Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Net Neutrality
Author Message
JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 232
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #1
Net Neutrality
Surprised this one hasn't come up much.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/opinions/i...index.html

Does it surprise me that Republican donors want an end to net neutrality? No.

But does the Republican rank and file really think the problem with the internet is it should be more like Comcast, Time-Warner, or [insert beloved cable company]?
12-14-2017 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #2
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-14-2017 01:18 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Surprised this one hasn't come up much.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/opinions/i...index.html

Does it surprise me that Republican donors want an end to net neutrality? No.

But does the Republican rank and file really think the problem with the internet is it should be more like Comcast, Time-Warner, or [insert beloved cable company]?

Given that the Internet flourished for decades under salutary neglect, whereas the cable companies you speak of are creatures of the very regulatory regime that leftists now seek for the Internet, why on earth would you want the Internet to be more like cable TV?

I mean, I know why the leftist rank-and-file wants to do so: because leftists love regulation for its own sake -- not least because they tend to imagine themselves, or people like themselves, doing the regulating. (A root of the difference between conservatives and statists seems to be that the question "What if people we don't trust start making the rules?" is one that the former tend to consider fundamental, and the latter tend to consider specious). But you're smarter than the rank-and-file.
(This post was last modified: 12-18-2017 12:25 PM by georgewebb.)
12-18-2017 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: Net Neutrality
In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
12-18-2017 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.

FTFY.
12-18-2017 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.

It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.

It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.
12-18-2017 07:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.

It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.

It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.

The problem with that is that there isn't that much competition already, when it comes to broadband internet access. Where I live, my options are Comcast through the cable set-up for my apartment, or a cell phone data plan. Neither of these is particularly effective at competing with each other or innovating in competition with each other. Meanwhile, my best-case data speed in either case is about 2/5 the minimum for service to qualify as "broadband."

I'm actually a fan of the municipal network model, if for no other reason than it sets a baseline for service for companies to compete against.
12-18-2017 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #7
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.

It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.

It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.

I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.

It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.
12-18-2017 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #8
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

No. Anti-competitive practices are already prohibited by antitrust and related legislation. What the misnamed "net neutrality" power grab does is empower a federal bureau to micromanage what's "fair and reasonable" -- including prohibiting people from doing things that are not blessed as "fair and reasonable". Who do you expect will the primary influencers and beneficiaries of what gets entrenched as "fair and reasonable"? Hint: it won't be consumers, or entrepreneurs, or innovators...

If you look at EVERY industry in which such a regime has been imposed, the result has been less innovation and less competition, not more. This should surprise no one. The fact that it continually surprises some folks is mind-boggling.
12-19-2017 02:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #9
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 02:52 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

No. Anti-competitive practices are already prohibited by antitrust and related legislation. What the misnamed "net neutrality" power grab does is empower a federal bureau to micromanage what's "fair and reasonable" -- including prohibiting people from doing things that are not blessed as "fair and reasonable". Who do you expect will the primary influencers and beneficiaries of what gets entrenched as "fair and reasonable"? Hint: it won't be consumers, or entrepreneurs, or innovators...

If you look at EVERY industry in which such a regime has been imposed, the result has been less innovation and less competition, not more. This should surprise no one. The fact that it continually surprises some folks is mind-boggling.

The fact that this is your argument is mind boggling. Explain to me how net neutrality would cause or result in less innovation for any industry outside of ISPs. I have no idea how a rule that states ISPs can’t favor one person over the other would negatively effect internet users - that this could somehow stymie an entrepreneur who is trying to use the internet to disrupt an industry through innovation.

That’s like suggesting that a federal law prohibiting toll roads from charging more for one type or brand of 2 axel vehicle would result in less innovation. All of a sudden Ford could start lobbying for toll roads to charge more for Teslas, etc.

The repeal of the rule opens the door for ISPs to favor companies who can pay for favor, crack down on content they don’t like, and, in general, have a bit more control over their customers, who are not always able to use a competiting ISP, than they should.
12-19-2017 07:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.
It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.
It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.
I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.
There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.
It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.

They will compete in those ways in a competition model. In a "net neutrality" model, they'll get to be "good enough" and that will be it. That's what happens with regulated utilities.
12-19-2017 07:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 07:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.
It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.
It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.
I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.
There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.
It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.

They will compete in those ways in a competition model. In a "net neutrality" model, they'll get to be "good enough" and that will be it. That's what happens with regulated utilities.

