Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[Wand777]

Hog-train, i completely agree that just about everyone hates their current ISP. I also agree that we need to do w.e will lead to higher competition and higher consumer satisfaction. What NN skeptics are afraid of (again as i pointed out before) are the unintended consequences of stricter regulations and all the data I've seen justifies NN skeptics concerns.

My problem with the whole thing is we have no idea what is in the bill. That by itself should be a flashing red warning light.

 

[Hog-train]

Hog-train, i completely agree that just about everyone hates their current ISP. I also agree that we need to do w.e will lead to higher competition and higher consumer satisfaction. What NN skeptics are afraid of (again as i pointed out before) are the unintended consequences of stricter regulations and all the data I've seen justifies NN skeptics concerns.

Yes, but there is no proof that there will be much stricter regulations. The full rules haven't even been released yet.

So all this "ZOMG Giovernment intervention!!" is just a propaganda tactic pushed out by the ISP's.

Because we don't even know what's in the new rules yet. It hasn't been released.

You can't judge something that hasn't even been made public.

According to Tom Wheeler, one thing that is a stricter regulation is that local governments cannot stop communities from setting up their own municipal broadband.

I don't know how anyone can argue that this is a bad thing. That's allowing free market.

My problem with the whole thing is we have no idea what is in the bill. That by itself should be a flashing red warning light.

It's not a bill passed by Congress.

It's just an updated set of rules.

And BTW, for those that like to complain- "ZOMG it's 300 pages long!!"

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was also around the same page length (300 + pages).

This is an amendment to the rules set up then, so it's a perfectly normal length.

 

[Wand777]

Yes, but there is no proof that there will be much stricter regulations. The full rules haven't even been released yet.

So all this "ZOMG Giovernment intervention!!" is just a propaganda tactic pushed out by the ISP's.

Because we don't even know what's in the new rules yet. It hasn't been released.

You can't judge something that hasn't even been made public.

According to Tom Wheeler, one thing that is a stricter regulation is that local governments cannot stop communities from setting up their own municipal broadband.

I don't know how anyone can argue that this is a bad thing. That's allowing free market.



It's not a bill passed by Congress.

It's just an updated set of rules.

And BTW, for those that like to complain- "ZOMG it's 300 pages long!!"

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was also around the same page length (300 + pages).

This is an amendment to the rules set up then, so it's a perfectly normal length.

Edit. Never mind. Not really worth the time.

 

[Hog-train]

How Comcast, Verizon, and the Rest of Big Telecom Blew the Net-Neutrality Battle

They Kept Suing Over and Over Again to Weaken the Rules and It Backfired.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/how-comcast-verizon-and-the-rest-of-big-telecom-112519949724.html

 

[GermanBJJ]

My pet theory is that Republicans and Libertarians operate on the model that capitalist economies always follow the model of perfect competition - many, many firms competing against each other to provide the best service at the lowest price. However, the reality is that natural monopolies, oligopolies, etc. often form in order to rent-seek profits and avoid the perfect competition model.

This is where the cable business is today - very few firms with little or no actual competition. The "free market magic" of the Right simply doesn't exist in this industry. But Republicans/Libertarians can't admit that because it makes a philosophical dent in their models and introduces the idea of regulation as a tool for the improvement of market forces.

Therefore, Repubs/Libertarians know that they must defend monopolies/oligopolies anywhere and everywhere.

 

[Lee978]

Yes, but there is no proof that there will be much stricter regulations. The full rules haven't even been released yet.

The mere fact that ISPs got reclassified under title 2 implies stricter regulations (thats the whole reason behind this reclassification). Now I know that Tom Wheeler said the FCC will be applying a "light" touch or w.e but understand that the same faith you bash right wingers as having in markets is the same faith you're putting in government so I hope you can better understand why NN skeptics don't exactly take you up on your offer.

 

[Lee978]

My pet theory is that Republicans and Libertarians operate on the model that capitalist economies always follow the model of perfect competition - many, many firms competing against each other to provide the best service at the lowest price. However, the reality is that natural monopolies, oligopolies, etc. often form in order to rent-seek profits and avoid the perfect competition model.

This is where the cable business is today - very few firms with little or no actual competition. The "free market magic" of the Right simply doesn't exist in this industry. But Republicans/Libertarians can't admit that because it makes a philosophical dent in their models and introduces the idea of regulation as a tool for the improvement of market forces.

