
Why I don't support Net Neutrality - bifrost
http://think-liberty.com/2017/11/26/dont-support-net-neutrality/
======
mbesto
> _On top of that, there are articles going around like
> these:[https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-
> vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-
> brief-history) …listing situations that have taken place where it’s claimed
> that net neutrality was violated.

I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly_

And then the author doesn't address AT&T blocking Skype, Comcast blocking P2P,
Telecoms blocking Google Wallet, and on and on.

This is basically an article of whataboutisms. "ISP's aren't the problem with
Freedom of Speech, companies are". Ya but if a private company (Facebook,
Google, etc) blocks dissenting opinions, we can simply chose to read/visit
another site. That's the point. If your ISP blocks a site, you don't have the
choice to get another ISP.

~~~
paulddraper
> you don't have the choice to get another ISP

Patently false.

Of the several million developed US census blocks, 100% have multiple ISPs
offering 10Mbps+. [1]

In fact, I daresay it is _easier_ to switch your ISP than to switch your
social network. The hooplah around NN is an effective distraction; ISPs aren't
even close to being the monopoly to worry about.

[1]
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf)

~~~
epicide
They should have put "you don't have a REAL choice to get another ISP".

10Mbps would not be enough for me nor most of my (even non-technical) family
members.

Beyond that, the ones that do offer faster speeds have a cap that I would go
past pretty much every month. I even live in a fairly sizeable city. If I had
another realistic option than cable, I would've already taken it.

The issue comes from the fact that a lot of ISPs are, for reasons above,
basically monopolies. This is, by itself, a really bad thing™. Lack of NN just
lets them blackmail everybody from both sides on top of having practically 0
competition.

EDIT: your link actually shows you're wrong. The graph on page 6 (which I
assume you're referring to) shows that 100% have multiple choices of 3+ Mbps,
not 10+. 10+ only has 97%. Sure, it's only 3%, but that's still not 100% and
not "patently false".

In that document, they don't mention prices, anywhere.

Also, on that same page, they mention:

> A provider that reports offering service in a particular census block may
> not offer service, or service at that speed, to all locations in the census
> block. Accordingly, the number of providers shown in Figure 4 does not
> necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular
> household and does not purport to measure competition.

~~~
paulddraper
> 10Mbps would not be enough for me nor most of my (even non-technical) family
> members.

!!!

I won't say that is impossible to use that much.

But Netflix -- who, if anything, is pressured to overestimate -- advises only
_half_ that speed for streaming high-definition video. [1]

Twenty dial-up modems is more than enough to make for a workable internet,
outside of 3+ HD video streams, downloading disk images, etc.

[1]
[https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306)

~~~
epicide
I know of several homes where more than one Netflix stream is common, then
throw in a Twitch/YouTube stream on top of that. Realistically, you don't
always see speeds at what you pay for (especially during peak hours). At least
I don't. So, I think it makes sense to pad your max speeds a bit.

As far as 20 dial-up modems: I don't see where you get 20 from or even why
that comparison matters. We aren't just using geocities and AIM anymore.

~~~
paulddraper
Sorry, 20 was a typo. I meant 200 modems, which is the equivalent of 10mbps.

------
preinheimer
I was enthusiastic when I saw the title, I'd love to read an impassioned plea
by someone against net neutrality.

I don't think this article is it.

Net Neutrality would guarantee ISPs that blocked access to union websites
would be fined[1].

Yes Net Neutrality would stop cheap plans like those offered in Portugal. But
it would mean that a new messaging app would have a chance of finding
traction, since it wouldn't need to convince every prospective user to start
paying more for their Internet first.

Net Neutrality would not solve the problem of consumers having 0-2 choices
when it comes to ISPs. Solving that would require laying millions of miles of
new copper/fiber or somehow relieving those ISPs of their buried assets and
making them communal property. Most problems can't be easily solved, so we
settle for managing the symptoms.

[1] - [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-
access-t...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-
pro-union-website-1.531166)

~~~
eli
More realistically, it would make it impossible to start a new video streaming
service or VoIP provider. Especially when the large ISPs own the or have
partnerships with the entrenched competition.

------
glassrye
Hilariously, without Net Neutrality, this particular article might never been
seen...

~~~
sremani
The net-neutrality rules are put in place in 2014 by Obama administration. I
am pretty sure, without so called "net-neutrality" regulation this site
existed and been read.

