Slashdot Mirror
Why Is the Internet Association Rewarding a Pro-NSA Net-Neutrality Opponent?
First time accepted submitter erier2003 writes The decision to give a major award to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is curious given McCarthy's many questionable stances on Internet-freedom issues. For one thing, the California congressman is an avowed opponent of net neutrality. In May 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission debated new net neutrality rules, McCarthy—then the House Majority Whip, the chamber's third-highest-ranking member—signed a House GOP letter to the FCC warning that Title II regulation represented "a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet."
I don't know anything about this "Internet Association", but given that the name really doesn't mean anything at all, if they are anti-net-neutrality then maybe they're pro-network-business, and as such they're trying to profit from both ends?
Just a guess. After all, I can name any organization anything that I want, even if that name is Orwellian doublespeak for exactly the opposite of what it sounds like it should be.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What with all the politics today?
The Internet Association -- which counts tech giants like Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter among its members...
Because these companies have no interest in internet freedom as it pertains to their cattle but as it pertains to fourth quarter earnings. The internet based on these companies is a cash-in-hand libertarian pelvic thrust of states that dont see a red-cent of sales tax on anything from a website, keep their warrantless surveillance quiet, and rubberstamp their patents with a smile. This isnt an award, so much as a dollop of warm grease on an open republican wheel. this group quietly gave an award to McCarthy, the second most powerful House Republican after Speaker John Boehner, because they have a PAC that hasnt donated yet and are making it known to anyone looking for upcoming election year bucks.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What exactly are they being forced to do? Deliver the services that their customers want and not be allowed to use their last-mile monopoly to force out competition? Oh the horrors!!
Do you mean that last-mile monopoly which has been given to them by... local governments ?
Maybe this is some sort of new cutting edge format sitcom, this is just the first episode.
Is it because they're whores and will do anything for loose change? That's pretty much my standard answer for any headline in the format "Why is blank blanking?"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yes, the ones they lobbied to secure.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Those local governments only gave them those monopolies because the ISPs demanded them to even deliver service. It's not as if the local governments just up and gave the companies those monopolies against the wishes of the ISPs.
"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.
A congress critter has actively worked to harm a cause you care deeply about (one as central to democracy's function as a free and open internet). But shame on anyone expressing their opinion or looking for a way to push back. If anything is the new PC - it is the outrage police.
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm. That incumbents are happy to use it against newcomers underlines his (and mine) point — we don't love Comcast, we just distrust the government.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A better question might be who is the Internet Association? They certainly aren't part of the internet's governing bodies. Why should we give two cents for what they think or who they give awards to?
"government's intervention causes harm" So is that all the time or just this time?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Perhaps you ought to re-read some of Orwell's works...
The problem in Orwell's world of 1984 isn't the "statist enforcement", but rather that the state enforces rules for the purpose of oppressing the majority of the population. Ingsoc's rules and systems are not in themselves harmful. In fact, several times throughout the book, some of the most vile mechanisms are described only as the result of rumors.
Here in the real world, there is no absolute freedom. There is only what you want to do and what others want you to do. When those desires are opposed, someone's freedom will be impeded. If you want to kill me, and I want to live, we turn to the state (as an embodiment of the consensus of the submitting population) to decide who will be able to fulfill their desires. If you want to build a networking monopoly and charge high rates for access to popular web sites, and I want cheap access to everything, we again turn to the state, who has now declared a preference for cases like this.
While reading, be sure to note how the Inner Party is not subject to most of the oppressive rules of the system. They are not subject to the state; the state is subject to their whims.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because it has been such a horrible thing for phone service.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm.
And what you don't get is not whether government regulation is a bad or good thing, but what kind of effort do we put into *good* governance. You know, like what everyone else on the planet does, from countries to corporations. Ever hear about "corporate governance"? Ever think of countries as just large corporations? It's an over-simplification (by far) but I think it's the only way to illustrate the "all regulation is bad" idea as lunacy.