Therefore, Repubs/Libertarians know that they must defend monopolies/oligopolies anywhere and everywhere.

The problem with your "pet theory" (as I've already pointed out) is that the data doesn't back it up. If what you laid out were true, then we would expect higher prices (for the same or lower speeds) and we would see far less people being having access to broadband speed internet. In reality what we actually see is higher broadband speeds y/y and more and more individuals with access to broadband speeds.

Now you're a smart guy so you tell me. Are lower prices, faster speeds, and higher levels of market penetration for ISPs what would would expect from a monopolistic/oligopolistic market?

 

[Hog-train]

The mere fact that ISPs got reclassified under title 2 implies stricter regulations (thats the whole reason behind this reclassification). Now I know that Tom Wheeler said the FCC will be applying a "light" touch or w.e but understand that the same faith you bash right wingers as having in markets is the same faith you're putting in government so I hope you can better understand why NN skeptics don't exactly take you up on your offer.

Verizon didn't give the FCC any choice but to re-classify.

They kept suing over and over for any net neutrality rules the FCC tried to put into place. And keep in mind, before January of 2014, the FCC tried to put very light rules in place that ALLOWED ISP's to charge more for faster internet lanes.

Verizon sued successfully saying the FCC did not have authority over them because they were Title 1 instead of Title 2.

The judge in the ruling specifically stated the FCC had no authority and they need to reclassify under Title 2 to be able to regulate them.

So the FCC had no choice.

Even AT&T and Comcast were super pissed at Verizon because none of this would have happened if Verizon wasn't trying to push the boundaries and kept suing.

If Verizon hadn't sued at the beginning of 2014, the ISP's would have been allowed to charge more for certain websites and such. But they got greedy (or more specifically Verizon got greedy) and pushed to have almost complete freedom to do whatever they want.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

How is this even still being debated. I don't get it at all.

 

[GermanBJJ]

The problem with your "pet theory" (as I've already pointed out) is that the data doesn't back it up. If what you laid out were true, then we would expect higher prices (for the same or lower speeds) and we would see far less people being having access to broadband speed internet. In reality what we actually see is higher broadband speeds y/y and more and more individuals with access to broadband speeds.

Now you're a smart guy so you tell me. Are lower prices, faster speeds, and higher levels of market penetration for ISPs what would would expect from a monopolistic/oligopolistic market?

Your sources were cable lobby studies that were absurd on their face. The study said 85% of the US population has 100mbps internet available. I'd like to see their definition of 100mps and definition of available. For example, in Houston (the 4th largest city in the US), I have Xfinity. It says I can get 105mps down but when measured, it's like 25% of that speed.

So I am sure they are counting me as having it available even though it's like 10x the cost of some backwater town in South Korea and they actually don't even give me the 105mps for which I pay dearly.

Look - the argument you should make is NOT that our current ISP situation is good. It universally sucks and that's not even debated. We're, quite literally, a laughing stock with internet speeds worse than Astonia. Your argument SHOULD be that reclassification will make it worse so let's not do anything rash.

And here is a simple mental model for you: who supported this change or who was against it? Supporters - Basically every internet company. Opposition - Cable Companies.

Yet, somehow, you interpret that to mean that the Internet will get worse. Damn - if only all those PhD software engineers could see it like you and Comcast! They're just to dumb to realize the internet will get worse!

 

[James Keith]

Your sources were cable lobby studies that were absurd on their face. The study said 85% of the US population has 100mbps internet available. I'd like to see their definition of 100mps and definition of available. For example, in Houston (the 4th largest city in the US), I have Xfinity. It says I can get 105mps down but when measured, it's like 25% of that speed.

So I am sure they are counting me as having it available even though it's like 10x the cost of some backwater town in South Korea and they actually don't even give me the 105mps for which I pay dearly.

yeah I doubt they're actually bullshitting the entire city of Houston about their product's performance. If they say that's your peak speed you should see it, though if it's shared bandwidth then you need to try at off times. Call them and get it figured out otherwise. You might have some crappy old cables in your house or something.

I have never failed to see the peak speeds promised. If they can't achieve it where you live they won't offer it to you.

 

[Lee978]

Verizon didn't give the FCC any choice but to re-classify.

They kept suing over and over for any net neutrality rules the FCC tried to put into place. And keep in mind, before January of 2014, the FCC tried to put very light rules in place that ALLOWED ISP's to charge more for faster internet lanes.

