(2) There's no evidence that local municipalities running infrastructure and allowing telecoms to compete on services instead will reduce competition. It will likely increase it by lowering barrier to entry, as you can see all over Europe. Can you cite evidence of municipalities refusing to allow fiber installs? I did a lot of research and found nothing. I've only found the inverse, private companies lobbying to prevent municipalities from running fiber. [1]
(3) This kind of regulation is exactly the purview of the FCC. That's why they have a Title I and Title II. They already impose this exact kind of regulation on landline phone companies.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/03...
(2) I wasn't talking about "local municipalities running infrastructure" I was talking about them being used to prevent competition as you specifically gave an example of.
(3) I know, but the application of that regulation is at the discretion of the FCC, which, as we've seen, can be easily swayed the opposite way. That's why its better to have legislation.
I agree completely that explicit legislation would be far better, but in the absence of that it's the FCCs job to regulate. Saying they should abrogate that responsibility and not regulate on general principle doesn't address the issue. They are required do their job to serve the public interest.
I hope those who read this don't downvote because they, like me, disagree with you. Voting on comments is about pushing productive conversation to the top. I, for one, would like to open the doors in this echo chamber.
With that in mind, let me politely explain why you are wrong.
> What we want to do is expand competition by making it easier to compete.
I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this.
Have you? I would love to hear it, even if I disagree with it. I want discussion, not rhetoric.
> I support the FCC regulating governmental entities, not so much private ones.
The FCC was put in place to regulate private entities. Whether you agree with what those regulations are, it's important to understand that distinction. If you want to totally dismantle the FCC, I would love to have a discussion about that, but here we are discussing net neutrality, since it appears the FCC is here to stay.
> Net neutrality should, if enforced by government, be legislated, not initiated by a regulatory agency.
I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you? It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality.
> because they thought such a large change was unfit for unelected bureaucrats to decide.
That is a reasonable point, but let us not forget that those unelected bureaucrats did decide it, with input from millions of Americans. While that is a clear reason to not implement this regulation, I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation.
> Guess what, that tax never went away. It's the same thing with regulations. They just keep piling up.
That sounds plausible. What regulations are piling up? Maybe we should get rid of some that we think are unnecessary. I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental.
Darn. I got to the end of your comment, but I didn't find much to talk about. I'm still wondering: do you want net neutrality dismantled? Why? I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one. That's not very common. Usually there is something to consider. I haven't heard it, and I am beginning to fear that I never will, and that's just depressing. That would mean that Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill, and that those 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should. So sad.
I'm sorry, but when the same poor arguments are used time and again, it stops being productive.
That's true, but the same can be said about most comments in favor of keeping net neutrality (unless they bring something new to the conversation). I wanted to seek out discussion from those who do not share my opinion, rather than simple affirmation of my opinion. Then again, maybe there really is nothing for them to say.
That being said, I probably shouldn't have mentioned downvotes in the first place. I suppose this (from the hackernews guidelines) should apply to others' downvotes too:
> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
EDIT: I just noticed my ambiguous usage of "read". I meant it in past tense, not present. Therefore, that sentence was in referral to the parent comment being downvoted, not my own comment. I hope that is clear now.
As for downvoting: I generally don't comment on how my own comments get moderated, but if I feel that the Hive Mind is responding poorly to something specific, I may well mention it. Not often, but where it seems particularly pointed.
Generally not, however, preemptively. That's a bit too close to baiting.
Thanks you for being rational and kind and not blindly discounting me.
> I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this.
The idea is not that those regulations in particular are bad. In fact, I think starting where Pai started with the removal of those regulations was a bad move, since they're already there.
However, regulations are what they are, and any rule that a company must comply with is a relatively fixed legal expense and therefore a barrier to entry. This leads to any amount of regulation being a larger burden on startup firms than on large firms where these legal expenses are less relevant among their total expenses.
> I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you?