The way broadband is sold in this country, the legality of what ISPs do in their contracts are just shy of outright fraud.
But hey, all regulation is bad.
You people want to toss out everything and leave anarchy behind. Forget about good governance, let's just have more burning rivers, consumer fraud, and land-grabs using private armies.
--
BMO
Did I get the local government to pass a law prohibiting him from having his own driveway built?
Do you have a link to the FCC regulations in their entirety? I've been trying to read them, I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Because it's either shut up or burn a person's livelihood to the ground? Nice straw man. How about when someone does something shitty, we complain about it and take action to directly address it.
Most of the time. Including this time.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It is not just over-simplication — it is simply wrong. Because one does not have to associate with a corporation — not as a customer, not as an employee, not as a shareholder. But a citizen is born with a government and has little choice in the matter.
Yes, most are.
Strawman. We don't want "anarchy" — we want the government to fight crime, enforce contracts, and defend against foreign invaders.
Telling us, what we can and what we can not sell to each other? No, thanks.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
You must be new here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are you going to claim, US policy regarding AT&T's government-backed monopoly was a success?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Because the NSA has photographs from the last Internet Association post trade show party.
Have gnu, will travel.
You really think that's what this is ? Seriously ?
Mind telling me how getting third parties who like the guy to shun him, is "Directly Addressing" anything.
Yes, this exactly. The golden age of the expansion of the commercial/consumer internet was when it was primarily run over the phone lines - dialup and DSL. The low barrier to entry allowed tons of new ISPs to enter the market, offering basic unlimited service for a flat rate. The incumbents at the time - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and their ilk, were by and large ridiculously overpriced, not to mention did not offer any unlimited plans, with time-based metering. (To be fair they did offer additional services, but over time most people realized there were more/better free alternatives elsewhere on the open internet.)
Pretty soon everyone could get online, because everyone - even in rural areas - had landline phone service (not to mention electricity). Service was slow compared to today, but it was a limit of the current technology rather than any unwillingness of companies to invest or build out in a given area. Upgrades occured, up until about the point that dialup and DSL hit a wall where it was no longer feasible under current technology to increase bandwidth using the (government mandated Title II Unbundled) telephone lines.
Instead, most people were forced to switch to (proprietary bundled) cable lines to get high speed internet. Only recently have fiber lines been available for some lucky few, and most of us are still stuck at the mercy of our cable company. In the meantime, competition has all but disappeared, rates have shot up and service has become legendarily bad for many people.
So explain to me again why Title II is so horrible, because I'm really just not seeing it.
I was recently reading a very interesting article about paid Russian trolls. They'll go to all the small-town Russian blogs and post the same types of rants. But they don't just post pro-gov't rants. They've got this whole cast of characters and script where one person makes a seemingly-well-reasoned pro-gov't argument, while the anti-gov't "villain" will respond with something ridiculous or completely off-point.
It's not enough to make your side seem strong, you also have to make your opponents look foolish.
So when I see a seemingly-well-reasoned-but-wrong "government regulation is bad" argument followed by a "higher taxes and more expensive ISPs are good" argument - both by Anonymous Cowards - I think Soviet Russia. You guys are the worst kind of scum.
Last post!
I absolutely would, but I don't get a say in it since my neighbor paid the Inter Street Provider extra for a service which allowed him to use some of my driveway to park on. The ISP promises that they'll build more driveways in my neighborhood sometime in the next 20 years or so in order to meet increased demand. In the meantime if I pay extra I can use my other neighbor's driveway.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This is not the correct approach. Even if I believe that the *original* purpose of a strongly Constitution-bounded limited Government's policies are driven with good intention, it always backfires into less honorable behaviors, and less boundaries, either intentionally or not. When these behaviors became unbearable by too many influential (yet minority) people, it turns into more laws, and inevitably into more dishonorable behaviors. This is the nature of the system.
