to spend money to get openness. I don't think that is true.
The road analogy is not a good fit. A better analogy is the collection of groceries in a community. We don't want the FCC telling a vegan grocery it has to sell meat. I don't anyway, and I eat hamburgers.
That market is not about money. It is about trade. It is about choice. People give away money to get things they value more. What emerges is an optimization.
Net Neutrality is contrary to freedom. To say net neutrality is freedom is like saying forming vegan grocers to sell meat is freedom because I get to buy meat if I wander into one. After all it is not my fault one moved in down my street.
Force ready to protect people from the violation of their rights is not the same as force to shape some sort of dream. The latter is evil. Net neutrality is wrong and calling for it is wrong.
Suppose some service provider "charged piecemeal" for services. If that worked out well for everyone, they would prosper and grow. If that turned out to be something that customers rejected it would go out of business. No rules are needed.
We don't need the FCC deciding on the kinds of packages available on the market. Tell the FCC to leave us alone.
The Internet is not a superhighway. It is the collection of groceries in a community. It is wrong to force the vegan store to sell meat. It is wrong to force the big grocery to take white bread and white sugar from its shelves. We can choose.
The net neutrality rules will remove that choice.
If the FCC wants to help in this issue, it can ban content limitations on government networks and it can stop subsidizing network monopolies.
The local grocery story does not carry a favorite product anymore. I let them know it was important to me. It is still not on the shelf.
So now I go to a different store. I get what I want.
I did not go to the city council and get them to pass a law to force the store to stock what I want. It would only decrease services and increase prices at groceries. It would not be right. And politicians would add more stuff that had nothing to do with my request.
As it is, the grocery that didn't stock what I wanted is one customer closer to going out of business unless it changes its ways. My new grocery might expand; well it is one customer closer to that.
In the same way, the market is the more effective way to bring change. FCC regulations can only harm. Calling for them is immoral and impractical.
The financial market is part fascist with a pinch socialist. It is closely tied to cronyism in regulation, legislation and the operation of the FED. It is the government intervention (and quasigovernment intervention through the FED) that led to financial problems. Those problems worsened because of bailouts and other intervention.
You argument does not apply.
We see throughout history that government intervention is what causes the problems. Consider the great depression of 1920. What did the government do to fix that crash? Nothing. It quickly recovered based on market forces. What do we remember? The 1929 crash caused by government intervention and prolonged by government intervention in the Great Depression.
The same applies to regulating the Internet. We need to use honest market forces to bring change. The use of regulations will be a drag on the Internet.
Here is how regulations work: People see a problem, usually some perceived exploitation by some group of big companies. Regulators make rules. Soon the big companies and regulators are working together to get rich by exploiting those people.
We need to remove the rules that limit competition and disclosure. That will improve things. But, net neutrality rules? They will only harm.
The proposed rules to not "protect net neutrality". They are a crude attempt to force some sort of shaping of network bandwidth. They limit everybody's options.
We would be better off with the removal of rules that limit options for consumers. We need more competition, not cronyism.
fishygirl.fl, free speech is the absence of the use of force or its threat to limit your speech. It does not mean you can force me to buy you a printing press.
OK. You folks who clamber for more chains on you, did you try some other solution before calling for Net Neutrality rules?
Did you do comparative shopping before buying broadband? Did you tell your supplier that the limitations placed on you violated your contract? Did you look at satellite (good for email and browsing and downloading)?
Did you set up a local consumer group that scored local ISPs on neutrality? Did you trademark a neutrality seal of approval for ISPs? Did you set up a class action suit concerning misrepresentation by some ISP?
It seems some people what to put burdens on all of use before seeking honest solutions.
The idea that net neutrality rules protect our rights is pure nonsense.
What rights have no protection? What unbound violations of our rights will this address? Breach of contract? Theft? Fraud? Those are all protected by state laws.
Net Neutrality rules can only bound us, not free us. They do not protect fundamental rights.
If people are truly concerned about net neutrality, they would call for better market information and competition. They would call for removing rules that give power to a few businesses and limiting entry into the industry. Since they do not do this, we know those who call for Net Neutrality rules have some ulterior motive.
It is a good thing. It is important in protecting our freedoms. We must not risk it by giving the federal government more power over it. We must say NO to net neutrality rules.
What we need is a removal of incentives and rules that help monopolies and big businesses in the trade.
What Finland did is not a good thing. It puts a burden on the economy and it discourages innovation and creativity in networking. We don't want that kind of fascism in the Internet. We must say NO to net neutrality rules (except for government networking).
The highest political good is not democracy, but liberty. Democratic processes are not an end to themselves but are simply a crude way to protect liberty. We must not let the mob take away our rights.
