RE: The War against the already Open Internet (Part 1)
I am amazed at how people arrive at the conclusions you make in your piece. The only think that is gauranteeing the type of open access to the Internet is net neutrality. And without using generalities: net neutrality establishes that the ISPs must treat all Internet traffice equally regardless of content. It is a content neutral regulation that prevents ISPs from curating, censoring, or favoring certain content over other content. So your argument is based on a premise of a regulatory regime that doesn't exist and is antithetical to the one that does.
You also make the incorrect assertion that the Internet we know and love developed without net neutrality. That is not exactly true. The FCC has always maintained that the ISPs had to treat Internet traffic equally and the ISPs did because they thought the FCC was authorized to regulate that aspect. In the early days the ISPs were also focused on building and expanding access and capacity. They weren't interested in competing with content producers so there were no issues. But now they are in direct competition and have incredible market incentives to abuse their gatekeeper roles. There are no market forces that would pevent them from abusing their regional monopolies except for net neutrality. I would rather have a governemnt agency oversseeing monopolistic companies that are annualy listed as the most hated companies in America. With the FCC we can resort to the Constitution, courts, the ballot box, and public pressure if they started going haywire and censoring content. What are you going to do if Comcast decides you have to pay as much for Netflix as you do for the cable tv subscription you are getting rid of? Are you going to drop Comcast? I doubt it because there probably is no other broadband provider in your area. If you are lucky enough to have two or more broadband providers you are one of very very few peope that do.
Two posts that will provide the reader with a accurate understanding of the issue:
https://steemit.com/politics/@digitalfirehose/how-to-re-frame-the-net-neutrality-debate
https://steemit.com/netneutrality/@matthew.allen/your-comprehensive-guide-to-why-we-should-preserve-net-neutrality
Fundamentally, thank you for your passion. While I disagree and will refute your assertions, I want you to know that this discourse is extremely healthy when people refrain from making personal attacks toward one another.
"The only think that is gauranteeing the type of open access to the Internet is net neutrality." <--- You mean the only thing guaranteeing "open access to the Internet" is government violence against any company that disagrees with following their rules. Effectively killing innovation and competition and raising prices.
"The FCC has always maintained that the ISPs had to treat Internet traffic equally and the ISPs did because they thought the FCC was authorized to regulate that aspect." <--- ISP's don't make assumptions about the law. It's either law or it's not. And since it's not, they don't need to pretend to behave in a certain way.
"What are you going to do if Comcast decides you have to pay as much for Netflix as you do for the cable tv subscription you are getting rid of?" <--- Seeing as this fear-mongering situation hasn't happened in the last several decades, I'm fairly safe in assuming it's not going to happen now. But if they were dumb enough to do this, I'm going to put blame where it belongs- my local government that prevented competition from reaching my neighborhood.
"I would rather have a governemnt agency oversseeing monopolistic companies" <--- Governments create monopolies.
Ok, first thanks for your introductory comments you are right...personal attacks do not help. As for the substance of your post and your reply - all you are doing is posting your libertarian idoelogical beliefs and trying to kind of superimposing them without accounting for the facts that inform the issue at hand: whether the FCC should repeal net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as Title I Information Service. Your arguments don't help because you don't have the facts, which is interesting because you start by criticizing proponents of net neutrality for using generalities. Your whole argument over the span of two postings is done in generalities and does not address the facts but instead is an appllication of ideology detached from the issue at hand. Read these two pieces to understand the issue:
https://steemit.com/politics/@digitalfirehose/how-to-re-frame-the-net-neutrality-debate
https://steemit.com/netneutrality/@matthew.allen/your-comprehensive-guide-to-why-we-should-preserve-net-neutrality
Thank you for the articles I read them but they still ignore the fundamental problems which were created by government in the first place.
In this 2013 Wired article, the author points out how local government is to blame for the lack of ISP competition:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
We don't need Net Neutrality. We need fewer zoning laws and fewer regulations.
