

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality - jason_tko
http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/

======
T-R
> This is ONLY a debate about whether control over our access should be in the
> hands of Internet Service Provider companies (ISPs) or… the Government.

As far as I'm aware, no one wants government to regulate the internet - Net
Neutrality supporters just want rules saying that ISPs can't regulate it
either. The issue of censorship is irrelevant, and could even be made
explicitly so, if that's what legislators who oppose Net Neutrality are
actually worried about.

> [ISPs] are regulated by YOU!

Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of
entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to
abuse their market position for fun and profit.

> who’s regulating the FCC?

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

> which hypothetical scenario is more likely? The FCC overstepping its current
> authority, or ISPs delivering services that its customers are not happy
> about?

... I'm speechless.

> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.

And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".

~~~
sigil
> Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of
> entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to
> abuse their market position for fun and profit.

Which areas do you have in mind? "The FCC’s own data shows that as of June
2008, 98 percent of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of
zip codes have at least 4 broadband providers."

And given the trend of increased access identified in that FCC report, what
leads you to suppose things are likely to stay a certain way?

>> who’s regulating the FCC? > The executive, legislative, and judicial
branches.

Except the judicial branch, which the FCC decided to ignore after it started
ruling the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the net. And except the
executive branch, which already supports regulation of the net. It's a damn
good thing we have three.

------
mindslight
This (terribly wordy) article makes about 2 decent points:

1\. The FCC is more than happy to step in and assume the power to regulate the
internet, as every entity desires growth.

2\. The more ISPs have to play to politics game, the more they will suck up to
power, and look for ways to appease that power (ie gradual censorship).

To actually convince anyone, I'd suggest cutting most of the hyperbole and
trimming up the salient points. In addition:

3\. Communication has always been tiered between bundles of lowest-common-
denominator services, and general net access. Past innovations were driven by
modems (at least $20/mo on top of a landline), while the masses had only
dialtone.

4\. Don't be scared by graphics showing lots of hypothetical pricing options,
the highest priced tier (what one currently considers "standard") will be the
standard $20-$40 more than the budget tier. (A quick litmus test as to whether
something qualifies as internet access is whether it allows ssh/vpn. And there
will always be internet access available, barring it being made illegal, in
which case government certainly isn't the _remedy_ )

4\. The more non-packagable applications there are in _widespread_ use, the
more common the demand for standard commodity access. Bittorrent and VPN are
quite embedded.

5\. If you are worried about net neutrality, work at a _local_ level. Cities
_already_ have the power to regulate who strings wires on public land, and can
even build out public infrastructure! The incumbents have been somewhat
successful scaring off community fiber projects, but they won't win that
battle indefinitely.

------
Xuzz
Funny that this is posted the same day that we see this from MetroPCS:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797>

~~~
judd-hustlebear
I don't see anything at all wrong with the Metro PCS offering. If you want any
of their options, you're getting a fair deal. Completely unlimited internet
access is still being offered, so no one is actually restricted or harmed.

------
jbooth
First two sentences:

"Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are
DEMANDING Net Neutrality."

I stopped reading there. Based on the other comments, looks like I didn't miss
much.

If you're doing this hacky a job of writing, you're either out of ideas and
need to hit a deadline, you're getting a backhander from someone, or both.

------
jlizard
Both sides say they want to keep the Internet free and open. Which side is
lying?

~~~
wmf
I don't think anybody is necessarily lying, but you might ask which side has
actual experience in D.C.

------
itistoday
Lot of nonsense in this article:

 _> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984._

I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who
protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget?

THE GOVERNMENT.

Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-
kids drink?

THE GOVERNMENT.

I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful _regulation_ known as
the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole
purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and
"CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or
[insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to
throw these elected representatives out.

Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like
free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because
that's how you protect the nation as a whole.

~~~
1337p337
In what way has the government protected freedom of speech? The first
amendment is about stopping the government from restricting speech, and it's
only when the government restricts speech that there's even a reason. In fact,
the government tries time and again to restrict speech, and if they decide,
collectively, to block it, there's no recourse besides moving to another
country.