Verizon sued successfully saying the FCC did not have authority over them because they were Title 1 instead of Title 2.

The judge in the ruling specifically stated the FCC had no authority and they need to reclassify under Title 2 to be able to regulate them.

So the FCC had no choice.

Even AT&T and Comcast were super pissed at Verizon because none of this would have happened if Verizon wasn't trying to push the boundaries and kept suing.

If Verizon hadn't sued at the beginning of 2014, the ISP's would have been allowed to charge more for certain websites and such. But they got greedy (or more specifically Verizon got greedy) and pushed to have almost complete freedom to do whatever they want.

Hog-train, throughout this thread you've made it a habit (intentionally or not) of asserting X and 2 or 3 posts later (when pressed) absolutely undermining X but finding another reason to defend NN. In post #122 you asserted that "Yes, but there is no proof that there will be much stricter regulations." I point out how by definition title 2 implies stricter regulations and then you reply to my point by agreeing but blaming it on Verizon. You did the same thing when you asserted that ISPs hold regional monopolies but then 2 or 3 posts later agreed with James that there is competition (implying no monopolies), just "not that much competition."

For the record, I'm not disputing your post about how Verizon's actions invited this new ruling. However, I do want to point out how evasive you're being (whether intentional or not).

Your sources were cable lobby studies that were absurd on their face. The study said 85% of the US population has 100mbps internet available. I'd like to see their definition of 100mps and definition of available. For example, in Houston (the 4th largest city in the US), I have Xfinity. It says I can get 105mps down but when measured, it's like 25% of that speed.

So I am sure they are counting me as having it available even though it's like 10x the cost of some backwater town in South Korea and they actually don't even give me the 105mps for which I pay dearly.

Look - the argument you should make is NOT that our current ISP situation is good. It's universally sucks and that's not even debated. Your argument SHOULD be that reclassification will make it worse.

And here is a simple mental model for you: who supported this change or who was against it? Supporters - Basically every internet company. Opposition - Cable Companies.

Yet, somehow, you interpret that to mean that the Internet will get worse. Damn - if only all those PhD software engineers could see it like you and Comcast! They're just to dumb to realize the internet will get worse!

You jumped in late so I forgive you for not taking the time to look through the thread to see what my actual position on this issue is (ironically, the position you say I should take is the one I've actually been taking). Also, the charts you're referring to weren't posted by me. If you take some time to look through this thread (and the other thread floating around) you would see that the data I'm referring to comes from the FCC not cable lobby studies. In those studies we see significant increases in the number, variety, and speeds of internet connections in the US over a 4 year period (2009-2012). If your "pet theory" were true, we would see the exact opposite happening. A true monopoly has no interest in or need to improve variety or service yet in the 4 year span covered by the FCC, data shows that to date, ISPs actually do care about variety and service its just not as much as you or I would like.

As I pointed out earlier, my position this whole time has been that despite our relatively shitty internet speeds and service, consumers need to be careful with just assuming that more government intervention (via title 2) will fix this potential problem of not having a free and open internet. I argue that government intervention is likely to lead to unintended consequences (as they often do) that could potentially be more harmful than the status quo. Judging from my last few posts it may not seem like that is my position but that's mainly because liberals in this thread (and the other) love to just throw out unsubstantiated assertions and I've been pointing out their errors. Liberals love to point out market failure but they conveniently forget about government failure.

 

[Hog-train]

Hog-train, throughout this thread you've made it a habit (intentionally or not) of asserting X and 2 or 3 posts later (when pressed) absolutely undermining X but finding another reason to defend NN. In post #122 you asserted that "Yes, but there is no proof that there will be much stricter regulations." I point out how by definition title 2 implies stricter regulations and then you reply to my point by agreeing but blaming it on Verizon. You did the same thing when you asserted that ISPs hold regional monopolies but then 2 or 3 posts later agreed with James that there is competition (implying no monopolies), just "not that much competition."

Title 2 doesn't automatically imply tighter regulations. That's just you claiming that without naming anything specific.

Can you be more specific in what exactly they are going to do that is more strictly regulated?

The FCC specifically stated they won't do last mile unbundling, or price controls.

So what specifically is going to change other than codifying existing rules of no paid prioritization.