I always wonder why progressive folks end up resorting to insult and crude bullying when they run out of arguments...
enforce contracts
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure. Since natural (and historically government-enforced) last-mile monopolies give ISPs undue power over end users, the best way for the government to enforce valid contracts are to ensure that the ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly to deliver less than the customer was due when the contract was signed. Net neutrality, along with other regulation (like punishing AT&T for throttling "unlimited" plans) does exactly that.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
To bad we didn't impose the same limits on corporations. But then again, what do you expect from a country founded by people who'd be the equivalent of Donald Trump today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't agree with your point. What I want is the end of Government's monopoly in the use of force (ie. own, bear, and use arms in defense of lives and property) as well as end of violence-enforced compulsory theft (also known as taxes). To some extend, anybody should be allowed to negotiate the social contract, and opt-out from unwanted clause.
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure.
Contracts are also only valid when they're enforceable.
Without any power behind a contract (i.e., some sort of laws and force of government, e.g., regulations), contracts are nothing more than "damn pieces of paper" and your "word," whatever that is at the time.
This is where the libertarian fantasy drives off a cliff - that we can have contracts without The Man.
That only worked when your tribe was > 300 people and you could do ad-hoc "trial by combat."
--
BMO
Do you mean that last-mile monopoly which has been given to them by... local governments ?
Which ISP has been given a last-mile monopoly on anything?
The answer is "none". The telephone companies have last-mile monopolies on their wires. The cable companies typically have only defacto and not dejure monopolies. But those monopolies are not because they are ISPs, it is because they started as other services. In fact, as services, they don't have government-granted monopolies either. Only the telephone companies have a historical monopoly on wired telephony, but there is competition in "telephone" services today. There is competition in delivery of video services.
There are LOTS of ISPs that have nothing close to a monopoly anywhere that these net-neutrality laws impact. Claiming that net neutrality has anything to do with breaking monopolies is just nonsense. It's trying to garner support for government intervention in ISP services because 'we hates Comcast'.
While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.
The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.
You can't have enforcement of contracts without laws and the power of government behind them.
Remind me to never sign a contract with you.
Because seriously, you and people like you are what is wrong with libertarianism.
--
BMO
Why do you wonder? It's in their rules. Remember 'progressives' are reactionaries that want to return to tired 1930s socialist politics.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
On one side, if you are careful enough, the government already has no reach in such a contract. So your example is pointless. Government are not an all-knowing entity.
On the other side, it could also be argue that if you support death penalty, you agree for the entity you call "government" to contract a hitman (which happen to be itself) against an individual you judge harmful to you. If you also extend this reasoning to the law enforcement/justice system, the government itself is an oppressive entity which punish by various violent methods (fines, imprisonment) misbehavior.
Sure, which covers the vast majority of existing Internet Service Provision contracts.
Even if an ISP put the exact description of what they plan to do — such as "We may throttle your connections to certain content providers down to what we believe is reasonable" — it would still be against the net-neutrality as you, most of /., and the FCC see it. So, the ISPs' freedom to do what they want will be damaged.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
Having traded liberty for a forlorn hope of improved Internet service, you will lose both and deserve neither. Serves you right — except I have to suffer along with you and I don't like it....
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Since natural (and historically government-enforced) last-mile monopolies give ISPs undue power over end users,
If such a thing existed, yes, it would.
ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly
We've moved from "one" to "two". Where in the US has anyone said that only two ISPs can provide service to an area? And government-enforced. Where?
Net neutrality, along with other regulation (like punishing AT&T for throttling "unlimited" plans) does exactly that.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies). It regulates ISPs. When you find an ISP that has a monopoly someplace, let me know. The closest you can get is the telephone company when they act as an ISP in addition to wireline telephone service, but since there are scads of other ISPs (and even some who use those same wires the telco has a monopoly on), they aren't truly a monopoly as an ISP.
What internet taxes and content control? I hope your not talking about net neutrality, because this is entirely unrelated. Stuff like this has been going on long before net neutrality.
What were you trying to say by this truism? That in order to be able to force John to pay Peter after Peter has delivered the goods, the government must be able prescribe, exactly what kind of goods John is allowed to buy and Peter to deliver?