Just a few more just to keep things balanced:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/19/net-neutrality-nothing-corporate-power-grab/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/01/court-correctly-rejects-rights-violating-net-neutrality-rules/
Redeemer,I read the articles you identified. On the issue of changes needed in order to increase competition we agree. But the here and now (specifically tomorrow) does not change the fact that ISPs have regional monopolies, have greater market incentives to capitalize on their gatekeeper roles by maximizing their ROI through network traffic "management", and would not be so hell bent on reversing net neutrality if they had no intention of implementing new pricing models that are based on manipulating network traffic.
That last part is an important observation. Ajit Pai and the ISPs are proclaiming as loudly as they can that (1) there is no history of ISPs abusing their role (which is false, remember that Title II reclassification came about because Comcast unilaterally blocked all BitTorrent traffic, challenging the then regulatory regime being used by the FCC to put net neutrality in place) and (2) that they will not be manipulating internet traffic between their networks, the Internet, and the consumer. In effect they are saying that it won't change anything. If so, then why the extreme efforts to reverse the policy in the face of overwhelming public opposition?
One has to look at the likely motivations of the actors in order to assess the veracity of their assertions and positions. It's like when one weighs climate science or the tobacco lobby. The ISPs without question are the only industy sector that will immediately reap the overwhelming benefits from getting rid of net neutrality; those benefits are maximizing revenue and profit generation from their network. And how do they do that? There are not that many viable options except for monetizing network traffic.
So my position is that until there is truly a competitive ISP market where consumers have choice and market competition incentivises a type of net neutrality without the need for government enforcement, the ISPs cannot be trusted to not abuse their monopolies, becasue if they truly don't intend to monetize network traffic, they would not be so hell bent on pursuing such an unpopular reform.
Ultimately, on the immediate need for net neutrality to stay in place we will have to agree to disagree. My frustration is that if my position were to prevail it would not increase the likelihood that the nightmare scenario I used earlier of Comast charging $15 to access Netflix coming about, whereas your positon does.
"My frustration is that if my position were to prevail it would not increase the likelihood that the nightmare scenario I used earlier of Comast charging $15 to access Netflix coming about, whereas your positon does." <--- In a decentralized, deregulated market, you can't claim to know the likelihood of anything. That said, we have a couple hundred of years government regulation to see that as the regulations increase so too does the number of monopolies, cost of goods, and the extreme decrease of innovation.
"then why the extreme efforts to reverse the policy in the face of overwhelming public opposition?" <--- Just because something has overwhelming support does not mean an idea is a good one. And many laws have been implemented or removed in the face of overwhelming support or opposition.
"But the here and now (specifically tomorrow) does not change the fact that ISPs have regional monopolies" <--- So why not work to solve that instead of support a law that also gives the FCC the ability to censor content as well as regulate the internet?
"The ISPs without question are the only industy sector that will immediately reap the overwhelming benefits from getting rid of net neutrality; those benefits are maximizing revenue and profit generation from their network" <--- That's a good thing. We want companies to succeed so they spend money on jobs and innovation. And once people finally get around to blaming their local government they'll finally have the competition they so want.
Net Neutrality was government propaganda in favor of government regulation. I'm so grateful they repealed it. But I have no delusions that the next time the political pendulum swings that the FCC will reinstate it. My only hope is that people are willing to go after their local government and repeal those onerous laws before they do so... making the propagandic need for Net Neutrality mercilessly moot (although that's like asking government to shrink itself).
Redeemer, the next pendulum swing is in process and after the 2018 midterms there is a real possibility of a veto-proof Democratic controlled Congress. At that point it will likely be codified by statute vs. regulation. Unless between now and then the courts find that this recent repeal was arbitrary. The absolute dirth of evidentiary support for the purported reasons for the rule change, as well as the bad faith conduct of Ajit Pai concerning the manipulating of the public comment period. One can hope.