~~~
clavalle
No, net neutrality rules have been around since 2004. Before that there wasn't
much need because dial-up was regulated as a telephone service which have had
their own neutrality regulatioins since forever.

Those early rules were largely voluntary but the FCC did take companies to
court to enforce them with varying levels of success. It was this variability
and a judicial erosion of what was considered permissible along with some
fairly egregious shenanigans by internet service providers that pushed the
Obama administration to formally reclassify broadband as a telecommunication
service to put back in place net neutrality rules that stood before in the
days of dial-up.

------
jstewartmobile
Most libertarians I know are good people that I'm proud to know. At the same
time, it's like they just skipped over the entire history of the late 19th /
early 20th century.

We had immensely powerful private entities short-circuiting the avenues of
democratic self-government (just like we do now!), and it took TR--a
Republican, not a commie--to point the finger and _do something_ about it. Of
course, bring any of that up with them and they'll just quote one of their
Austrian school bone-readers back at you as though they have just refuted you
with pure logic. And even worse, Democrats and Republicans clearly worship at
the same altar, just in a quieter way.

It's like people have more faith in questionable econometrics than in any
innate sense of justice. Until something shakes the mainstream faith in money-
money-money, the situation is going to get much worse before it gets any
better.

~~~
randyrand
I'm quite libertarian but also against monopolies and pro trust-busting.

Some people think these two positions are at odds with each other. I happen to
think it's the exact opposite. A large monopoly with complete control is not
too different than the absolute control of an overbearing government --
something libertarians are quite against.

~~~
jstewartmobile
It's probably time for new ideas. Clinton administration to present has shown
that regulatory agencies are very easy to capture. "Hands off" hasn't worked
that well either. The senior citizens who rule us are just going to keep
squabbling over the same busted ideas that were popular back when they were
still sexually relevant. It is going to be a long ride...

------
trentnix
I also find myself to be skeptical of Net Neutrality. But I should be clear
that I want the same end result as those who are pro-net neutrality - a
transparent, fair, and working Intenet.

I just simply don't trust the government to be the arbiter of that, and I
don't trust a regulatory agency to be making wholesale decisions regarding the
enforcement of Net Neutrality or regulating speech on the Internet.

That doesn't mean that the government has no responsibility to enforce fair
trade and transparent advertising. And it doesn't mean that ISPs are angels
with customer interests in mind.

I want purchasing options with a transparent understanding of what I'm
purchasing and clear expectations on what's being delivered. And I want
elected officials making laws that determine any regulation of the web, not an
agency that allows elected officials to hide behind it's regulatory fiat.

While you may not like the idea of the market correcting bad behavior, I find
the government is even worse (and slower) at correcting bad behavior (and it
is almost always overcorrects).

~~~
okreallywtf
I see this kind of sentiment a lot, and while I can kind of get where it is
coming from can you cite some specific examples to back up your skepticism
about the government as a regulator? Can you cite any examples where the
government was doing a bad job of regulating and got out of the way and it
improved? I'm honestly not sure what other options there are in many cases.
Who else is going to do it? Just because government isn't working (I imagine
it is working in a lot that we don't have to think about exactly because it
_is_ doing what it is supposed to do), doesn't mean that it can't work or it
isn't the best tool we have.

Its nice to think "let the market handle it", and maybe in some cases that is
true but there are pretty clear examples where that isn't true (like power
generation and distribution). I could easily blame the government for the
issues this causes in my state where the power company is far too powerful and
lobbies to effectively, giving them too much sway over the government. Is that
"the governments" fault or is it the fault of the people for not holding the
government accountable for not looking out for the interest of the people
enough?

I feel like those of us with cynical feelings about the government have a
tendency to sit back and gripe but then not actually do anything to make it
work better. I think that if we aren't actively trying to make the government
better and work for us, we really don't have much room to complain (and I
include myself in this because that has been me for quite a while, aside from
voting and giving the bare minimum of thought to it I haven't really done
anything useful).

If we sit back and let whoever wants to run things run things we can't be
surprised when we don't like what we get. At the end of the day the government
is what we want it to be and how badly we want it to be that. Garbage in
garbage out.

------
Zarathust
"ISPs are not too big to compete with because Google can do it" is not a valid
argument.

