Net Neutrality hearing

[kpitcher]

I got an email on one of my lists, the save the internet.com. The current topic is Net Neutrality and how to ensure it lasts. A commerce committee is having a hearing on it tomorrow. Sen Kerry - yes that Kerry - is asking for comments.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/04/21/sen-kerry-i-need-your-feedback-on-net-neutrality/

Since the FCC has been very large telco oriented under Bush, including putting Powel's kid in charge over there for years, it's good to see that at least some discussion is being talked about.

For anyone wanting to give suggestions for the meeting tomorrow head over there and post a comment. Net Neutrality as a way to bypass the typical mainstream media is vitally important.

[Xenophage]

People I talk to seem quite confused about net neutrality laws. For supposedly anti-regulation, anti-government activists there are surely a lot of people screaming for government to save them from the evil telecommunications industry.

Net neutrality laws will do nothing to preserve net neutrality. If anything, they can be construed, like most regulation, to empower the FCC to enforce standards and censorship sanctioned by the state.

Where is the censorship now? What crisis has spurred the necessity for regulation of the internet?

There is no crisis. People are generally ignorant of basic networking hardware and routing protocols, and the phrase "IPv6" scares them.

The fact is that net neutrality came into existence entirely by free market forces and competition, and within a system void of any regulatory interference. There is no threat foreseeable to net neutrality whatsoever except what threats might come from government mandate. Net neutrality laws will help to cripple innovation in internet routing technologies, which is the only effect you'll immediately see. Some years down the road, you might also see net neutrality laws expanded (as all new government powers tend to grow, not shrink) or broadly interpreted to allow the federal government greater power over the internet.

[Knightskye]

Ron's against regulating the internet. Why are you alerting us about a net neutrality hearing? Are we supposed to tell our congressmen to vote against net neutrality?

[kpitcher]

The telcos have shown in the past few months that they are more than happy to kill bittorrent, play with DNS, and other brute force measures because they can.

It's possible that in the near future companies can start charging hosts for the ability for them to allow customers to visit their website, or at the least limit the speed and reliability to a website.

Deregulation is a very good idea. A major step was put forth in the 1996 telco reformation act that deregulated most of the industry and forced the monopolistic telco companies to open their network to competitors. CLECs were born, competition actually existed, and some very good things happened. However this was repealed in the early 2000s so we're back to monopolies.

What's that mean to the consumer? At best a duopoly, usually cable AND DSL service available, by 2 companies. (Sure there are some exemptions to the rule, but not many).

If the telco industry was free market that'd be one thing, However they are not. Telco companies are a legal monopoly with geographic regions defined as part of the Bell split and by a huge mess of various state and federal laws. In many areas it is simply not possible to have a competing service as it is not allowed.

One solution is to try to get deregulation back. Part of that is to encourage changes to the existing structure of the existing government enforced monopoly, hence my suggestion for people to leave comments. Until the Gov't is forced to give up the mandated monopolies, we have to fight to make sure the oversight that currently exists is benefiting us, the consumer.

So I suggest people encourage that net neutrality continues to exist, that states like New York and others don't start doing 'amazon taxes' hindering more Internet usage, don't create new regulations, and gets the FCC out of giving away monopoly access to the homes across america.

[Xenophage]

Net neutrality laws will not regulate the telcos, but network technology itself. The laws are quite likely to cripple necessary innovations in networking efficiency regarding the priority of packet-types and data intuition. The internet is still in the dark ages technologically, compared to where we can be in the future, and net neutrality laws might very well leave us stuck here.

If you're really worried about censorship, deregulation is not just "one" solution, but the only solution.

[jon_perez]

Regarding technology and the government, one must always keep in mind that if it were left to corporations (or the so-called "free market") to develop technology, the Internet would never have been invented. Novell, the most dominant networking company before the Internet era, could never bring itself to open up and democratize their networking technology.

TCP/IP - which eventually killed Novell's own network protocol and ended up being adopted by Novell themselves - was developed through public monies by DARPA.

So, much as I admire Ron Paul's principled stances, it would seem that some level of "socialism" has proven beneficial.

[Unspun]

Regarding technology and the government, one must always keep in mind that if it were left to corporations (or the so-called "free market") to develop technology, the Internet would never have been invented. Novell could never bring itself to open up and democratize their networking technology.

TCP/IP - which eventually killed Novell's own network protocol and ended up being adopted by Novell themselves - was developed through public monies by the ARPANET.

So, much as I admire Ron Paul's principled stances, it would seem that some level of "socialism" has proven beneficial.

Actually, I think Novell or a collab of companies, states, investors, etc could have. Then, of course, the government would have came in and "democratized" it...