Regardless, I understand the sentiments and their political inspiration, but that still doesn't make them anymore relevant applicable to the threat posed by the elimination of net neutrality and the change of classification to Title I Information Service from Common Carrier:
"In a decentralized, deregulated market, you can't claim to know the likelihood of anything."<--- Of course you can. The markets do it on a daily basis. We also have a history of conduct, recent statements, market incentives, and admissions in litigtion that the ISPs INTEND to do exactly what we are concerned about, i.e. abuse their role as gatekeepers and prioritize, throttle, and censor content where it is in the interest of the ISPs and their shareholders. There is little prognosticating here. The ISPs will slowly introduce changes. They will make subtle adjustments to their terms of service that will be vague and ambiguous to the 1-3% of customers that reportedly read the terms of service. There is no question they will do it, the question is how far will they go.
"Just because something has overwhelming support does not mean an idea is a good one."<---Can't argue with that logic as a general proposition. But there really isn't a debate as to whether net-neutrailty is good. If the value basis is a free and open Internet where neither government or private industry is able to discriminate different Internet content, net-neutrality is GOOD. We have the history of the Internet (which has ALWAYS operated with a form of net neutrality under governement regulation. It was not always called "net netrality" but the principle of treating all traffice equally was the prime component. It was the legal challenges to those regulations that actually ended up in the classification of ISPs to Title II Common Carrier and what we call net-neutrality).
"...a law that also gives the FCC the ability to censor content as well as regulate the internet?"<---This is just a bizarre statement because it is a complete lie. The FCC has absolutely zero ability to censor content. It is also a lie that the FCC has any ability to regulate the Internet. The FCC cannot regulate the Internet. In fact, I cannot think of a single governement entity in the United States that regulates the Internet. The FCC's authority extends to the interstate delivery of the Internet. So it has no authority to censor content or content creators. Up until yesterday's repeal of the Title II classification the FCC was required to intervene and PREVENT any censorship.
Ask yourself this question: If the FCC had the ability to censor the Internet, why have they not censored terrorist web sites, racist groups, or pornogeraphy? IN FACT the arguments and fears of government censorship are the height of bullsh*t. Tell us any time that the governement tried to or was successful in censoring anything. Remember the First Amendment? That applies to the government. It doesn't apply to private companies. So your paranoid, libretarian, fear of governement censorship has absolutely zero basis in reality. In the ENTIRE HISTORY of this country, there have not been any examples of successful censorship. And more telling is the number of times where it may have tried to censor anything can be counted on one hand. Pornography, the Pentagon Papers, WiKi Leaks, etc. etc. etc. The complete disingenuous and spiteful nature of that single argument says a lot about those that adopt it: either they have no understanding of history or are fear mongering in a gross and debasing manner.
"We want companies to succeed so they spend money on jobs and innovation."<---In return for letting them control what information we have access to and the opportunity to censor on a level that we could never imagine from the government as long as they tell us they are censoring material in their terms of service? You apparently do not value the Internet as it is and has been because of net neutrality principles. You are asking and endorsing and happy that the ISPs will now commodotize the Interent and actively discriminate against content for whatever reasons they want with no governement oversight. And while I have agreed with your concerns about local government regulation of rights of way, it is only a part of the problem (and not as big as I think you believe). So in the meantime, nobody (you included) has provided a reason for the need to get rid of net neutrality while the market conditions, e.g. regional monopolies, exist and which compound the the harm to consumers, e.g. you, me, and every person that subscribes to an ISP. So are the relatively small number (and speculative) of jobs worth that trade off? If so , please just move to Russia where the oligarchy is well established; really you don't have to wait for the collapse of our republican democracy.
I would love to read something more about the issue of local regulation of rights of way...it might be somethign you would research and write a post about. I think it deserves more attention since I am one of the very few who lives in the remainig expansion area for Google Fiber that Google has committed to build out before calling it quits. In the meantime, I assume you are willing to pick up the tab on the Netflix surcharge Comcast is likely to impose, so where should I send my bill when it comes? I'll accept a check and I don't even need to see your ID.