~~~
freedomben
I think you missed the point there wrt Google.

> The most expensive part? Litigating the ability to share real estate on
> telephone poles with companies like AT&T and Comcast. This privilege granted
> to the ISP’s is granted by local government regulations. Thanks to these
> regulations, Google Fiber was only able to upgrade 33 of 88,000 telephone
> poles in Nashville.

He/she is making the point that net neutrality addresses the symptom, not the
cause. The cause is government regulation in the first place, so net
neutrality is regulation to fix a problem created by regulation (not
necessarily my position, but that's what I get from the author).

~~~
Zarathust
If you had a large choice of ISPs, then Net Neutrality wouldn't be required.
It would come by default as the client could move from a restrictive ISP to a
less restrictive one.

Since there is virtually no competition in large parts of the world, it is
very important to force the single monopoly to behave in the interest of the
consumer with laws.

The regulations the author is talking about are not the same regulations that
enforce net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with sharing
telephone poles.

~~~
freedomben
I agree with you up until the last sentence. You are right that:

> The regulations the author is talking about are not the same regulations
> that enforce net neutrality.

But net neutrality _does_ have to with sharing telephone poles, because if
there were actually choice in ISP then net neutrality would not even be
necessary since a different ISP could come around offering a better more free
package. So in other words, he/she's advocating treating the cause rather than
the symptom.

------
sna1l
Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will
significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

~~~
smsm42
We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it
significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is
not so: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-
end-o...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-
neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world)
[http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040](http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040)

~~~
secabeen
In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history)

~~~
jkollross
Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major
threat in the 2000s.

------
thinkvinny
Hey everyone. I wrote the article, stumbled across this post. Thanks a lot for
your feedback, I appreciate it.

I just wanted to take a moment to address some of the things that were written
here.

Whataboutisms: The point isn't to divert, the point is to say that this is a
problem that exists WITH net neutrality in place. The point is, the argument
of free speech is being made a lot, and most of the arguments are overdramatic
hypotheticals, all while freedom of speech is being shut down under Net
Neutrality.

Our Instagram account: I know, it's shit-posty, but that's how you get people
to like your IG account. I don't make the rules, people love shitty memes.

Anyhow, this article is just why _I_ don't support net neutrality. I guess it
can seem like hand-waving, but that's not at all what my intention was. I did
as much research as I could on the matter, and I just didn't see enough that
convinced me keeping broadband under title 2 was a necessity. I had been
hearing a lot of arguments that didn't seem totally logical to me, so I
addressed some of them as best I could.

Thanks again for the feedback!

------
CapacitorSet
The way some arguments are exposed is... weird.

Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality”) boils down to
"People say X will happen without net neutrality, X is happening, so we may as
well let NN pass" [where X is "interruption of free speech"], while ignoring
that free speech is not a binary and that circumventing net neutrality can be
one way to deny free speech. Internet censorship is the most basic example of
such a situation.

Argument 2 relies on the concept that not only should users pay for their
bandwidth and services for theirs, but large services ought to pay once more
for their bandwidth w.r.t. "interconnection fees" \- but then again, the
sentence being discussed ("These ISPs are monopolies, and they need to be
regulated”) isn't relevant to NN.

Finally, when talking about Portugal he claims that "Portugal does have net
neutrality", when the screenshot above is in direct violation of NN as defined
in the link ("End-users should have the right to access and distribute
information and content, and to use and provide applications and services
without discrimination, via their internet access service.", Recital 6 of the
"BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality"). At best, he is relying on a weird
interpretation of this sentence, where "have the right to access" means "there
is at least one plan which does that". Besides, the existence of a European
regulation doesn't mean NN is enforced: the same regulation applies to Italy,
but I can buy a plan boasting "free social&chat" and 10 GB towards select
music services, through Telecom Italia no less ([https://www.tim.it/ricarica-
automatica](https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica)).

------
nkozyra
The responses here are a mix of whataboutism and hand-waving dismissals. But
let's say they're all 100% valid and well-argued. The conclusion of this still
wouldn't validate not supporting net neutrality. I will assume based on the
site's name the overarching reason is libertarianism. In which case why bother
with the dismissals? Isn't then the argument self-evident?