Too bad. I think, signing a contract with me would've been quite safe for you or anyone.
It is the folks, who denounce any contract they don't like as "adhesive", that you should be concerned about...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Quite the opposite, repeal local telco monopolies, let competitor install fiber and equipment on street pole, offer *more* competition and the problem of badly behaving monopolies will stop. This is what happened in France. The historical formerly state-owned operator service was crap, the market was deregulated, a competitor entered the market, slashed prices, offered more services and everything went better. NN offer nothing but more regulation over and already heavily regulated market.
except its not in soviet russia. its right here in the USA, paid for by public relations agents.
Except for a few spurts and a few people admittedly on the fringe of the party will we see anyone tackle the real issues.
Just like conspiracy theories will talk about mass internment camps being set up by FEMA, but no one wants to talk about the mass internment camps that are very real actual prisons and some of the silly things that get people sent to jail for very long sentances, and the very low burden of proof that a good chunk of these people didn't even do the petty crimes they are accused for for such long jail times.
No one wants to talk about the kangroo court systems, corrupt law enforcement agencies, private prisons, all of which is plainly obvious.
I'd say if they don't want to be in that business line, then by all means they should sell it off. Running a regulated natural monopoly business like "being the dumb pipe" is a boring line of business, but it's also a reliable line of business. You won't make ridiculous profits in it, but you'll probably make steady (if small) profits. It's why we still have companies that run the power lines and water pipes and such. Better to have the companies that want to be in those lines of business take over.
And if significant infrastructure upgrades require investments of government/tax dollars... well, I'm perfectly okay with that too. I'd much rather have high speed fiber internet laid down in my county rather than, say, a new sports stadium.
your concept of freedom fighter is limited to corporate influence aparantly.
Another strawman. Murder is illegal and thus falls squarely into "fighting crime", which I do want the government to do.
And before you ask, murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong (malum in se, pardon my Latin).
It is bad enough for Congress to criminalize various actions — making more things malum prohibitum. For a panel of five appointees (such as FCC) to do that is just unacceptable...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Don't say anything, because the internet was already tapped and regulated before title 2. The only thing title 2 did was prevent comcast from adding additional private regulations.
There is really no diffrence from the government dictating rules and comcast doing it, and the only person who really looses out is comcast, and only in their ability to fuck with the end user.
Except the monopoly was granted for something BESIDES network connectivity. AT&T and ComCast have used resources granted for one purpose to monopolize another. The new purpose is wholly unregulated but benefits from the previous monopoly status. This SHOULD be regulated as long as they are using the resources they gained from the government.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.
You'd come off as less of a moron if you knew what libertarians believed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Q: What is it called when you can only get high-speed Internet within a particular geographic area from one company?
A: a monopoly.
In my area (within the Atlanta city limits), there are three alleged choices for high-speed home Internet (i.e., Internet with a large enough data cap to be usable for things like video, gaming and software updates): Clear Wi-Max, AT&T DSL, and Comcast cable. Clear Wi-Max doesn't work (literally, at all) because the towers are too far away. AT&T DSL doesn't work (literally, at all) because the telephone infrastructure is too old. And yes, I did personally try to use both those services before resorting to Comcast -- if either of them had worked, even marginally, I'd still be using it. However, Comcast cable is literally the only choice, and is therefore a monopoly.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
If so, it must be clearly marked as temporary — andeven then, it would make no sense to implement it, as long as the original evil remains in place.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Murder would still be illegal if there were no law against it? How so?
And if legality depends on the law (which, I highly suspect, it does), doesn't that mean that "fighting crime" is a blanket statement meaning enforcing any and all laws and regulations? Even those you disagree with, or feel are overstepping?
I'm not saying you are wrong to think that the government is too big, or too overreaching, but I am saying that what you've brought to this discussion is inconsistent and not really helping your point.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Are 4chan, reddit, imgur, and cheezeburger part of this association?