The only thing that is changed (that we know of so far) is that local governments cannot interfere if communities want to set up municipal, community broadband service. That's a GOOD thing that promotes competition.

 

[FinalFight]

How is this even still being debated. I don't get it at all.

cut off your nose to spite your face

to do something because you are angry, even if it will cause trouble for you

 

[Lee978]

Title 2 doesn't automatically imply tighter regulations. That's just you claiming that without naming anything specific.

Can you be more specific in what exactly they are going to do that is more strictly regulated?

The FCC specifically stated they won't do last mile unbundling, or price controls.

So what specifically is going to change other than codifying existing rules of no paid prioritization.

The only thing that is changed (that we know of so far) is that local governments cannot interfere if communities want to set up municipal, community broadband service. That's a GOOD thing that promotes competition.

Here's your boy, Tom Wheeler:

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband.........

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

What you don't seem to understand is that what Tom Wheeler says in 2015 isn't set in stone. Fact of the matter is that title 2 is "the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC" and while he may promise to practice a "light touch" it doesn't prevent another FCC chairman from practicing a strong touch. Moreover, if you're a business, it doesn't really matter whether Tom Wheeler says he isn't going to impose price controls. The mere fact that price controls are an option (however remote) raises the cost of doing business which tends to lead to lower private investment (according the chart posted earlier this seems to be occurring in Europe).

Bottom line; the threat of force is just as powerful as the actual use of force. So just because Wheeler claims he will practice a "light touch" it doesn't make title 2 any less restrictive.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Bottom line; the threat of force is just as powerful as the actual use of force. So just because Wheeler claims he will practice a "light touch" it doesn't make title 2 any less restrictive.

Thank your comrades at Verizon for forcing Wheelers hand.

If they hadnt sued out of greed he never would have had to impose those regulations.

 

[Lee978]

Thank your comrades at Verizon for forcing Wheelers hand.

If they hadnt sued out of greed he never would have had to impose those regulations.

So you agree title 2 is a more restrictive regulatory framework.

 

[Poatan Power]

Title 2 doesn't automatically imply tighter regulations. That's just you claiming that without naming anything specific.

Well what in the holy fuck would be the point of reclassification to title 2 if it weren't for the ability to apply stricter regulations that being outside of title 2 circumvented?

 

[ChainFlow]

Well what in the holy fuck would be the point of reclassification to title 2 if it weren't for the ability to apply stricter regulations that being outside of title 2 circumvented?

It's largely the same regulations as a few years ago.

They worked just fine for years and years.

Then Verizon got them all removed.

That left the FCC with the option of very weak or no regulations (which we have never had and would have resulted in things like two-tiered internet, reduced competition and startup formation due to things like Netflix getting a fast lane when StartupVideoService can't afford it even though it's better than Netflix)

or

Title 2, and using only part of the powers available under that umbrella to basically have the same results as before.


They went with the latter, and that's a good thing. The same internet we've always had. Not some dystopian Snow Crash BS.

 

[Hog-train]

What you don't seem to understand is that what Tom Wheeler says in 2015 isn't set in stone. Fact of the matter is that title 2 is "the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC" and while he may promise to practice a "light touch" it doesn't prevent another FCC chairman from practicing a strong touch. Moreover, if you're a business, it doesn't really matter whether Tom Wheeler says he isn't going to impose price controls. The mere fact that price controls are an option (however remote) raises the cost of doing business which tends to lead to lower private investment (according the chart posted earlier this seems to be occurring in Europe).

Bottom line; the threat of force is just as powerful as the actual use of force. So just because Wheeler claims he will practice a "light touch" it doesn't make title 2 any less restrictive.

Your whole argument against Title 2 classification is based on the theoretical - what IF Wheeler does this? What If they stifle innovation. Nothing that actually happened or has happened in the past.

Net neutrality has been enforced for over a decade by the FCC. They didn't Institute price controls. They didn't require last mile unbundling. They didn't Institute new taxes. None of the things these ISPs claim is a danger has actually happened.

And Wheeler already specifically stated he would NOT do these things. And im sure when the official new rules are released, it will say so.

The only thing that was enforced was no paid prioritization. Something that the ISP's have already shown they were trying to do against Netflix.

This is completely Verizon's fault for challenging the FCC's ban on paid prioritization.

And you are pretty pathetic defending the greedy practices of some of the worst companies in America.

You can't even name anything specific that is negative about this ruling.