~~~
CalChris
I understand _libertarianism_. But I can't see an argument for or against net
neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the
political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian
Party platform:

 _As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to
sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others._

 _We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition
for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from
human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be
realized._

[https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/)

Yeah, they do mention corporations:

 _Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to
form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary
association._

But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for
reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian
bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in.

Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a
libertarian POV, from first principles.

~~~
Cyberdog
> Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality
> from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles.

Others can probably do it better, but I'll try.

The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this
legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first
principles against _any_ legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to
use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do
or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a
declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against
people doing or not doing certain behavior.

I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do
anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net
neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other
legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)

~~~
CalChris
_legislation is basically a declaration of a government 's intent to use its
monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior_

But you're talking about corporations which are already state created
entities. You've already bargained with the state to create this entity, the
purpose of which is to avoid personal liability for losses incurred by the
corporation. You got something in that bargain. You gave something up, too.

So you are applying liberatarianism with respect to something which is
inherently unlibertarian, the corporation. An example:

If Joe sells BigCorp $1M of widgets and BigCorp fails to pay and goes out of
business, Joe is without recourse against BigCorp's owners because it is a
corporation. There's a law ( _any legislation_ ) which prevents him from
getting his money.

You can't pick and choose. You're either a libertarian or you're not.
Libertarianism doesn't apply to corporations.

~~~
Cyberdog
> But you're talking about corporations which are already state created
> entities.

I wasn't specifically, but that's besides the point. From a fundamental
principle, libertarians don't want a government to designate and classify
collections of people and determine their legality, no. But regardless, if you
have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily
legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a
government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an
individual.

~~~
mindslight
> _But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we
> colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell
> libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its
> behavior any more than that of an individual._

You're actually reversing the directionality and stating the contrapositive -
being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be
shielded from government interference. For example, government bodies
themselves can be considered (and often are even legally constituted as)
corporations, and obviously libertarianism has much to say about constraining
those!

This is not simply an academic distinction - this entire debate hinges on
whether individuals actually have a choice between ISPs, or whether the local
ISP basically constitutes a de facto government. Furthermore, most incumbent
ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be
having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access.

~~~
Cyberdog
> being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be
> shielded from government interference.

 _Everything_ should be shielded from government interference. That's the
point.

> Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and
> privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market
> for Internet access.

Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks,
or monopoly privileges to ISPs or any other service providers.

~~~
mindslight
> _Everything should be shielded from government interference. That 's the
> point._

Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an
IRS that is unfettered by Congress.

> _Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax
> breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs._

The problem is that these things _have already been granted_ , and these
_government-founded_ corporations are basically wriggling out of their
charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.

~~~
Cyberdog
> Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an
> IRS that is unfettered by Congress.

"Libertarian IRS" has as much meaning as "vegan foie gras." I have no idea how
to parse this statement.

~~~
CalChris
Actually, the Romans put taxation up for bid, tax farming. Isn't that a
libertarian IRS? The winning bidder bid the highest rate and then was granted
the right to extract it from the province.

Cicero made his legal bones prosecuting Verres who had plundered Sicily. Yes,
it was a province but Sicilians were also Roman citizens and it was a Roman
province. Verres actually crucified Sicilians at the beach facing Rome. Not a
nice guy.

~~~
Cyberdog
I'm so confused. Are you saying that a libertarian society would permit people
to arbitrarily tax others? Because they gained the right to do so somehow?

Do you actually understand anything about libertarianism at all?

~~~
CalChris
I understand plenty about libertarianism. The Rome example was a digression
about taxation. In Rome, the taxman was not the state but rather a sole
proprietor more akin to a corporation. Did that make his over reach any
better? No.

I have no idea what a libertarian society would do since it is a theoretical
construct. You could have a libertarian city or even state but somehow
practice falls well short of theory. Y'all prefer to live here rather than
there. I too prefer to live here. Must be a reason for that.

You can't imagine a libertarian IRS. Yeah, well it does sound kinda funny. But
then I can't imagine a libertarian corporation either and again, I understand
plenty about libertarianism. I only understand Delaware C corporations in each
of the 50 states.

------
xupybd
Some things can't compete in open markets. Like roads, you're always going to
have a monopoly on the roads you want to use. This is similar with the local
loop there are massive problems with only one ISP operating in given areas,
meaning competition will not regulate the market. So I think the net may be
one of the few things you can't leave to the markets to produce the best
outcome for consumers.