Then it does not represent the internet.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Q: What is it called when you can only get high-speed Internet within a particular geographic area from one company? A: a monopoly.
A: an under-served market. Most likely because the costs of providing service are too high to support more than one player.
It's not a government-enforced monopoly, and laws to enforce net neutrality will do absolutely NOTHING to solve your problem.
However, Comcast cable is literally the only choice, and is therefore a monopoly.
It is not a government-enforced monopoly, it is a defacto monopoly, and the existence of the other two services show that. If the costs didn't outweigh the benefits some company would have come in and be providing the service you want. But it might not be at the price you demand, so you would probably still argue that there was only one ISP in your area. "Not fast enough for what I want" and "costs too much" don't prove a monopoly, they only prove that the service you want costs more than you are willing to pay.
Patriot Act called, it wants its modus operandi back.
Do you understand what happens when you end the Government's monopoly of the use of force? I don't think you really do.
I'll try to explain and illustrate. Do you know why organized criminal enterprises use force? It's generally not because they're engaged in robbery, though in cases they certainly can be. No, it's to protect their (illegal) lines of business, whether that's drugs or any number of other rackets. They are unable to rely on a neutral third party (i.e. the Government) to enforce their contracts, and so they rely on the threat of violence. If you don't pay Bank of America back, they go to the Government (Courts etc) to try and get whatever money they can from you. If you don't pay Mikey the Loan Shark back, he sends thugs to break your kneecaps. If you sell fake aspirin to CVS, you'll face civil and criminal penalties, get sued, etc. If you sell fake heroin to Mister Big, you'd best hope you arranged a nice life insurance payout for your family. Now, to a degree, some of it goes hand in hand in that those who break other laws and social conventions tend to lack moral qualms about doing so with respect to violence, but there's a large amount of amoral pragmatism in it too.
I completely fail to see how normalizing any of this is in anyone's best interest. Even simply allowing increased private use of force in a regulated manner is extremely problematic.
As far as being able to opt out, well... you can always leave. It may not be as easy as it once was, and you may say that your options are limited - but I'd also suggest that's because you want to enjoy many of the benefits of the society that you're so quick to decry.
Some things (like running an unlicensed business) are unjust because they are illegal. Other things (like murder) are illegal because they are unjust.
You better grasp the difference, that was well analyzed as long ago as in Roman Republic.
Why, yes. Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is part — has itself invented, contrary to the "separation of powers" doctrine so dear to Americans, including this, who can't recognize its violation while talking about it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
An "under-served market," huh? Alright then: the market I'm talking about is in almost the middle of the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States, about four miles from the middle of downtown (which, in Atlanta, is not very far at all). If that's not dense enough to support more than one provider, then where the fuck is?!
Yes, and a de-facto monopoly is still a monopoly.
It doesn't change the fact that one of those players (AT&T) got huge government subsidies to wire it up in the first place and then more huge subsidies to upgrade it for "broadband" (money it simply pocketed instead of performing the upgrade, by the way), and the other player (Comcast) actually is a de jure monopoly for services delivered over coaxial cable (it has a franchise agreement with the City of Atlanta, which prohibits other cable providers such as Charter from coming in).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I believe that empirical evidence shows that not disallowing the Feds to do something is synonymous with allowing them to do it.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was constructed on that premise.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Prior to deregulation in the 80's and the breakup of AT&T, the iPhone would have been illegal.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How about being able to carry weapons to protect myself from Mikey the Loan Shark ? Currently there is two entities who can use force. The Government, because it decides of the rules, and criminals, because they don't give a fuck about the rule. The latter have been helped by the former to prey on "law-abiding" citizen. To some extend, even the former also prey on "law-abiding" citizen.
Yeah, take a look at how the Western Electric telephone morphed and advanced over those 5 decades. At one point It went from a dial to buttons. Now look at how far cell phones have advanced in one decade and continue to stand by your statement.