[mdh]

The telcos have shown in the past few months that they are more than happy to kill bittorrent, play with DNS, and other brute force measures because they can.

True - vote with your feet. That's the capitalist way.


Deregulation is a very good idea. A major step was put forth in the 1996 telco reformation act that deregulated most of the industry and forced the monopolistic telco companies to open their network to competitors. CLECs were born, competition actually existed, and some very good things happened. However this was repealed in the early 2000s so we're back to monopolies.

What's that mean to the consumer? At best a duopoly, usually cable AND DSL service available, by 2 companies. (Sure there are some exemptions to the rule, but not many).

Right. Get your local government to get its foot out of the telecommunications market so that some competition will pop up.


If the telco industry was free market that'd be one thing, However they are not.

So lobby for it to be a free market (less government), not for more government!


So I suggest people encourage that net neutrality continues to exist, that states like New York and others don't start doing 'amazon taxes' hindering more Internet usage, don't create new regulations, and gets the FCC out of giving away monopoly access to the homes across america.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with internet sales taxes.

[mdh]

Regarding technology and the government, one must always keep in mind that if it were left to corporations (or the so-called "free market") to develop technology, the Internet would never have been invented. Novell, the most dominant networking company before the Internet era, could never bring itself to open up and democratize their networking technology.

TCP/IP - which eventually killed Novell's own network protocol and ended up being adopted by Novell themselves - was developed through public monies by the ARPANET.

So, much as I admire Ron Paul's principled stances, it would seem that some level of "socialism" has proven beneficial.

Beneficial? IPv4 is a damned mess, and IPv6 only really solves one of a myriad problems with it.

We had a circumstance where the market was coming to terms with different options, then in steps the government and says "Here is the de facto standard. it sucks in a lot of ways, but if you want our huge sums of money, you're going to use it." Welcome to the mess that was created by that socialism.

[Akus]

The day Internet is censored is the day we are ALL fucked. This is the last frontier, the Wild West of the twenty-first century. How are we supposed to know more then one side of the story with King Bush or whoever else blocking all the undesirable information?

[jon_perez]

The day Internet is censored is the day we are ALL fucked.You're fucked either way. If net neutrality laws are not passed, then corporatism wins. If net neutrality is passed, then [according to some RP supporters] the government gets to regulate the content passing through it.


Have a good day, folks! :D


It doesn't mean my vote would not go to RP, but on this issue my stance is independent.

If you think that the idea that roads should be built by private corporations which get to decide who can pass through them and how much to charge for them makes sense, then ok, I will not begrudge your stance against net neutrality. In fact, even if private corporations get to build all the roads in the country, you will want the government imposing rules on them that tell them they cannot discriminate on who can pass through and limits on how much they can charge.


Let's get this straight: The human organizational instinct seems to give rise to big impersonal entities like corporations and governments - these usually start out as well meaning, effective constructs that may devolve or degenerate into bureaucracies if not properly maintained. They are not evil per se. Maybe 95% of what government you have today is wasteful and useless, but net neutrality enforcement might be the 5%, the baby that you don't want to throw out with the bathwater.

[mdh]

Make no mistake here, ladies and gents, the net neutrality movement has only one purpose - to set a legislative precedent allowing the federal government to regulate the content of packets over the internet, and the configuration of devices connected to the internet. That is exactly what it will do if passed.

[Kludge]

The day Internet is censored is the day we are ALL fucked. This is the last frontier, the Wild West of the twenty-first century. How are we supposed to know more then one side of the story with King Bush or whoever else blocking all the undesirable information?

Word of mouth? Besides, do we REALLY need the information here? How'd they do it just a few decades ago?

I was off the internet for a couple YEARS and found myself being exceptionally more productive and focused. Reading through all of these forums and jumping around topics seems to make my mind do the same the next day =/

[Kludge]

Make no mistake here, ladies and gents, the net neutrality movement has only one purpose - to set a legislative precedent allowing the federal government to regulate the content of packets over the internet, and the configuration of devices connected to the internet. That is exactly what it will do if passed.

Even if it didn't, no one is entitled to the internet. Government has no right to tell any entity what to do unless they are committing aggression.

[jon_perez]

The day Internet is censored is the day we are ALL fucked.You're fucked either way. If net neutrality laws are not passed, then corporatism wins. If net neutrality is passed, then [according to some RP supporters] the government gets to regulate the content passing through it.


Have a good day, folks! :D


It doesn't mean my vote would not go to RP, but on this issue my stance is independent.

If you think that the idea that roads should be built by private corporations which get to decide who can pass through them and how much to charge for them makes sense, then ok, I will not begrudge your stance against net neutrality. In fact, even if private corporations get to build all the roads in the country, you will want the government imposing rules on them that tell them they cannot discriminate on who can pass through and limits on how much they can charge.