You’ll have to explain that a bit more in detail - I’m failing to see how allowing ISPs to decide what data is preferred actually increases competition between ISPs to offer a better product than what they have now, and how this would actually increase competition.
12-19-2017 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 08:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 07:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.
It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.
It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.
I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.
There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.
It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.
They will compete in those ways in a competition model. In a "net neutrality" model, they'll get to be "good enough" and that will be it. That's what happens with regulated utilities.
You’ll have to explain that a bit more in detail - I’m failing to see how allowing ISPs to decide what data is preferred actually increases competition between ISPs to offer a better product than what they have now, and how this would actually increase competition.

Look at telephones. For 100 years Ma Bell was the quintessential regulated utility. How much innovation did we see? You had a land line and that was it. Then it was broken apart and a competitive model evolved. One justification for the breakup was that doing so was necessary in order for technological innovation to get into the market. How much innovation have we seen since then? Question, do you personally even have a land line?

Regulatory regimes serve to place huge barriers to entry for potential competitors. Remove those barriers to entry and you open up competition and innovation.

I'm not totally opposed to any form of regulation. In particular, where a provider has a monopoly, its actions should be scrutinized. I think pressure should be applied to any monopoly holder to open up and embrace competition. With as many means of delivery as we have--land line, coax, cell phone, satellite--spurring competition should not be hard.

People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

And I don't get this argument that big corporations are somehow evil but big bureaucrats aren't. Where are you going to find the angels to serve as bureaucratic regulators in your approach? And if you can't find any angels, why will it be any better?
12-19-2017 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #13
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 08:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 07:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.
It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.
I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.
There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.
It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.
They will compete in those ways in a competition model. In a "net neutrality" model, they'll get to be "good enough" and that will be it. That's what happens with regulated utilities.
You’ll have to explain that a bit more in detail - I’m failing to see how allowing ISPs to decide what data is preferred actually increases competition between ISPs to offer a better product than what they have now, and how this would actually increase competition.

Look at telephones. For 100 years Ma Bell was the quintessential regulated utility. How much innovation did we see? You had a land line and that was it. Then it was broken apart and a competitive model evolved. One justification for the breakup was that doing so was necessary in order for technological innovation to get into the market. How much innovation have we seen since then? Question, do you personally even have a land line?

Regulatory regimes serve to place huge barriers to entry for potential competitors. Remove those barriers to entry and you open up competition and innovation.

I'm not totally opposed to any form of regulation. In particular, where a provider has a monopoly, its actions should be scrutinized. I think pressure should be applied to any monopoly holder to open up and embrace competition. With as many means of delivery as we have--land line, coax, cell phone, satellite--spurring competition should not be hard.

People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

And I don't get this argument that big corporations are somehow evil but big bureaucrats aren't. Where are you going to find the angels to serve as bureaucratic regulators in your approach? And if you can't find any angels, why will it be any better?

I have a few things to take issue with in that response, but the one I want to focus on is how is net neutrality a barrier to entry? Is it a barrier to enter the ISP market? If so, how? If it isn’t, what market is it creating that barrier in?
12-19-2017 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #14
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 02:52 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

No. Anti-competitive practices are already prohibited by antitrust and related legislation. What the misnamed "net neutrality" power grab does is empower a federal bureau to micromanage what's "fair and reasonable" -- including prohibiting people from doing things that are not blessed as "fair and reasonable". Who do you expect will the primary influencers and beneficiaries of what gets entrenched as "fair and reasonable"? Hint: it won't be consumers, or entrepreneurs, or innovators...

If you look at EVERY industry in which such a regime has been imposed, the result has been less innovation and less competition, not more. This should surprise no one. The fact that it continually surprises some folks is mind-boggling.

The fact that this is your argument is mind boggling. Explain to me how net neutrality would cause or result in less innovation for any industry outside of ISPs. I have no idea how a rule that states ISPs can’t favor one person over the other would negatively effect internet users - that this could somehow stymie an entrepreneur who is trying to use the internet to disrupt an industry through innovation.

That’s like suggesting that a federal law prohibiting toll roads from charging more for one type or brand of 2 axel vehicle would result in less innovation.

No, it's like suggesting that a federal law empowering a five-man commission to pass judgment on all aspects of automobile transportation would result in less innovation. Which it would.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All of a sudden Ford could start lobbying for toll roads to charge more for Teslas, etc.