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.
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.
If a community has only two choices for broadband and they made neutrality a buying priority, themediocre2, then the two companies would fight for the best neutrality.
If one violated bandwidth contracts or fraudulently misrepresented the nature of bandwidth allocations, then there are current legal recourse methods.
No federal regs are needed on private companies. (Of course, regs that limit other agencies in the violation of neutrality or the creation and sustaining of monopolies would be good.)
We can always use the phone or mail or sneakernet to bypass boardband. These are real competition.
Kenneth Lines, you don't talk like a libertarian economist. I would expect a free-market economist would take even a stronger position than I.
I encourage you to drop your statist position and work for solutions in the context of freedom.
Many libertarians feel that government should protect fundamental rights. Applicable rights here are freedom from fraud and breach of contract. I encourage you to support that.
As an economist you know that most monopolies exist or remain because of government intervention. Let's remove those government actions that sustain monopolies rather than add more government coercion. (I suspect you are really a programmer who can financially gain from "net neutrality.")
What market methods have you tried? Did you read your ISP contract? Did you insist your ISP abide by it? Did you set up a consumer group? Did you set up a web site showing what broadband suppliers limited bandwidth on selected protocols?
Why go straight to government coercion?
I encourage you to stick to your "libertarian economist" principles and stand against network neutrality rules.
Yeah, government pipes should be neutral. And incentives for the setup and sustaining of monopolies must be removed. But NO to Net Neutrality.
Your request makes no sense creag.co, net neutrality is not open. Regulations can only close.
All regulations are an automatic entry burden for startups. They are used by regulators and politicians to help cronies. The complicate and distort the market. They create an overhead for all businesses, especially harming the small businesses. They block optimizations and innovations that might violate the regulations. Any flaws in the regs will not result in regulations removed, but the creation of new more complicated regulations. Consumers will not be able to rely on contracts for what they get but will be at the whim of regulators and big businesses.
Let's return to honest trade in getting what we want.
How can I buy up all the water in the state except by the help of government? It is regulations that create monopolies in most cases. In those few cases that competitors don't bother to get involved the monopoly is a good one.
Remember it is the government that creates most monopolies.
Net Neutrality is not freedom. It is not free speech.
Market methods will optimize price, neutrality and bandwidth. If neutrality is important consumers can create seals of approval or consumer reports. They can insist that contracts be enforced and call "fraud" when it is seen.
Free speech does not mean free stamps or free printing presses or free web-site tools. We don't want the government regulating printing presses so they have to print in full color. In the same way we must keep the government out of this issue.
What rights should be protected? ISPs should not defraud or violate contracts. States can handle that. We don't need federal regulations of private companies. (OK, maybe there needs to be rules on government pipes to keep them neutral, and rules that prevent incentives for local governments to create monopolies, but certainly none on the private companies.)
Increasing government control over the Internet will harm the communication infrastructure.
We need freedom on the internet. The only rules needed are the fundamental rules that come from natural law. Do what your agree to do. Do not steal. And so on.
Any step in government control will be followed by more, often to "patch up" the problems of the first step. Soon control will be extremely complicated, pushing out the small guys. Cronyism will increase. Regulations will be enforced in ways we did not expect. There will be unintended consequences (see Economics in One Lesson by Hazlit).
Let the market work. We have seen how unbalanced regs and over regulation has harmed the economy.
The best for the economy is freedom and that means a free market. Market forces can work in improving the quality and quantity of services. For some reason, some people skip honest market methods and go straight to demanding rules on everybody.
Those core laws are all that are needed: laws against breach of contract, against fraud, against theft and so on. We don't need a lot of regulations.
What can the feds do? They can require "neutrality" on all government pipes. They can remove incentives for cronyism monopolies.
Remember, freedom is protected. Neutrality is forced on people.
I am for capitalism. Therefore, I am against "net neutrality" rules for private companies.
There are ways the market can move this. Consumer groups and magazines can report on the neutrality of suppliers. People can encourage other consumers to look carefully at contracts and possible contract violations. A consumer group can create a neutrality seal of approval that ISPs can use in ads and on web sites.
What can the feds do? Well, they can enforce neutrality on all government-owned or government controlled pipes. They can outlaw any regulatory action that harms neutrality. They can remove federal incentives for local politicians to give monopolies to cronies.
Remember, neutrality is not freedom but is contrary to freedom. You cannot shape capitalism by any rules other than those that protect basic rights (laws against fraud and theft and so on). Any other rules will destroy capitalism. Capitalism is shaped by the free market.
Report Abuse
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Close