
F.C.C. Chairman Ponders Net Neutrality - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/business/with-perspective-from-both-sides-of-his-desk-fcc-chairman-ponders-net-neutrality.html?ref=technology
======
click170
I feel like there's not much more to be said at this point.

Almost every argument I've heard against Net Neutrality that isn't based on
"this is the way Peering agreements have always worked" and "its my network,
Ill do what I want" have been disproven, or have been shown to be straw-men.
Are there any new discussion points that haven't been debated to death?

The FCC Chairman himself has been involved with a company that was shutdown
due to lack of open access.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The strongest argument against network neutrality goes like this: If we had
real competition then we wouldn't need network neutrality.

And it's a completely valid argument. _If_ we had real competition _then_ we
wouldn't need network neutrality.

But we don't have real competition. So the only sensible thing to do is to
have network neutrality until and unless that changes.

~~~
fredo699
I am completely against net neutrality. The problem I have is that people
think it's a solution rather than a stop-gap. The problem is still,
ultimately, that we have monopolies at play. That's the real issue. But for
some reason, all of this effort and energy has been focused on getting net
neutrality, rather than fixing the actual problem.

I also don't think that ISPs would ever do some of the things that people are
spreading fud about. I have serious doubts they would ever block certain sites
for business reasons. We already have laws against that. I doubt they'd ever
turn sites into a package you need a monthly access fee for either. People
don't like paying more for less. They'd never so blatantly piss off their
entire customer base like that when they really only stand to lose money. It's
much more in their favor to keep things working the way they are now, except
to allow some sites that need a lot of bandwidth the speeds they need.

~~~
bmelton
I'm honestly a little surprised that your comment isn't already gray, but
you've (more eloquently) expressed the view I've attempted to express at
numerous points in the past.

I very sincerely believe that the most rabid proponents for net neutrality are
overlooking the root cause of the issue, which is that the government has
created this system in which competition isn't really a viable option for the
immediate future.

As a libertarian, I agree with you 100%.

As a pragmatist, I (begrudgingly) acknowledge that because the system is
rigged, net neutrality is likely our only option to prevent the existing
telecoms from completely screwing over their customers (whichever end of the
pipe they happen to be on).

This was not a view I came to on my own, and it was an argument within the HN
community that enlightened me, but while I freely agree with your assertion
that a truly free market would certainly force the telecoms into being more
honest and forthright, I also, and regrettably agree with your assertion that
such a free market does not exist in this realm, as it has never been free of
the shackles that made it.

~~~
ajb
Suppose you have a market, to enter which you need to invest capital C. It you
get a monopoly, you get profits having net present value M, while if there is
competition the total profits from the market have net present value R, where
R<M. If R<C then a monopoly is inevitable, and it is likely even when R is
somewhat larger, because a new entrant can expect to get only a fraction of
the market.

It is true, of course, that government regulations can reduce R and therefore
make a monopoly more likely (or indeed by making some dumb exclusive deal).
But there is absolutely no reason that government _must_ be the cause. In
fact, since R<M there is always some C for which a monopoly is inevitable, and
we see this in the ISP market: in areas of low density population, C is
higher, and there is more likely to be a telco monopoly. Hence, neutrality
laws are likely to be needed anyway.

------
orthecreedence
"The results are in, amigo. What's left to ponder?"

Seriously though, it this just blatant corporate chronyism or what? It's
getting to the point where the corporate douchebags running this country
aren't even trying to hide the fact anymore. At least before we could
_pretend_ we had democratic process. Now we get trampled on day in day out and
we don't even get warm fuzzy feelings about it like we used to.

And is it just me, or is just about everyone "too busy" to even give a fuck
where the country is going?

~~~
snarfy
Why should they? They have no reason to fear the government, and rightly so as
we don't give them one.

------
smutticus
This article doesn't actually tell us anything. It's just a mini-bio of
Wheeler. Still it's good that the NYT is net neutrality in the news. We've got
to keep the pressure on these people.

If you have had a terrible experience with Comcast another operator lately,
especially if they're denying you service, file a complaint with the FCC.

[http://www.fcc.gov/complaints](http://www.fcc.gov/complaints)

------
stevenh
Same content sans absurd paywall.

[http://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/headlines/2014...](http://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/headlines/20140928-with-
perspective-from-both-sides-fcc-chairman-ponders-net-neutrality.ece)

------
angrymonk
I would like to take this moment to thank everyone for giving the Internet to
FCC on a platter. May FCC be the benevolent masters and we be their dutiful
servants.

~~~
brandonmenc
They'll likely never relinquish control, and only succeed in adding to their
Internet regulating duties.

This is the organization that considers a nipple slip unlawful television
content.

Didn't we spend the 90s worrying about exactly this? What one hand giveth...

------
jostmey
It will be disgusting if the FCC does not side with the will of the populous.

So why hasn't a decision been reached? Quite simply Tom Wheeler is letting his
name shine in the public spotlight to build political clout.

~~~
deciplex
"populace"

------
edlebert
Gee, I wonder how it will all go down. I mean, all those people supported
comcast by _not_ sending comments to the FCC, right?