Let's get this straight: The human organizational instinct seems to give rise to big impersonal entities like corporations and governments - these usually start out as well meaning, effective constructs that may devolve or degenerate into bureaucracies if not properly maintained. They are not evil per se. Maybe 95% of what government you have today is wasteful and useless, but net neutrality enforcement might be the 5%, the baby that you don't want to throw out with the bathwater.

[jon_perez]

Make no mistake here, ladies and gents, the net neutrality movement has only one purpose - to set a legislative precedent allowing the federal government to regulate the content of packets over the internet, and the configuration of devices connected to the internet. That is exactly what it will do if passed.I agree that is an ever present danger. But one has to realize that corporations have that power today anyway and corporations are [in theory] even less beholden to you and me than a government that we vote in.

It's not a black-or-white thing. With governments you vote with via ballots, with corporations you vote via your money. Neither is a 100% effective and foolproof means of enforcing your will.

[jon_perez]

Beneficial? IPv4 is a damned mess, and IPv6 only really solves one of a myriad problems with it.

We had a circumstance where the market was coming to terms with different options, then in steps the government and says "Here is the de facto standard. it sucks in a lot of ways, but if you want our huge sums of money, you're going to use it." Welcome to the mess that was created by that socialism.This is not how the internet came to be, and I think you know it.

[jon_perez]

The fact is that net neutrality came into existence entirely by free market forces and competition, and within a system void of any regulatory interference.True, just like how goldsmiths practiced 100% reserve banking at the beginning without regulation requiring them to do so, *before* they realized they could get away with fractional reserve.



There is no threat foreseeable to net neutrality whatsoever except what threats might come from government mandate.Really? Doesn't the fact that big ISPs like Comcast, Verizon or Virgin categorically stating that they will give preferential treatments to content providers that pay them count as a threat against net neutrality for you?



Net neutrality laws will help to cripple innovation in internet routing technologies, which is the only effect you'll immediately see. Some years down the road, you might also see net neutrality laws expanded (as all new government powers tend to grow, not shrink) or broadly interpreted to allow the federal government greater power over the internet.I acknowledge these are definitely serious dangers to consider with any net neutrality laws that may be passed. We should keep in mind that consumer activism can be an alternative to government regulation, but I do hope people agree that net neutrality is an extremely important ideal worth preserving almost to the point of no matter what.

http://stopvirgin.movielol.org/

[Bradley in DC]

Ron's against regulating the internet. Why are you alerting us about a net neutrality hearing? Are we supposed to tell our congressmen to vote against net neutrality?

"Net neutrality" is a lobbyist euphemism for government regulation of the internet (you know, all of those tubes and all).

[mdh]

I agree that is an ever present danger. But one has to realize that corporations have that power today anyway and corporations are [in theory] even less beholden to you and me than a government that we vote in.

It's not a black-or-white thing. With governments you vote with via ballots, with corporations you vote via your money. Neither is a 100% effective and foolproof means of enforcing your will.

This is just wrong. Service providers have profit motives and often shareholders. The government has no motive. Profit motives are what make free markets work - they allow greed to be a productive force. Government and the fiat authority that it has allow greed to become a counterproductive force.

The government has 0 motive - even with less than 20% approval ratings, the current congress and executive officers are not ejected from power.


This is not how the internet came to be, and I think you know it.

I disagree. The private sector could, in a free market, have come up with something way better. Time and again, similar products have competed on the market with the victory going to that which is the best product and/or the most reasonably priced.

Government serves to stifle this natural occurence.


Really? Doesn't the fact that big ISPs like Comcast, Verizon or Virgin categorically stating that they will give preferential treatments to content providers that pay them count as a threat against net neutrality for you?

It sounds like property rights to me. As long as the government isn't putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use them, it's none of my concern, as a political activist. Furthermore, the government is stifling competition in these arenas oftentimes. That's something to fight against, but the way to fight bad government is never ever ever with more bad government. That's the thinking that got us to the horrible situation we're in today! Consider if you will how the economic crash of the 'great depression' erase brought on by coercive market forces (the newly implemented federal reserve bank and the 16th amendment) led to the new deal.

Net neutrality is the new deal for the internet. Instead of addressing the real problem, you're ceding more liberty to the government in the hopes that they'll deal with the symptom you see most clearly.

[jon_perez]

"Net neutrality" is a lobbyist euphemism for government regulation of the internet (you know, all of those tubes and all).It also happens to be a very real issue of concern.

Perhaps the problem lies more in the way that American lawmakers have a way of perverting all real issues into an opportunity to "expand government" rather than sincerely using the power of government in order to effect change for the better?

