Net Neutrality struck down again.

[GURPS]

Open Internet order loses. Net Neutrality struck down again.


You see, back in the Clinton years, a bill passed with bipartisan support that freed the Internet from burdensome regulation. It was called the Telecommunications Act, and its specifically separated information services from telecommunications services, disallowing the FCC from imposing the same degree of regulations on Internet services that they can on the Phone company.

This was important in the debate before the Open Internet order, because Net Neutrality had already been ruled illegal in the Comcast case. So the radical left had argued that the FCC should wave a magic wand and declare that Internet service providers are no longer information services, and are now phone companies, and so should be reclassified as such.

Today’s decision in Verizon v FCC rests on the classification of ISPs as being information services, as envisioned by the Telecommunications Act, which again was passed by Newt Gingrich’s House and signed by Bill Clinton. That’s how much of a common-sense thing it used to be, to have a lightly-regulated Internet.

But having lost in court twice without Title II Reclassification, I do expect them to try that trick next time. And here’s one fact that should concern us about that: Gigi Sohn, formerly of pro-reclassification Public Knowledge (in fact she previously criticized reclassification plans for not going far enough), is now an advisor to new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

As it should be.

More government force is never the answer.

 

[GURPS]

As it should be.

More government force is never the answer.

You Obviously are not a Progressive

 

[Tilted]

FCC will not appeal defeat in Verizon internet access case

 

[koan00]

As it should be.

More government force is never the answer.

So instead of having the government (which we at least have some limited input to) exert some control in our favor, we instead give all control to an oligarchy motivated solely by profits.

How is that better ?

 

[koan00]

Looks like the fight isnt over yet FCC will set new net neutrality rules - Computerworld

 

[LibertyBeacon]

So instead of having the government (which we at least have some limited input to) exert some control in our favor, we instead give all control to an oligarchy motivated solely by profits.

How is that better ?

You've never built a company, have you?

Don't you think if you put your blood, sweat, and tears into building a successful company you'd have every right to determine what kinds of packetized data is and is not allowed on your wires and what priority you give it?

Government force is never OK in my book.

 

[abcxyz]

It was called the Telecommunications Act, and its specifically separated information services from telecommunications services, disallowing the FCC from imposing the same degree of regulations on Internet services that they can on the Phone company.

Since that worked out so well for them. Now we are back to a handful of phone companies like it use to be.

Every thing the .gov regulates goes down the toilet. Phone companies, airlines, health care...

 

[GURPS]

I think the Internet has been largely successful, because of the lack of Gov. interference


but as companies lose business because the method of communication changes - ie email instead of phone calls or LD using Internet instead of POTS Lines



sidenote:
anyone remember the USPS Stink over Fax Machines when they became popular and mail volume dropped

 

[koan00]

You've never built a company, have you?

Don't you think if you put your blood, sweat, and tears into building a successful company you'd have every right to determine what kinds of packetized data is and is not allowed on your wires and what priority you give it?

Government force is never OK in my book.

You have never built and internet have you? If you had, you'd know the people that actually created the internet are proponents of net neutrality.

It's not like these companies built the internet and now the govt is trying to jump them. It was not built buy these companies. It was built with public resources for the publics consumption.

It was also built on on a set of core principles which these few companies are trying to throw out to create an artificial barrier to limit new entrants to the market.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

It's not like these companies built the internet and now the govt is trying to jump them. It was not built buy these companies. It was built with public resources for the publics consumption.

It was also built on on a set of core principles which these few companies are trying to throw out to create an artificial barrier to limit new entrants to the market.

Right. You do have a point, actually. Probably not the one you intended to make, but a point nonetheless. This is a heavily regulated market, with monopolistic companies protected by the force of government. Government should step aside completely and allow this to be the domain of free market forces.

In other words: the solution to a problem created by government is not MORE government.

Take some time to wrap your head around that.

 

[koan00]

Government should step aside completely and allow this to be the domain of free market forces.

So the government, whom has used tax payer money to create the internet, should now step aside and allow the 'free market' to gouge the American people?

