10 ms·

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... That argument

by colept 9y ago

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest? Should we go back to cars without seatbelts because at one point it wasn't so bad? Should we de-regulate smoking because it wasn't really so bad in the 40's?

ABCLAW 9y ago
No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.
- jack9 9y ago
  > No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.
    - jack9 9y ago
      > Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
      - ABCLAW 9y ago
        No, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is. If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      Title II goes back to 1934[0], and it is what allowed Ma Bell to stagnate for 50 years, thwarting any innovation and competition in the space (which is why we had to break it up in the '80s). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Str...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    It's inaccurate because regulations for neutrality under bases that have since been closed off by the courts were in place in the time period referenced. The current regulations were put into place to replace those regulations with ones grounded in what the courts had pointed to as the remaining available basis for net neutrality regulations. So, it's “lets strip new regulations because in the past, things were okay with old regulations that cannot be revived.”
throwaway23497 9y ago
I readily acknowledge I'm attacking your metaphor and not your argument here, but I'm curious about your perspective because I don't understand it. You really think that if the government decided to stop regulating car safety tomorrow that car manufactures would STOP putting seatbelts and safety features in cars? You realize that seatbelts were invented by the industry right? You know all those cool new driver assist saftey features that are poping up in cars? Those don't exist because they were regulated into existence. They are there because the market wants them people want them and will pay money for them so the industry is responding to it. Regulations are for addressing tragedies of the commons, externalities, and market failures. Your smoking metaphor is a GOOD example because there are externalities that can't be addressed by the market. But this belief that companies whole purpose isn't to give it's customers what they want (yes so they can make a profit) is bonkers to me. Now if you want to talk about how a lot of ISP's have a quasi-monopoly, then hell yes let's have that discussion. I'm right there with you, and those companies have done a lot to try and prevent creative solutions to the last mile problem(municipal fiber). Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out.
- lovehashbrowns 9y ago
  > Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out. I'm in full agreement with you. I don't think anybody wants these companies to maintain their regional monopolies. From my point of view, removing NN is like gifting the ISPs the chance to further reward themselves for maintaining their monopoly. Make a few extra bucks while the rest of us work very, very hard to try and get rid of their monopolies. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather put NN into place now, force them to do the right thing in terms of traffic, AND work to dismantle this awful monopoly that they have. Let's not pretend that forcing NN on them is like giving up on competition, because it's not. Even with them handling traffic in the most neutral way possible, we still have: shitty infrastructure, high prices, data caps, hidden fees, awful speeds, shitty customer service, predatory advertising, over-billing, etc. It's not like NN is gonna stay and suddenly everyone is okay with only having one viable ISP as an option.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
pbreit 9y ago
"Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest?" Generally, yes. In the USA, regulation should be the absolute last resort. And even then, Americans might wish to trade "terrible" for freedom and liberty.

by colept 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago

No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.

jack9 9y ago
> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.
  - jack9 9y ago
    > Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      No, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is. If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    Title II goes back to 1934[0], and it is what allowed Ma Bell to stagnate for 50 years, thwarting any innovation and competition in the space (which is why we had to break it up in the '80s). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Str...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  It's inaccurate because regulations for neutrality under bases that have since been closed off by the courts were in place in the time period referenced. The current regulations were put into place to replace those regulations with ones grounded in what the courts had pointed to as the remaining available basis for net neutrality regulations. So, it's “lets strip new regulations because in the past, things were okay with old regulations that cannot be revived.”

throwaway23497 9y ago

I readily acknowledge I'm attacking your metaphor and not your argument here, but I'm curious about your perspective because I don't understand it. You really think that if the government decided to stop regulating car safety tomorrow that car manufactures would STOP putting seatbelts and safety features in cars? You realize that seatbelts were invented by the industry right? You know all those cool new driver assist saftey features that are poping up in cars? Those don't exist because they were regulated into existence. They are there because the market wants them people want them and will pay money for them so the industry is responding to it. Regulations are for addressing tragedies of the commons, externalities, and market failures. Your smoking metaphor is a GOOD example because there are externalities that can't be addressed by the market. But this belief that companies whole purpose isn't to give it's customers what they want (yes so they can make a profit) is bonkers to me. Now if you want to talk about how a lot of ISP's have a quasi-monopoly, then hell yes let's have that discussion. I'm right there with you, and those companies have done a lot to try and prevent creative solutions to the last mile problem(municipal fiber). Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out.

lovehashbrowns 9y ago
> Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out. I'm in full agreement with you. I don't think anybody wants these companies to maintain their regional monopolies. From my point of view, removing NN is like gifting the ISPs the chance to further reward themselves for maintaining their monopoly. Make a few extra bucks while the rest of us work very, very hard to try and get rid of their monopolies. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather put NN into place now, force them to do the right thing in terms of traffic, AND work to dismantle this awful monopoly that they have. Let's not pretend that forcing NN on them is like giving up on competition, because it's not. Even with them handling traffic in the most neutral way possible, we still have: shitty infrastructure, high prices, data caps, hidden fees, awful speeds, shitty customer service, predatory advertising, over-billing, etc. It's not like NN is gonna stay and suddenly everyone is okay with only having one viable ISP as an option.
- libertyEQ 9y ago

pbreit 9y ago

"Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest?" Generally, yes. In the USA, regulation should be the absolute last resort. And even then, Americans might wish to trade "terrible" for freedom and liberty.