"This is just a bizarre statement because it is a complete lie. The FCC has absolutely zero ability to censor content." <-- Except for the fact that's exactly what they do and HAVE (documented below) censored communications since they've been in existence.
They currently censor television and radio. It's not paranoid when you have evidence.
• https://www.mercatus.org/expert_commentary/net-neutrality-government-censorship
• The May West Incident which led to strict censorship
• http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-fccs-incomprehensible-ban-on-broadca
• https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fcc-should-resist-calls-enhance-broadcast-censorship
The government can't regulate the internet if the law doesn't exist to do so. Net Neutrality is exactly the law which opens that box.
Here's one example of censorship you experience every single day of your life: Decency laws for public radio and television. Not paranoid. Just a fact.
btw... there's no need to call me paranoid and incorrectly call me a libertarian. Just because you disagree there's no need be so nasty about this topic.
And what's wrong with a fear of government censorship? You're obviously afraid of corporations but I'm not trying to shame you about it. Fear is healthy.
Corporations are not the ones to fear. It's the gigantic entity with the most amount of guns. Your fear is misplaced. You should be mad at the local governments taking away your choice and which punishes competition at home. Monopolies are surprisingly easy to destroy with simple competition.
"I assume you are willing to pick up the tab on the Netflix surcharge Comcast is likely to impose, so where should I send my bill when it comes?" <--- You should send the bill to your local government and demand they stop punishing competition. If you insist on sending me the bill, I'll be happy to send it to your local government. In fact, I'll even be happy to start a non-profit which takes ALL the bills from ALL the people in your town and I'll send it to your local government AND local media and send photos all over the internet so people can start doing the same thing.
Competition will solve this problem. Nothing else will.
You've got gumption Redeemer...I'll give you that. How are you not a Libertarian? I would have bet dollars to donuts you were a Libertarian. Regardless, your points on decency standards is an important point because there are some important social political factors that your apparent politics do not acknowledge. I really don't want to get into a discourse in political philosophy, but generally speaking societies are based on the concept of the social contract. We knwo what that is: give a little to get a little. Implicit in that contract is the role of the arbitrator, e.g. government. So besides being the arbitrator of the social contract, it is also the caretaker of the resources that benefit everyone. Without that caretaker we are faced witht tragedy of the commons and the disintegration of the social contract and a regression in chaos. The airwaves are one such resouce. In our great nation we have chosen to manage and govern through a democratic republic form of government. You apparently do not like our governemnt and country so I wonder why you choose to live in what you see as a despotic authoritarian government. What is your fear of our government based on? What country do you believe has a better, more free, and open governemnt and civil society?
To get back to the issue of decency standard, they are not censorship. Regulation of speech? Yes...but they are not censorship, which is the blocking and suppression of speech. So we have decency laws that place regulations on the manner of speech over the public airwaves that are governed on behalf of everyone and therefore require some compromises. So nudity and bad language (all constitutionaly protected speech) cannot be made over the airwaves. But the speech isn't suppresses or outlawed. There are adult clubs, comedy clubs, and then of course came cable. Those expressions or forms of speech are regulated on our public airways. No question. So is our ability to protest and rally. I believe that when it comes to time and place speech regulations should be elimminated. They are only in place to protect vested interests. I am firm believer that social and political protest should be absolutely as disruptive as they can be without resorting to violence. But the popint is that the idea or belief or political ideology being expressed is not censored.
I went through that recitation to point out that ultimately the government (ours at least) is responsive and accountable to its citizenry. Can it, and should it, be more responsive? Sure...but we also intentionally went with a republic to mitigate some of the excesses of true democracy. On the other hand, I would love to know the period of history where the people that controlled the capital were ever responsive to those without capital? I'm not a communist or socialist, and neither are most Democrats or Republicans. Most of us are happy with the push and pull of society and the roles of each sector. But based on our history, I am more fearful of the corporations than I am of our government.
But you have to stop talking about punishing competition. On this topic there is no competiton. And don't be so hard on your local governement. They are far more responsive to you than D.C. is.