Perhaps that is no longer the case with the USA, but government need not always equate to evil...

[mdh]

Perhaps that is no longer the case with the USA, but government need not always equate to evil...

Yet empirical evidence from the past several thousand years disagrees with you. :)

The few rare things the government does with which most people can agree are merely done so as to bolster confidence or to allow government to continue on without those pesky serfs demanding such things be done.

[jon_perez]

... government need not always equate to evil...Yet empirical evidence from the past several thousand years disagrees with you. :)If you're going to generalize to such a wide extent, then the reverse (lack of government) would apply just as much.

There _is_ such a thing as good government although perhaps primarily in the US context, and in recent experience, this arguably equates to less government.

But I hope one can see that such a utopian ideal is deemed workable mainly due to the American character and spirit. Absent this, one could say other forms of government are more appropriate.

[Fox McCloud]

I do not like Telco's or cable company's limiting or forcing off content.....none-the-less:

(1) It's their Network
(2) this is a result of a government mandated monopoly, not the free market
(3) the telecommunications act, while admirable is forcing the telco's hands, therefore, I'm against it.
(4)the FCC needs to be abolished, and nearly everything in the communications field deregulated and privatized.
(5) Local governments need to stop screwing with the system too (all the above things could be implemented, and there'd still be a problem if the local gov's do what they're currently doing)....often a cable-co will come around and want to deploy in a city, and later on (much later usually), another comes along, but the city blocks it since "we already have a cable company".....instead of letting the market determine what is best for the town, central planners have decided that "one is enough".

Net Neutrality is a band-aid on a much large situation....it's like Bush's proposal to give the Fed even more power to "fix" the economy....sounds nice to the general public, and many agree with it, since they think the government knows what it's doing....however, it won't solve the problem, and will likely acerbate it.

edit: also, from networking perspective, the net neutrality laws (if you're wanting to make things "neutral") are awful; with the way the bill is written, all intelligent filtering/blocking/limiting would be done for, every single packet, regardless of content would have to be treated as neutral....this means spam, and other nefarious things.

so even if you support net neutrality, the bill is written terribly.

[jon_perez]

all intelligent filtering/blocking/limiting would be done for, every single packet, regardless of content would have to be treated as neutral....this means spam, and other nefarious things.That's about as libertarian as it gets, so I wouldn't be complaining. :rolleyes: You could always PAY your ISP to do _optional_ blocking/filtering.


Note the irony and paradox here, if ISPs are not forced by regulation to be neutral, then ISPs can regulate what info you have access to. So for those who think all regulation is bad, they lose either way.


Ron Paul has so many wise things to say on a lot of things, but I don't think he gets the philosophy of the 'Net.

[SeanEdwards]

The chinese government controls what travels over the internet in their country, and that's what you want here?

I much prefer the corporations controlling their network domains, as long as there is always room for new ISPs to enter the market. And it's not fair to equate this situation to road builders controlling who can use their roads, because geography limits the numbers of roads, but there is not a similar limit on the potential number of ISPs.

[jon_perez]

- duplicate deleted -

[jon_perez]

The chinese government controls what travels over the internet in their country, and that's what you want here?Isn't that an incredibly disingenuous a way to present what net neutrality is about?



I much prefer the corporations controlling their network domainsSo what's the difference between government controlling the network domains versus corporations controlling the network domains? The corporations lobby the government day and night anyway, so you can say that the corporations control the government too.

Sounds to me like net neutrality is one of those issues where the people get to have their say and do it through the government which, after all, is supposed to represent their interests, not those of lobbying corporations.

When ARPA ("the government") operated the backbones on the net they kept it neutral (without any edict to do so... which is the best situation of all). The baton of running the backbones was then passed on to private corporations because it was believed (rightly) that the free market is the best environment to sustain as well as develop the internet further. You could say the net started out socialist, became free-market, but maybe (just maybe) the best solution is to make it a bit "socialist" again. It all depends on how well the net neutrality laws are crafted, imo.

Just because majority of regulations are bad does not mean all regulation is undesirable or needed. It's good that libertarians and the like are fighting for less government and whole idea that there is too much government interference I frankly agree with, but the operative word here is "too much" and not "all". The right dose of government can sometimes be of benefit to the majority. You just have to be wise about it. The principle here is "as little as we can get away with" and not complete anarchy. Besides, some sort of hierarchy (government) will always arise in any human civilization, so you can't ever really escape from the concept.



And it's not fair to equate this situation to road builders controlling who can use their roads, because geography limits the numbers of roads, but there is not a similar limit on the potential number of ISPs.Not necessarily true.


I am frankly one of those who believe a wise, dynamic balance between socialistic ideas and free markets is the correct way to go. Now, just because you have a mix of both does not mean you're going to get the best of both worlds. The mix itself has to be done correctly, and that should probably be where all the discussion should focus on.