How exactly would the government step aside? Just leave the oligarchy in place and allow them the exploit their advantage? Split them up ma bell like (*gasp* government overreach!)?

While free market principles may apply well to some markets, this is certainly not one of them.

 

[GURPS]

So the government, whom has used tax payer money to create the internet, should now step aside and allow the 'free market' to gouge the American people?

yes at one time the Gov paid for the connectivity under Darpa

1969

Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. (BBN) awarded Packet Switch contract to build Interface Message Processors (IMPs) in January US Senator Edward Kennedy sends a congratulatory telegram to BBN for its million-dollar ARPA contract to build the "Interfaith" Message Processor, and thanking them for their ecumenical efforts ARPANET commissioned by DoD for research into networking

Nodes are stood up as BBN builds each IMP [Honeywell DDP-516 mini computer with 12K of memory]; AT&T provides lines bundled to 50kbps

Node 1: UCLA (30 August, hooked up 2 September)
Function: Network Measurement Center
System,OS: SDS SIGMA 7, SEX
Diagram of the first host to IMP connection

​

connectivity was still over private lines

History of the Internet

In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was standardized, and consequently, the concept of a world-wide network of interconnected TCP/IP networks, called the Internet, was introduced. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. Commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

private business provide and maintain connectivity ... NOT the FED

 

[LibertyBeacon]

So the government, whom has used tax payer money to create the internet, should now step aside and allow the 'free market' to gouge the American people?

How exactly would the government step aside? Just leave the oligarchy in place and allow them the exploit their advantage? Split them up ma bell like (*gasp* government overreach!)?

While free market principles may apply well to some markets, this is certainly not one of them.

Why is the free market not a good model for delivery of packetized television programming? Try to elucidate without using big scary words like "oligarchy".

Yes, there was taxpayer funding. But what should that mean in perpetuity? You believe the force of government should be used to prevent us from being "gouged". What, precisely, constitutes a "gouge"? Maybe the government should set a price ceiling. How would that be? Hell, why not demand it be made free for all of us? Go big or go home, baby! I mean you're already advocating for the force of government, why not go all the way? Force is force, there's no substantive difference between a little force and a lot of force when it comes to government.

And while there has been taxpayer funding at some point to develop the internet, today's delivery infrastructure has been funded by the companies who provide the service. They own and run the routers, switches, load balancers, storage capability, etc. They get to call the shots. Period. Just like it has always been, as GURPS points out.

Consumption of these services, of this content is a privilege you must pay for. I would much rather live in an economic system where my dollars can be traded for a service from which I get value than one where my government forces the markets to behave in a particular way.

 

[koan00]

Why is the free market not a good model for delivery of packetized television programming?

Because there will be no competition. Just like we see in cell service, once there are a few entrenched players, they all collude to keep prices high.

Also, the government will always be involved because everyone accesses the internet over a cable in a public right of way or via public air spectrum. This is a shared resource the people own. It's our right to say how it's used. If the government is always involved, we can't really have a free market can we?

Moving on to your straw man argument. Quite impressive.

You still didn't answer my question: How would the government withdrawn successfully from this market?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Because there will be no competition. Just like we see in cell service, once there are a few entrenched players, they all collude to keep prices high.

Uh huh. And why is there no competition? How did that situation come to be?

Is that the free market at work? Is that the natural state of things in this line of business? No, of course not. It came to be the same way that utilities, phone companies, etc. came to be: these things were carved out by states and local municipalities to their cronies and then justified after the fact as "natural monopolies" that require heavy government regulation.

From your perspective, I do see your point. Government is tipping the scales, if you will, to create a situation that ostensibly isn't very friendly to consumers. And so, all else held constant, the only way to fix that is having the government come in to "protect the customer". Be careful what you wish for. In the end, all that will do is make the internet less free, more censored, and guarantee a less competitive environment.

 

[BOP]

They're going to keep trying...and trying...and trying. Like Charles Manson going up for parole every year (or whatever the interval is), eventually, he'll get sprung, and so will "net neutrality."