------
gaelow
you lost me at not opening our platform to hate speech. Even for an open
minded person there must be limits. I keep remembering that quote: "If you
open your mind too much, your brain will fall out". They can build their hate
internet if they want. With blackjack, and hookers!

------
Pr0ducer
ISPs should be regulated under Title II, as they are common carriers, not
information services. I don't pay Comcast for information, I pay them for
access. It's like a phone line, but in modern times. Imagine if phone carriers
could do what ISPs are planning, where certain companies can pay for better,
faster phone connections, and everyone else gets the crappy maybe it works,
maybe it doesn't level of service. No one thinks that's ok. The internet isn't
a luxury, it's a necessity. Any limits on my ability to use it in any legal
manner I see fit is wrong.

------
elihu
> “Free speech will suffer without net neutrality” I’m not entirely sure what
> those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms
> of speech, as I’ve not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, ...

That's an easy one. ISPs may artificially degrade the quality of service to or
block some sites and not others depending on whether the ISP agrees with the
content on that site, whether the owners of the site give the ISP a kickback,
or a host of other non-technical reasons.

It seems like the author of the article hasn't made a reasonable effort to
understand the opposing viewpoint.

~~~
thinkvinny
No, I understand, but this is also an overdramatic hypothetical. My point in
the article was that this is actually happening under Net Neutrality, from
private companies doing it. I do not believe it's wise to support the
government control of broadband internet not being repealed, as an attempt to
try and solve a problem that is clearly already not being solved while the
government has control of broadband internet.

------
cup
1st point: Private companies can already ban hate speech so net neutrality
won't change anything.

2nd point: An ISP failed to invest in the infrastructure it needed to provide
the service it promised but something something net neutrality.

3rd point: Companies should be regulated, but not by the government. They
should be sued, by the people.

Honestly.. this kind of drivel is so tiring. Can libertarians please go away,
or at least stop using resources and infrastructure that only exists because
of public funding and government intervention.

~~~
fleitz
A lot of it also exists because of capitalism, it's a symbiotic relationship.
Capitalism produces more wealth which a government can tax to provide more
infrastructure for capitalism to occur which produces more wealth.

Although this is one area where the interstate commerce clause seems to
genuinely apply it would be interesting to see what would happen with some
areas following NN and some areas not and what results...

I think the real key here is that gov't regulation is not a good substitute
for genuinely competitive markets.

------
s73ver_
It seems like far too many of their counter arguments seem to boil down to,
"This isn't already happening here, so we don't have to worry about it." If we
don't want to worry about it, and we don't want those things to happen, then
we should just keep the regulations in place. If you support repealing the
regulations, then you support the idea of these things becoming reality, and
surely expect it.

------
jotm
That Portugal example... you realize it's the same in several countries,
including the UK?

The difference being that Net Neutrality exists in EU, and instead of an
"unlimited" package being much more expensive, it is the lesser packages that
are cheaper. Subtle, I guess, but big difference.

Most consumers don't give a fuck though, which is really bad.

~~~
thinkvinny
Right, but nothing is being restricted. They have a plan that will give you
everything, just like we have now. But then, they ALSO have plans, that cost
substantially less, that only give you a smaller portion. It is a way to
anticipate user behavior and offer solutions at affordable rates based on
bandwidth use. There is no one forcing anything here, they're simply offering
different plans based on use, while still offering the traditional plans, and
that's exactly why it's not a net neutrality violation.

------
dreamcompiler
In the absence of both competition and regulation, corporations will never act
benevolently toward their customers. One or the other is necessary to keep
capitalism ethical.

------
s73ver_
Also, Google fiber coming into existence only benefited those in the markets
where Google was threatening to enter. Everywhere else, the incumbent ISPs
were content to rest on their laurels.

~~~
okreallywtf
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, that seems accurate to me. In my
area when google announced they were going to build out here all the sudden my
bandwidth got doubled for no charge and AT&T started pushing their fiber
expansion hard. They probably had planned to do these things _at some point_
but I got the distinct feeling they were trying to consolidate their power
before google fiber came and ate their lunch. They ended up scaling back their
offerings geographically so I was never able to get it but I have no doubt it
pushed my bandwidth up faster than it would have been otherwise.

------
rhcom2
This reads like blogspam. Just a couple of very vapid points without anything
new to say.