No, I haven't. And that was one of the main issues I had with all of these Democrats who championed the previous FCC actions. People warned them that this was at most a temporary measure but instead of cementing it in legislation, they left it up to the president. I wish there was legislation, but it seems like the legislators think this issue should remain within the FCC.
> It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality.
Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation?
> I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation.
I agree.
> What regulations are piling up?
It's not just regulations that pile up, but also past policy decisions. Starting with making AT&T a monopoly in the first place, continuing through the Clinton era regulations, on through now applying decades-old regulations to the internet. Then you have the capture of local municipalities by large ISPs which allows them to control when new companies can access infrastructure, get permits, etc. Google Fiber had the largest problems with this last part, which is where I think people should start if they want to increase competition.
> I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental.
Right, neither do I. I agree that privacy protections and net neutrality are necessary for an open internet, but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market. That's why I don't support removing them first, and I also don't support adding them in the first place.
> I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one.
There is no argument against net neutrality. In my point of view, nobody is arguing over whether net neutrality is good. People are arguing over which way to best get it. (of course there are exceptions to the rule, like some ISP shills and very ignorant people)
> Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill
I, of course, have no idea what Pai's true motivations are, but it seems to me that he could support removing these regulations without being a corporate shill. I think he's just following his principles. There's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are, I suggest you watch it. I'd like to know your opinion about it.
> 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should
I think they do have too much power over governments at every level which is why I'm automatically skeptical of any policy effort.
No startup with any sense will actually do anything against these rules, so it is clearly not an expense or a barrier to entry. That is something that is relatively unique about net neutrality (and the former privacy protections) as a regulation in general. An ISP that does nothing to abuse its users will never have a burden here. It's a pothole in a road to nowhere.
> Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation?
An ISP's network is very unlikely to be constrained to one state. If a state enacted net-neutrality, the ISP would still be able to have preferred traffic in other states. To make matters worse, the customer's traffic is not the only end that must be protected, since the server needs the same amount of bandwidth. In order for a state's net-neutrality law to be effective, it would need to apply in every state where a server is running that the (in-state) customer wants to connect to. Naturally, a state cannot do that.
> but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market.
The sad fact is that there is no competitive market. The other sad fact is that most customers do not understand or care enough to push free market actors to provide these protections.
> there's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are
I've heard it. It takes a very minimal amount of thought to debunk his claims.
From the interview:
> My hope is that in a more free market light-touch environment, we can figure out what the right regulatory framework is to preserve those core protections of a free and open internet.
It is abundantly clear that the rules that are in place are exactly that.
> "What would an ISP be able to do that they cannot do with net-neutrality?" Pai: "Nothing."
That is simply not true. There is abundant evidence that before Title II regulations were in place, ISPs were beginning to offer services with preferred traffic, etc.
> These were all phantoms conjured up by people who wanted [net-neutrality] for political reasons.
Like what? Clearly the real "phantoms" being "conjured up" are your own, Pai.
I didn't bother to comment on the rest of the interview.
Suffice it to say: Interviews like this are an opportunity for Ajit Pai to avoid any actual argument with net-neutrality, and even redefine arguments against net-neutrality in order to make them easier to defeat. It might be insightful to hear Ajit Pai actually discuss this topic with a net-neutrality advocate, so that real discussion is not tossed aside, but that almost certainly will not happen.
Oh, trust me, we understand that very well. What we want to do is expand competition by making it easier to compete. This largest barrier to competition at this time is local municipalities, which is a good place for the FCC to step in and tell them to back off and let the ISPs install their fiber.
I support the FCC regulating governmental entities, not so much private ones. Net neutrality should, if enforced by government, be legislated, not initiated by a regulatory agency. This issue was brought up by people on both sides of the issue for different reasons. On the pro- side because they new a regime change would just undo it, and on the con- side because they thought such a large change was unfit for unelected bureaucrats to decide.
The idea that we should introduce more regulation in order to fix bad historic policy is like government asking for a temporary tax. A long time ago my state asked for a new temporary tax for school renovations. Guess what, that tax never went away. It's the same thing with regulations. They just keep piling up.