That very scenario is proof positive of the dangers of regulatory power, not its virtues.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The repeal of the rule opens the door for ISPs to favor companies who can pay for favor, crack down on content they don’t like, and, in general, have a bit more control over their customers, who are not always able to use a competiting ISP, than they should.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue at stake isn't just one particular rule, but the more fundamental question of whether the internet should be primarily a creature of regulation, or not. Yes, a common-carrier regulatory regime may allow a particular regulation that you like, but it also creates a permanent regime that will inevitably impose regulations and entrench practices that you won't like. In the medium and long run, that "cure" is much worse than any alleged disease. Moreover, the "disease" which everyone is currently exercised about is at worst a temporary condition that will heal on its own through natural innovation.

Exploratory chest surgery is not a wise prescription for a common cold.
12-19-2017 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #15
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.
12-19-2017 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Net Neutrality
I see no reason for optimism that the telecoms will freely compete. Their behavior throughout their history has been oligarchic.
12-19-2017 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,536
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #17
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.


I really don't understand this issue well. But if George and Numbers are on the same side, that is the side I favor.
12-19-2017 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #18
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 09:51 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 02:52 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.

No. Anti-competitive practices are already prohibited by antitrust and related legislation. What the misnamed "net neutrality" power grab does is empower a federal bureau to micromanage what's "fair and reasonable" -- including prohibiting people from doing things that are not blessed as "fair and reasonable". Who do you expect will the primary influencers and beneficiaries of what gets entrenched as "fair and reasonable"? Hint: it won't be consumers, or entrepreneurs, or innovators...

If you look at EVERY industry in which such a regime has been imposed, the result has been less innovation and less competition, not more. This should surprise no one. The fact that it continually surprises some folks is mind-boggling.

The fact that this is your argument is mind boggling. Explain to me how net neutrality would cause or result in less innovation for any industry outside of ISPs. I have no idea how a rule that states ISPs can’t favor one person over the other would negatively effect internet users - that this could somehow stymie an entrepreneur who is trying to use the internet to disrupt an industry through innovation.

That’s like suggesting that a federal law prohibiting toll roads from charging more for one type or brand of 2 axel vehicle would result in less innovation.

No, it's like suggesting that a federal law empowering a five-man commission to pass judgment on all aspects of automobile transportation would result in less innovation. Which it would.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All of a sudden Ford could start lobbying for toll roads to charge more for Teslas, etc.

That very scenario is proof positive of the dangers of regulatory power, not its virtues.

(12-19-2017 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The repeal of the rule opens the door for ISPs to favor companies who can pay for favor, crack down on content they don’t like, and, in general, have a bit more control over their customers, who are not always able to use a competiting ISP, than they should.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue at stake isn't just one particular rule, but the more fundamental question of whether the internet should be primarily a creature of regulation, or not. Yes, a common-carrier regulatory regime may allow a particular regulation that you like, but it also creates a permanent regime that will inevitably impose regulations and entrench practices that you won't like. In the medium and long run, that "cure" is much worse than any alleged disease. Moreover, the "disease" which everyone is currently exercised about is at worst a temporary condition that will heal on its own through natural innovation.

Exploratory chest surgery is not a wise prescription for a common cold.

So it isn't the actual net neutrality regulation you impose, but rather you view it as a slippery slope issue? That the requirement for ISPs to treat all content as equal will lead to further government regulations?

If that's the case, isn't any and all regulation bad? Everything from drinking water standards, to emission standards, to safety standards, etc?
12-19-2017 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,641
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #19
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.

Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.

Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history

In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.

From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.

In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).

Remember, net neutrality also applies to mobile networks, which are essentially ISPs nowadays.
12-19-2017 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: Net Neutrality
(12-19-2017 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 09:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  People ask me if I am comfortable leaving the Internet to big corporations. When the alternative is Big Brother, you betcha. Very.
Indeed. It is often said that corporations are motivated only by their self-interest. History makes pretty clear that a powerful entity motivated by its own self-interest is much less dangerous than one motivated by perceived public good.
Examples of net neutrality, would-be infringements prior to the ruling being put in place:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/2...ef-history
In 2005, Comcast secretly blocked P2P services. That same year an ISP in North Carolina blocked Vonage from being able to be used.
From 2007-2009 AT&T forcing Apple to block Skype from being able to use the cellular networks because they had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and didn't want that work around to be possible.
In 2011 AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon worked to block the inclusion of Google Wallet because they wanted to support Isis (no, really, Isis was a digital wallet that these companies helped develop).
Remember, net neutrality also applies to mobile networks, which are essentially ISPs nowadays.

Remember, my approach is to push competition and innovation. So these are things that my approach would address.

Remember also that the strongest ally to any company seeking to block competition is the existence of a strict regulatory structure.
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2017 10:26 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-19-2017 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.