Yeah, keep the government's hands off my private contract with a hitman. I want to buy his services, he wants to sell me his services. The government shouldn't get involved! /'casm
Are you seriously unable to see any difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
And we want to have an alternative to Comcast. Title II guarantees we won't.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing [politico.com] with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
The President's goes golfing more often with John Boehner. Does that make them buddy-buddy and Obama will do whatever Boehner says?
For a President, golf is just another meeting, but at least making the perfect putt lets him tune out what the other guy is saying from time to time.
Don't forget to be equally outraged when it is flipped around, and a weak supporting argument for mainstream pro-government policies is followed by low-taxes anti-government attacks.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
The people that complain about the new net neutrality rules are either corporate telco shills or just misinformed idiots.
Or both.
If you think Ingsoc's rules and systems were not themselves harmful, maybe _you_ ought to reread it. You completely missed the point, that the stupid rules and blind obedience were 'the point'.
Make rules for everything, every detail and free thinking will never occur to 'them' (people like yourself).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
you're going to have to bring up some citations, because when the government gave AT&T a monopoly, they might have done some shitty things, and blocked some innovation, but the quality of service was second to none. They had a phrase called "five nines" to describe their uptime. To date, no other information system can match the 99.999% reliability of Ma Bell. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was always there. No exceptions. They also pushed innovation and gave back to the community. UNIX for example was given away for Free when they had a monopoly. They didn't care, they just wrote it off. AT&T Bell Labs was the envy of the fucking world, and the state of the art for electronic engineering for 5 fucking decades.
I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.
Bullshit. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was not "always there," it was only there 99.999% of the time. In the 80s when the SF quake happened, so many people in my city (not even in California) were calling to check on relatives, most people were getting the "fast busy" signal when they picked up their phones, because the system was swamped. It was probably 4 hours before we could make local calls reliably again.
Five nines might be really good. But it isn't always.
In many states there is no government monopoly. The cable companies divide up the territory in the exact same way even when States allow for competitive access. You're just translating anti-government propaganda onto the issue blindly.
In Portland we found out how real the availability of competition was when Google Fiber threatened to come to town, and suddenly multiple cable companies were asking for permits for the same neighborhoods. That really happened. There was no barrier in the way. And yet, the whole rest of the State, under the same rules, has exactly 1 cable provider in each location.
The idea that these are government monopolies is easily refuted. And, cable isn't even the only way to deliver internet. ;) Do you assume that in the future, cable will still be the fastest offering most people have? There is no reason for it to be. Network neutrality does not invoke the problems with the cable industry naturally, you have to force these ideas together, and it still falls flat.
When a person can't tell the difference between Somalia and Sweden, and doesn't understand the result of a lack of government, or of good governance, there is not much left except to ignore them or laugh at them. Making fun of them doesn't improve the conversation any, granted. But there is no conversation there anyways.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies)
Net neutrality is the small band-aid on top of the open sore that is the regional monopoly. I see no need to breaking up any monopoly/duopoly company, but I think a true solution is eliminating barriers to competition. Back in the good-old-days of dialup, you might have had the choice of half a dozen to a dozen ISPs, all able to service your various Internet access needs.
The "pipe" should be treated like a local utility, with whatever ISP you want, be it AT&T or Verizon or Sonic or Ma's Fish, Chips, and Internet being granted equal access to the lines as an ISP. ISPs should never have been granted line-laying rights.
By definition, "illegal" means "not allowed by the law" according to Webster's dictionary. You cannot have "illegal" without "law". This contradicts your argument:
murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong
Many people believe it is wrong to lie. Yet, lying is not strictly illegal except where the law prohibits it (such as lying under oath, fraud, etc.).
Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is part — has itself invented, contrary to the "separation of powers" doctrine so dear to Americans, including this, who can't recognize its violation while talking about it.
