Who cares what the corporate owners feel? They're custodians of infrastructure that was built with substantial government assistance; they knew there would be strings attached, even if they expected in the near term to stay a step or two ahead of the regulators. They have every right to be disappointed when the government does its job and restrains their greed, but that disappointment has no bearing on what actually makes for good public policy. Those corporate owners you pity are taking actions that harm the public interest. The government is not solely responsible for creating the situation that requires a choice between making Comcast execs feel bad or letting Comcast wreak havoc on the Internet's economics. Comcast et al. are trying to expand the scope of their power over the utility infrastructure they manage; net neutrality regulation isn't about disallowing anything that the ISPs have a long-established history of doing, so don't imply that the government is pulling the rug out from under their existing business model.
Net neutrality is a lopsided issue. That doesn't mean that the clear right answer is a win-win situation all around. Every issue the government faces could hypothetically be dealt with in a manner that greatly enriches a chosen few, but the existence of those alternatives does not establish their validity or suitability for accomplishing the government's purpose of promoting the general welfare. If you want to call my position biased, you can't stop at merely pointing out that my preferred solution would be less than perfect for somebody, because that's true of every possible solution.
So what you're saying is that because they agreed to X terms from the government that they should have always expected for the government, later on, to add additional terms to it even in cases where they may not have accepted government assistance? You do realize there are some companies and situations in which infrastructure was entirely laid with little or no government assistance, right? I'm not saying that's common (as far as I understand it isn't) but those people paid a considerable amount of money to do that likely without expecting the government to step in and tell them what they can and cannot do with it.
You seem to have side-stepped my original point, however as I never wanted to argue which side is correct or who's side has merits. In your point of view the argument is lopsided and it's just black and white. What my respond should have shown you is that it isn't clearly black and white.
You would be better for it to try and see both side's point of view instead of completely dismissing one because "who cares what the corporate owners feel".
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."
In this instance the other side is largely a tiny fraction of the population. It would be like if the other side of the gun control argument was gun manufacturers instead of millions of Americans who own guns.
This issue is lopsided in that destroying net neutrality would harm almost everyone to benefit a few thousand people.
>In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him,
It's easy to understand the goals of for-profit corporations. They exist to maximize profit. There is nothing else to understand. They will support any legislation that will increase their profit and oppose any legislation that will reduce it.
You're correct but it's irrelevant. A smaller representation does NOT make an issue lopsided in justification.
This is all highly contextual and will only lead to further, circular arguments.
> This issue is lopsided in that destroying net neutrality would harm almost everyone to benefit a few thousand people[...]It's easy to understand the goals of for-profit corporations. They exist to maximize profit. There is nothing else to understand. They will support any legislation that will increase their profit and oppose any legislation that will reduce it.
This isn't true. There are many people, not part of the corporations that are constantly referred to, that also do not want net neutrality as it gives the government control over vital, information sharing infrastructure. Remember Prism?
Not only do I see the issue as not lop sided but I see each point as being a series of trade offs. I do not see an outcome that is great for everyone in any of the available directions.
The issue is lopsided in terms of cost benefit analysis. Nothing more. The benefits to the shareholders and employees of a few corporations are vastly outweighed by the detriment to the rest of society.
Regulations change and companies have to adapt. The risk of changing regulations is part of the cost of doing business. Sure we should try minimize onerous regulation, but often there is no other viable alternative.
A hypothetical situation to illustrate this point:
A company buys land from a local government with permission to use it as a mercury disposal site. 40 years later the federal government passes a law that no new mercury can be dumped within 10 miles of a town of more than 10k people. The company has to close down the site. Sucks for the company. The owner thinks it's not fair, but the cost benefit analysis wasn't even close. In the end I'm not terribly concerned that the people affected by the disposal site weren't empathetic to the owner's plight.
>This isn't true. There are many people, not part of the corporations that are constantly referred to, that also do not want net neutrality as it gives the government control over vital, information sharing infrastructure. Remember Prism?
How does making it illegal for ISPs to favor traffic from some sources over others enable the government to take control over information sharing infrastructure?
Do fair housing laws give the government control over vital shelter providing infrastructure?
This is just a Republican talking point. There is no innate reason that net neutrality regulation should harm individual privacy. Net neutrality doesn't mean government take over of the internet.
We're arguing past each other (I had already addressed this but I digress).
> How does making it illegal for ISPs to favor traffic from some sources over others enable the government to take control over information sharing infrastructure?
Never said it would enable the government to "take control over information sharing infrastructure". Net neutrality govern by the FCC gives them powers over the internet itself that can affect not just our country but other countries as well.
This is a common talking point by the EFF folks regarding pros and cons of net neutrality.
And you completely failed to do so. All you showed was that there exists somebody who doesn't want net neutrality. You didn't even show whether they have any non-selfish reasons for that opinion. You showed the existence of opposition, not the existence of reasonable or viable opposition.
The merits of a side's arguments must be considered when judging whether an issue is largely one-sided, because it is always possible to construct unreasonable arguments against something.
I'd like to know roughly what you would consider to be sufficient justification for calling a politicized issue one-sided with respect to its public policy soundness.
That shows it isn't black and white. You can't have a group of people who has differing opinions than yours and simply write them off. There are various ways of weighing ones position. Maybe it ends up being morally wrong for a large amount of people but that still does not make it "black and white".
Very, very, very little of life is actually black and white. When you show an inability to see something from another perspective you will fail ever convincing them of your side.
> You didn't even show whether they have any non-selfish reasons for that opinion[...]You showed the existence of opposition, not the existence of reasonable or viable opposition.
Irrelevant. To many on the other side your point may not be reasonable or viable. Does that mean they are equally able to say the issue is "black and white" in their favor? No.
> I'd like to know roughly what you would consider to be sufficient justification for calling a politicized issue one-sided with respect to its public policy soundness.
I'm not sure I would call many if any issues one-sided. That's just not how life works and is incredibly rare.
Not really. I think that's just your bias for net neutrality showing through.
In my opinion, because of the way internet providers have been allowed legal monopolies, net neutrality is going to be required for fair internet access as the ability for the market to determine winners and compete has been taken away by politics.
But if I was the owner of the pipes themselves? I'm not so sure I'd see it the same way. Try to think about it from another perspective. If you owned something that cost a lot of money to install that connects multiple houses together and then, years later, the government stepped in and explained how you could or could not make money off of it because everyone wants to use it, I'm not so sure you'd feel very positive about it.
Granted it's an imperfect analogy but just trying to show you that even when you think an issue is lopsided, it may not be and it can be difficult to let go of as many BIASes.