Slashdot Mirror
No, Net Neutrality Doesn't Violate the 5th Amendment
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday we discussed the theory that net neutrality might violate the 5th Amendment's 'takings clause.' Over at TechDirt they've explained why the paper making that claim is mistaken. Part of it is due to a misunderstanding of the technology, such as when the author suggests that someone who puts up a server connected to the Internet is 'invading' a broadband provider's private network. And part of it is due to glossing over the fact that broadband networks all have involved massive government subsidies, in the form of rights of way access, local franchise/monopolies, and/or direct subsidies from governments. The paper pretends, instead, that broadband networks are 100% private."
No. Private enterprise did not want the internet. In large part they said "it's just a fad, no significant amount of commerce will be done over the internet." Were you asleep all through the 90's? Here is a typical such article from Newsweek in 1995:
http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works.
No. The whole point is there aren't "enough people" to make it economical for business to deliver certain services out to rural areas and still make a profit (must the tired USPS/UPS point need be repeated?). Sure, the market *eventually* came up with affordable on-site power generation products, but it hadn't bothered at the time the bill was passed. Why is it so hard to understand that private enterprise is fantastic when it has a market to supply and otherwise it's useless and we need government to actually get anything done?
There's a large difference between what government decided to subsidize decades ago, and today's politicians being too cowardly to cancel outdated subsidies like coal and corn. If you insist on living in the past please stick to arguing about the merits of a subsidy, but don't keep boring us with verses from your stupid free market bible.
Meanwhile, private enterprise largely built the Internet after the very early phase, while government did its best to prevent commercial use. You know, companies like Sun, Cisco, etc, etc, etc, etc....
FAIL: Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992
Nuff said.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
When I first heard of Net Neutrality, people had mockups of what they feared ISP's plans would eventually degenerate into. Things like "facebook+ebay+1GB other". It gave me the creeps back then, but what horrifies me is that in less than a year this has become reality to Australians.
Check this out: Optus iPhone plans. Click the "Plan Comparisons". Each one has a "Unlimited mobile access to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, eBay, foursquare" bonus.
The fine print says: "Unlimited use of these services within Australia only. Use of these services is separate and does not count towards your included “Mobile Internet Data Value.” These features are only available to you if your handset is compatible with the service. Optus Mobile Fair Go Policy applies..."
Keep in mind that Australia already has "tiered" internet pricing, because local bandwidth is practically free, while international bandwidth is very expensive. However, this is not what's happening here. None of those sites are hosted in Australia. It costs Optus no less to provide those to their customers than any other site. This is some sort of back-room deal.
If you host a website, or work for a company that does, welcome to second-class citizenship on the internet, unless you pony up the cash and make a deal with every two-bit ISP and Telco out there. Can't afford to do that? Tough.
Welcome to the free internet, where you are free to use all 6 Optus approved services.
Actually, cartels, price-fixing, collusion, etc are exactly what you get if you had a truly "free" market (assuming that such a thing could exist in the first place).
There is no mechanism in a "free market" that would prevent price-fixing or monopolies. Only government regulation can do that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
We used to live under that system, and it fucking sucked. It sucked so badly that the masses revolted and demanded government regulate these industries which perpetrated terrible lies and destruction upon the population. This happened over and over and over again.
People like you have forgotten the lessons of history. Do you think big government was instituted by bureaucrats last Tuesday? We have built up the government over hundreds of years, a little at a time, each time to solve a problem. Every now and then we stumble, but we usually trade in a big problem (say, unregulated drug markets causing huge causualties) for a small one (say, fewer casualties).
Oops, got in a hurry there. My FAIL. While parts of that bill were passed in other legislation, that bill ultimately failed. What I was thinking of was actually:
High Performance Computing Act of 1991
http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional/laws/pl_102-194.html [nitrd.gov]
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
What a great opportunity for a company C to come into the market and sell it for $10 and take all the customers.
That's when Company AB sells at $5 for long enough to drive C out of business.
(Which, if it's an industry/product that has an even remotely non-trivial barrier to entry, probably won't take very long, since they'll be deep in the hole to start with.)