When ideas like "libertarianism" spread like wildfire like what is happening with RP today, I take it more as a sign that the status quo is screwed up in a particular direction (too much socialism or the WRONG kind of socialism or ineptly implemented socialism), than the fact that people are necessarily embracing the counter-ideology fully (even though they may not admit it or realize it now). Words, ideas and philosophies that sound perfect on paper do not necessarily work or succeed as brilliantly in real life. There are way too many examples of that already.

On the other hand, so much of what RP says resonates with me and I'm sure many others, so perhaps everyone feels that there is just way too much socialism in the US already, but see the problem there is that one might throw the baby away with the bathwater, maybe in the hysteria to eliminate all "socialistic" ideas, you end up throwing some genuinely good ones away. Sifting for the valuable ideas amidst the [socialist] junk is hard, but would you risk throwing away the ideas that work and which you in fact are already taking for granted? You might end up regretting it.

[pcosmar]

Personally I do not want any hindrance in the net. Whether ISP or Government.
There is too much already.
If an ISP does restrictive filtering I would rather have the choice of an alternate ISP. Deregulating would allow many more options.
And Yes, I have dropped a service and found another because of content filtering.
I am able to filter my own content.

[jon_perez]

Personally I do not want any hindrance in the net. Whether ISP or Government.I frankly do not get why net neutrality laws are being portrayed as a "hindrance". They are, in fact, there to eliminate hindrance.

Just like anti-trust, the issue is very complex and I don't think you will get black-and-white answers.

The whole idea behind anti-trust is to provide a level playing field which can be construed as guaranteeing freedom for other players to enter in a market. But of course there are a host of arguments for and against whether that is actually achieved.

Even libertarianism says that there has to be enforcement of property rights. So you can see that _some_ principle of law is still there, and it is not anarchy or "total freedom".

SeanEdwards says it is not fair to equate the internet with physical roads. I say that while it cannot be equated 100%, that it is a matter of degree and a gray area, and it cannot be said to be unlike the situation with roads 100% either. The "corporations operating roads" idea may sound absurd but if you take libertarian ideas to their logical conclusion, you would also argue against the idea of "eminent domain" and say that it should be ok for corporations to operate roads and control who/what passes through them.

If one steps back and looks at the forest though, one might see that the real problem is that corporations and government are becoming almost indistinguishable! That could be the real problem and not that government is all-encroaching. "The People" feel powerless and emasculated. That government is not representing them enough and instead becoming too beholden to corporations. That is probably the REAL (or at least one of the unspoken/unrealized) motive behind the thrust to reduce government.

Again, like I keep saying, there are no black-and-white answers. If people resent or fear corporatism (Noam Chomsky has stated that corporations are totalitarian organizations this thesis is credible to some extent), they need an organized body to do so, and government is in fact the logical, existing, premade body to do such.

If people want to abdicate one avenue of political power by reducing government and feel that their participation in the free market is a more effective method than [perceived] corrupt, inept or Kafkaesque bureaucracies of putting checks-and-balances on corporations, then so be it. But do think more carefully about what it is you are really asking for. Maybe what you really want is effective government and not less government per se (but of course if 90% of the government is ineffective, then having less of it IS probably the way to make it more effective... just don't confuse one with the other).

[Kludge]

Aggression is never justified except in self-defense, and even then it's a toss-up. Government has no right to restrict how anyone uses/sells/restricts their property. It's not their role in society, it's the free market's.

[Mesogen]

I do not like Telco's or cable company's limiting or forcing off content.....none-the-less:

(1) It's their Network

That we paid for through subsidies.




(2) this is a result of a government mandated monopoly, not the free market

Correct.


(3) the telecommunications act, while admirable is forcing the telco's hands, therefore, I'm against it.

Forcing their hands where? If it forces their hands to where they belong then fine by me.

[Mesogen]

So what's the difference between government controlling the network domains versus corporations controlling the network domains? The corporations lobby the government day and night anyway, so you can say that the corporations control the government too.

This is what I always try to tell democrats in their blogs.

They keep whining to the government to reel in those big evil corporations. But who do they think runs the government?

[AutoDas]

Your socialist government caused the problem and you want government to fix it:D:D:D:D:D

[jon_perez]

Aggression is never justified except in self-defense, and even then it's a toss-up. Government has no right to restrict how anyone uses/sells/restricts their property. It's not their role in society, it's the free market's.I fail to see what this "aggression" thesis has to do with the internet net neutrality hearings. You have been reading too much Bastiat.