You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering
congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto
laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains,
you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did
these, and keeps doing them, and I don't know which government you're watching
if you think that these elected officials and unelected bureaucrats shouldn't
be kept on the shortest leash possible.

The Bill of Rights regulates no one but the government itself. The government
has two roles: to keep others from infringing on my rights, and to keep its
nose out of my damned business unles I infringe on others'. It's doing a lousy
job, but that's a different issue.

There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I
want. They can keep me from doing it on land they own or with resources they
own, but that's fine. I don't want them to be able to freely use my resources
without my consent, either. That's the concept of private property. But I can
get a bullhorn and run down to city hall and yell, I can publish a newspaper,
I can create a blog. If $company_x doesn't want to host my blog, I can get
$company_y to do it. If my government can stop me on a whim, though, then I'm
screwed.

(Edit: typos, damnable phone, it's trying to censor me.)

~~~
T-R
I agree with you that government should be kept on a short leash, for the
reasons you state, but we don't want to strangle it, either - Government has a
job to keep others from infringing on your rights. If ISPs are free to
regulate traffic, then they have the power to strangle the business of a
content provider by preventing their customers from accessing the content.
Even if you argue that customers have chosen their infrastructure provider,
how is the infrastructure provider not infringing on the rights of the content
provider, which doesn't even do business with them?

~~~
1337p337
I agree that the government's job is to keep others from infringing on
individual rights, but I don't see a content provider's rights being violated.
Let's say Verizon starts offering "everything on the net except NetFlix" as a
package. They're not obligated to carry any traffic they don't want, and
there's no law that stops them from blocking that traffic right now. They
don't do it because they'd lose tons of customers; this is one evil thing that
they have an incentive not to do. (If _all_ ISPs, or even all ISPs in a given
area do this, then rights are violated, and they'd get slapped with violations
of the RICO Act; that's a different matter, though.) They lose money if they
do it. What if the FCC decides to kill off NetFlix, though? The downside for
them is that somewhere down the line (still waiting for this in the case of
the DMCA...) a judge tells them they can't.

Let's say it's fine for the FCC (or another government entity) to do this,
though. What if I run open WiFi, but I block bittorrent traffic? Have I
violated my neighbors' rights? I think I can do what I want with my pipe, but
would this be under the FCC's authority? I'm not a business, sure, but what
about the WiFi at, say, Starbucks? I trust a non-monopoly much more than I
trust a government, which has a de facto monopoly over imposing its will by
force on the populace.

Built into the laws of this country is an inherent mistrust of the
government., the idea that authority over the populace has a corrupting
influence, and that it should be kept limited to the extent possible. You hope
for the best (a benevolent set of leaders) but plan for the worst (a power-
hungry group of totalitarians). The Constitution's plan for the worst is to
avoid trusting in our leaders' benevolence and keep them from getting enough
rope to string us up. It's what I love about this country.

I think most of the commenters here agree on that principle, so I would like
to apologize as it seems I've been a little abrasive, and we're all on the
same side here (at least apparently). But I am secure in my belief that the
government is too big already and its authority needs to be reduced, not
expanded in any direction.

~~~
T-R
We are really all on the same side - the concern on both sides is about
centralizing power. Your concern is that we're giving government too much
power, mine is that we're trading government power for corporate power, and we
each see the power we grant as mitigated somehow - either by the 3 branches of
government, or by the free market, and neither has faith in the other's
mitigating force.

Starbucks free WiFi is an excellent point, which sheds light on the underlying
philosophical debate. If an organization provides a resource (WiFi, water, a
job), but only to a select group of their choosing, at what point do we call
it supplying a service, and at what point do we call it discriminatory
starvation? Is the glass half full, or half empty?

If there's competition, it's moot, but if there isn't any, we're giving the
single supplier complete power over distribution (slippery slope to plutocracy
argument). If we ban discrimination, it's also moot, but then we're giving
government power to dictate rules for private organizations (slipperly slope
to fascism argument).