I'm actually very fond of the concept of separation of powers. I feel it needs to go further, in that Washington should have less absolute authority and states should have more. Go support the Article V convention process.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
But you have to grant a monopoly in some way, you can't have ISP A, B, C, and D all tearing up the roads to lay lines, or each ISP stringing their own lines along the shared poles. In some locations the ISP has to run lines underneath private property. Local governments don't allow that for sewer mains and power lines for good reason, the same reasoning applied with TV and phone cables. The only problem is that the service providers get full control over the last mile, allowing them to completely shut out competition. The last mile should be a utility, and ISPs should be competing on equal footing to let the consumer decide.
People want Net Neutrality because ISPs can get away with extortion because they control the lines. Take local infrastructure control away from them.
Murder violate the principle of non-initiation of physical force, which is one of the few axioms (if not the only one) of libertarians.
Damn right I'll be outraged. This type of astroturfing hurts both sides of the argument by preventing an actual exchange of ideas. It's FUD designed to reduce the credibility of any claims, making it harder for an uninformed person to become informed.
Last post!
I don't specifically hate the government, I just wish to be able to go my own way without interfering, and without interference.
An "under-served market," huh? Alright then: the market I'm talking about is in almost the middle of the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States,
And an under-served market is an under-served market no matter where it is.
Yes, and a de-facto monopoly is still a monopoly.
Yep. However, the solutions are different for the two. For a dejure monopoly, the solution could be as simple as removing the grant. For a defacto monopoly you have to figure out IF there is a problem and then what a fair solution is. (If there's one company in a city selling a specific service, is that because the market is saturated, because the customers love that one company but won't buy anywhere else, or something else.) Is it fair to the existing company to give preferential treatment to competitors if the company isn't doing anything wrong? If the company is abusing the customers, then why would they remain loyal to that company and why wouldn't another company come in and rake in the cash by giving good service? It wouldn't need preferential treatment, it would thrive by being better.
But, as you point out, there are at least two other services in the area, they just don't want to provide service to your specific location. Please cite the section of the new net neutrality regulations that will solve this problem.
And you ignored the question I asked, which is specifically where in the country there is a government-granted monopoly to any ISP. Not cable company, not telephone company, an ISP. Net neutrality deals with ISPs, not cable television or telephone, and it has nothing to do with breaking monopolistic powers.
and the other player (Comcast) actually is a de jure monopoly for services delivered over coaxial cable
That is a false statement. Refer to the City of Atlanta Cable Ordinances found here and you will note that the law grants a non-exclusive franchise. That there is only one company who has chosen to go through the franchise process does not mean the government has created a monopoly. The laco of competition is not created by the city council, it's created by the economic disincentive to split a market where the costs of infrastructure are so high.
(it has a franchise agreement with the City of Atlanta, which prohibits other cable providers such as Charter from coming in)
No, actually, it doesn't. All Charter would have to do is follow the process to get a franchise just like Media One of Colorado did (which was then transferred to Comcast). While a franchise agreement is a bit more than just a business license, it is very similar. When a city grants a business license to one company to do something, they are not granting that company a monopoly even if nobody else applies.
The Bill of Rights is actually fairly clear that the only legal powers of the Federal Government are those explicitly granted (I.e. Enumerated Powers) to it by the Constitution, and that anything not otherwise prohibited is reserved for individual States to excercise.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The government has been messing with it long enough that only a fool would think there is a free market in the mix. I guess we could say +1 for paying attention part of the timem
But are there less intrusive ways to do the same? Of course there is and existing consumer protection laws should cover it without making more laws.
We used to only accept government intrusion to the extent necessary and no more. Now it seems like people are willing to jump at the chance to surrender freedom in favor of government intrusion. Perhaps it is because they can force others to do what they want or maybe it's so they don't need to think for themselves. But it is a fact- the bigger the government the smaller the citizens.It won't be much longer before the government ignores the citizens they are so small.
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10... the "or to the people" part and just assume everything not theirs is purview of the states.
Compared to AT&T's pre-government-backed monopoly, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10..
I would argue it's pretty much ignored it in it's entirety. Then again, the Government (and the courts) seems to be good at ignoring the rest of the document as well.