At the heart of the argument is whether the internet "lanes" should be operated with public welfare in mind or if it should be left 100% to the whim of the free market (read: corporations which have a natural tendency to be monopolistic and greedy.) I maintain that this issue is complex and cannot be decided via ideology alone.

One must always keep in mind the origin of the 'net as a government funded and operated network which in fact had no restrictions on the data flowing through it. They wisely turned it over to the free market which had the effect of making it grow and spread much much faster.

Recent developments threaten to change the character of this global network tremendously and we cannot blindly apply ideological bias without considering its long term consequences.

A lot of the concepts that apply to radio telecommunications may apply to the 'net as well. Some people argue that the telecommunications airwaves should be 100% unregulated. Does anyone really believe this is a realistic proposition? Think of the chaos that would ensue. Does anyone really believe that a "free market" alone could do a proper job of ensuring smooth usage of the radio frequencies? Maybe you'd like to apply the same for air routes and shipping lanes as well? Auction off airspace and only allow those who pay for them to use the skies?

There is certainly a case to be made for government regulatory agencies being inept or overreaching their authority. But wanting to eliminate all of them out of vengefulness makes no sense and it will eventually backfire.

The whole point of having the hearings is so that the finer points made by either side of the issue will be heard and a wise decision can be arrived at in the end. One that takes into consideration all the advantages and disadvantages of having or not having such regulation (as well as the nature of such). While I'm largely for net neutrality, I am sure that the ISPs can make some good arguments as to why they want the freedom to prioritize packets. I'm just not convinced that the justification is compelling enough.

The pro-net neutrality camp also have their share of misrepresentations and exaggerations, but frankly, despite the amateurishness of their presentations, they have convinced me that there is something to be alarmed about.

I believe the issue should be decided based on carefully weighed pragmatic considerations rather than relying on simplistic ideological considerations.

[Kludge]

I fail to see what this "aggression" thesis has to do with the internet net neutrality hearings. You have been reading too much Bastiat.

At the heart of the argument is whether the internet "lanes" should be operated with public welfare in mind or if it should be left 100% to the whim of the free market (read: corporations which have a natural tendency to be monopolistic and greedy.) I maintain that this issue is complex and cannot be decided via ideology alone.

One must always keep in mind the origin of the 'net as a government funded and operated network which in fact had no restrictions on the data flowing through it. They wisely turned it over to the free market which had the effect of making it grow and spread much much faster.

Recent developments threaten to change the character of this global network tremendously and we cannot blindly apply ideological bias without considering its long term consequences.

A lot of the concepts that apply to radio telecommunications may apply to the 'net as well. Some people argue that the telecommunications airwaves should be 100% unregulated. Does anyone really believe this is a realistic proposition? Think of the chaos that would ensue. Does anyone really believe that a "free market" alone could do a proper job of ensuring smooth usage of the radio frequencies? Maybe you'd like to apply the same for air routes and shipping lanes as well? Auction off airspace and only allow those who pay for them to use the skies?

There is certainly a case to be made for government regulatory agencies being inept or overreaching their authority. But wanting to eliminate all of them out of vengefulness makes no sense and it will eventually backfire.

The whole point of having the hearings is so that the finer points made by either side of the issue will be heard and a wise decision can be arrived at in the end. One that takes into consideration all the advantages and disadvantages of having or not having such regulation (as well as the nature of such). While I'm largely for net neutrality, I am sure that the ISPs can make some good arguments as to why they want the freedom to prioritize packets. I'm just not convinced that the justification is compelling enough.

The pro-net neutrality camp also have their share of misrepresentations and exaggerations, but frankly, despite the amateurishness of their presentations, they have convinced me that there is something to be alarmed about.

I believe the issue should be decided based on carefully weighed pragmatic considerations and that relying on simplistic ideological considerations to pick a side is foolish.

It has nothing to do with vengeance... Government has no right to steal (control without permission) property. No one has an inherent right to the internet (or telco services for that matter), "filtered" or not.

Does the government have the right to tell book publishers that they must publish all writings brought to them? Why is it different for the internet?

If we're going to declare that "The People" own the internet, we might as well just take over the 700 mhz band being offered up for auction and create a nationalized wireless ISP, and start taxing it.

If we're going to interfere with the business practices of ISPs, I hope they receive special tax breaks. It's disgusting how the government continually tries to sell us on how they can run businesses better then the free market.

[hypnagogue]

There's a lot of strange talk going on in this thread...

The principle of network neutrality is that data may not be discriminated against. The reason this was not an issue in the past is because not until recently have routers been produced which could do what's called deep-packet inspection on large volumes of network traffic.

Let's bust out some analogies because I think those are the best for helping people to understand this issue.

If postal services were not "net neutral" than postal companies would charge you different rates or offer different delivery speeds depending on whether the content of the letter was a love note, a party invitation, or a bill.

Ideally, a net-neutrality type law for postal services would mandate that a postal service may not discriminate based upon the content of the letter.

Consider also what that postal company would have to do in order to implement a discriminatory policy. All of your mail would be opened and scrutinized. Though you may be using their infrastructure (planes, vans, facilities) that letter remains yours.

Data networks are not so different. You use your provider's infrastructure to send information of various natures to various other locations. The information within the packets your computer has constructed and transmitted, imo, remains yours.

[Kludge]

If postal services were not "net neutral" than postal companies would charge you different rates or offer different delivery speeds depending on whether the content of the letter was a love note, a party invitation, or a bill.

If the owner of the the government wanted to control their own services, that'd be fine. The problem with this bill is that it attempts to mandate how something it doesn't own will run itself.

[AutoDas]

The only advocates of Net Neutrality are pirates and mega corps like Google who have to pay more for higher priority. Neither of which are deserving of help or need it. Pirates should really step away from the computer and enjoy real rights in the real world. Bandwidth is going to reach full capacity around 2010.

[jon_perez]

The only advocates of Net Neutrality are pirates and mega corps like Google who have to pay more for higher priority.Interesting thesis, might be valid even. Would you care to elaborate and provide more support for this assertion though?

It sounds a bit too knee-jerk currently.



Bandwidth is going to reach full capacity around 2010.How so?

[jon_perez]

It has nothing to do with vengeance... Government has no right to steal (control without permission) property. No one has an inherent right to the internet (or telco services for that matter), "filtered" or not.

Does the government have the right to tell book publishers that they must publish all writings brought to them? Why is it different for the internet?

If we're going to declare that "The People" own the internet, we might as well just take over the 700 mhz band being offered up for auction and create a nationalized wireless ISP, and start taxing it.I get the spirit of your argument. But if you extend it far enough, then one might also say that "the people" don't own the airspace or the water supply, etc...

There are some things for which you have to decide whether you want to impose some sense of collective ownership or not, otherwise you end up with a dystopian scenario of ownership of each and everything being decided by money including the very air you breathe. The idea of "collective ownership" is not as nightmarish of implausible as you may think, because in one sense or another, we take for granted everyday that the air we breathe, the water we drink and even the roads we drive on are owned collectively. [This is why I consider Ron Paul's notion that property rights alone can ensure protection of the environment to be one of his less well-developed positions. Still, he seems to me by far the only candidate with anything intelligent to say about the issues].

Now, the question at hand is whether such collective ownership principles should apply to the data lanes on the internet. If one looks at the radio spectrum, "the people" essentially assume collective ownership of the airwaves via the government that [supposedly] represents them.

The government then decides how to manage the airwaves, license off some portions (with the proceeds going back to "the people"), reserving others for public, unlicensed usage and so on, with the idea that it is able to maintain an optimal balance between being able to harness the forces of free enterprise while still adhering to the ideal of collective good (which I maintain is a valid concept even though it has admittedly been subject to cynical, intensive abuse by bureaucrats).



If we're going to interfere with the business practices of ISPs, I hope they receive special tax breaks. It's disgusting how the government continually tries to sell us on how they can run businesses better then the free market.That is most certainly not what I see happening with net neutrality or even how the FCC manages the airwaves. The FCC does not actually run the businesses that license the EM spectrum, for example.

By the way, I'm curious, does Ron Paul advocate dismantling the FCC? (and on what grounds if ever...)

[jon_perez]

Consider also what that postal company would have to do in order to implement a discriminatory policy. All of your mail would be opened and scrutinized. Though you may be using their infrastructure (planes, vans, facilities) that letter remains yours.

Data networks are not so different. You use your provider's infrastructure to send information of various natures to various other locations. The information within the packets your computer has constructed and transmitted, imo, remains yours.Of course, the flip side of that argument is easy to make. The postal company could say that if you wish to use their facilities, that you permit your letters to be subject to their inspection and that you also agree that if a particular letter does not meet their criteria, that they have the right to refuse delivery of it.

So does that sound absurd or not? Perhaps the people who are against net neutrality could weigh in...

[Kludge]

I get the spirit of your argument. But if you extend it far enough, then one might also say that "the people" don't own the airspace or the water supply, etc...

There are some things for which you have to decide whether you want to impose some sense of collective ownership or not, otherwise you end up with a dystopian scenario of ownership of each and everything being decided by money including the very air you breathe. The idea of "collective ownership" is not as nightmarish of implausible as you may think, because in one sense or another, we take for granted everyday that the air we breathe, the water we drink and even the roads we drive on are owned collectively. [This is why I consider Ron Paul's notion that property rights alone can ensure protection of the environment to be one of his less well-developed positions. Still, he seems to me by far the only candidate with anything intelligent to say about the issues].

Now, the question at hand is whether such collective ownership principles should apply to the data lanes on the internet. If one looks at the radio spectrum, "the people" essentially assume collective ownership of the airwaves via the government that [supposedly] represents them.

The government then decides how to manage the airwaves, license off some portions (with the proceeds going back to "the people"), reserving others for public, unlicensed usage and so on, with the idea that it is able to maintain an optimal balance between being able to harness the forces of free enterprise while still adhering to the ideal of collective good (which I maintain is a valid concept even though it has admittedly been subject to cynical, intensive abuse by bureaucrats).


That is most certainly not what I see happening with net neutrality or even how the FCC manages the airwaves. The FCC does not actually run the businesses that license the EM spectrum, for example.

I've already had this argument before (long ago).... The People (gov't) do not own the airspace or the water supply. People own only their property.

Examples of what a property-owner owns:

His Life
His land
Any resources on his land. Special resources that flow to and from property will be called "flowing resources. When they are on your property, you own them. If you want to suck up water from a river or water which is underground, that's your right to do so as a property owner.


The government has no right to tell you what you can take from "flowing resources". So, if you are able to receive a broadcast, it should be yours (local TV, radio, your neighbor's wi-fi [receiving packets ONLY], etc.).

They only have a right to tell you what you can send out, because that's the only place aggression can occur. For example, the government has the right to say you cannot pollute the water which flows to your neighbor's land or send "malicious" packets through your neighbor's wi-fi connection (or any packets for that matter).

The Common Good is irrelevant, as is origins. Only the present matters so that not the most good can occur, but so that the least amount of aggression can occur. Trying to boost profits is nothing more then an "ends justify the means" form of collectivism.

[Kludge]

That is most certainly not what I see happening with net neutrality or even how the FCC manages the airwaves. The FCC does not actually run the businesses that license the EM spectrum, for example.

By the way, I'm curious, does Ron Paul advocate dismantling the FCC? (and on what grounds if ever...)

I'd assume he'd reject it as unauthorized by the Constitution and that it's a state or local issue, but I'm unsure of his official position.

[AutoDas]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html

[jon_perez]

I've already had this argument before (long ago).... The People (gov't) do not own the airspace or the water supply. People own only their property.

Examples of what a property-owner owns:

His Life
His land
Any resources on his land. Special resources that flow to and from property will be called "flowing resources. When they are on your property, you own them. If you want to suck up water from a river or water which is underground, that's your right to do so as a property owner.It's not as simple as that. What if, for example, I am upstream, and decide to block the flow of water so that someone downstream could not get it. How then, does the argument "it's my property, I can put anything on it that I want..." fare now?


The Common Good is irrelevant, as is origins. Only the present matters so that not the most good can occurThe concept of a Commons or Common Good, I maintain, is a very valid one, even though sadly it is subject to way too much abuse. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


but so that the least amount of aggression can occur. Trying to boost profits is nothing more then an "ends justify the means" form of collectivism.Again with the "aggression" thesis. You know, I think that the logic behind Bastiat's assertions are sound, just like with so much of Noam Chomsky's more controversial ones and they certainly provoke thought. But at some point one has to utilize some common sense and not be overly hypnotized by such artful displays of wordbending.

[jon_perez]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
What can I say? Sounds convincing...

Such practical considerations are far more effective at swaying me towards the other side of the net neutrality issue compared to vaguely formulated arguments in favor of "free market ideals".

[Kludge]

It's not as simple as that. What if, for example, I am upstream, and decide to block the flow of water so that someone downstream could not get it. How then, does the argument "it's my property, I can put anything on it that I want..." fare now?

That's how it SHOULD work!

[jon_perez]

That's how it SHOULD work!SIZE=4 would have made the point well enough... now I'm deaf and consider you somewhat rude.

But anyway back to the point, is that necessarily so? I don't think it is always as clear cut as that.

For example, what if you choose not to block the water flowing downstream, but instead poop and dump all your trash in it and the guy downstream eventually has to deal with your pollution. Under the simplistic notion of "property rights solve everything", you might say he has the right to sue you for polluting HIS backyard. That's fair enough.

But how is polluting the water different from NOT allowing the water to flow down? In either case, you could cause his plants to die off for example. What you do on your end AFFECTS his, so you can't really say you are only "minding your own business" and totally disregard the chain of cause and effect. In fact, a lawyer could also argue under the "property rights" principle, that in blocking the flow of water, you HAVE indeed violated his property rights, because you have altered HIS property's characteristics.

So my point is that the notion of collective ownership in the public interest is not without its valid rationales.