Issue: Internet: Net Neutrality

[constituent14]

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070628201953222

You'll like this one, I promise.

[tonyr1988]

Of course, Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality. Personally, it's one of the issues that I'm stuck on. On one hand, I think that a free market would be able to completely solve this problem by itself - if my ISP sucks by limiting what I can and cannot access, I'll simply switch. Even if there was only one ISP in my area, it would be alright - if enough people were unsatisfied, that would be a huge incentive for another provider to enter that particular local market.

On the other hand, the problem is that the broadband industry is not a free market. Most local communities (city or county) have exclusive franchise agreements with certain cable companies, forcing out competition. They create a barrier of entry that is impossible to overcome, and I think that's a much bigger problem than Net Neutrality itself.

Do you guys think that Ron Paul would support deregulation of local cable monopolies? I agree that Federalism is an important part of the Constitution, but how much power do you think the federal government should yield in order to ensure that our freedoms aren't being damaged by the lower governments?

[beermotor]

Seems to me that battle is at the local / county level. It's one of the reasons I'd like to get involved in county/state politics. I HATE AND LOATHE AND DESPISE COMCAST AND WANT THEM TO DIE. Sorry, heh.

[tonyr1988]

lol, I feel the same way about Cox. In fact, I think most people hate their local cable company. The problem is: is there much that we can do? I know that our monopoly contract says something along the lines of "As long as Cox doesn't screw up big time, this contract will continue to be renewed" :(

[Kuldebar]

Like any piece of legislation these days, the title of the legislation sounds really great, Patriot Act, anyone?

The simple reason Paul is opposed to "Net Neutrality" is because it's basically the equivalent of the Camel's nose in the tent. Once you let that in...the camel is soon to follow.

Additionally, there are free market concerns, but the bottom line is that this so called neutrality would give tacit approval of government authority in black and white for future interference. Let's not try to make fascism better, let's get rid of it and replace it with freedom.

[angrydragon]

Couldn't they find another provider not in New York?

[BruceV]

Today's monopolies become tomorrow's dinosaurs.

In MD, some counties have Verizon fiber, which competes with Comcast. My neighborhood doesn't have fiber yet, but other technical options are becoming more viable. G3 wireless is coming.

I think, but don't 'know', that Ron Paul would be for opening the market to competition. The exclusive franchises provided to local jurisdictions are anathema to a free market, but should not be controlled at the federal level. Let the localities experiment to find a good solution. Once a good solution is found (or at least a solution that works better than what we have now), let it be replicated.

One problem with the current system is that the local pols get bought off by the highest bidder (campaign contribtutions). But, I could never go back to dial-up.

[foofighter20x]

Like any piece of legislation these days, the title of the legislation sounds really great, Patriot Act, anyone?

The simple reason Paul is opposed to "Net Neutrality" is because it's basically the equivalent of the Camel's nose in the tent. Once you let that in...the camel is soon to follow.

Additionally, there are free market concerns, but the bottom line is that this so called neutrality would give tacit approval of government authority in black and white for future interference. Let's not try to make fascism better, let's get rid of it and replace it with freedom.

Net neutrality is already the law. Corporations are lobbying to have it repealed. That's why it's an issue.

[foofighter20x]

Net Neutrality FAQ (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq)...

It's from a biased site, but it still covers the basics.

[tonyr1988]

Couldn't they find another provider not in New York?
Yeah, and it says that they're looking for one now.

[Mesogen]

The government created the internet in partnership with academia. The "pipes" were laid mostly with public funds. Telcos have certain types of regional monopolies.

"Let the market decide" is a phrase that DOES NOT APPLY to the backbone of the internet.

It most definitely applies to the CONTENT of the internet, but not the infrastructure or the protocols.

Is Paul going to tell us that all roads should be private and excessive tolls are OK if that's what the market will bear?

[angrydragon]

True, the government created the seed (I'm fairly sure the internet would have happened without the government too), but the market gave birth to the internet.

Street and roads were privately built in the past, public roads aren't any more efficient than private roads. Private roads would cost less than the taxes we pay for public roads.

[Nefertiti]

I love the Yes Men. They have done some brilliant exposes.

[literatim]

Without net neutrality, a website could cut you off from its competitor or content it doesn't like. For example, if AT&T decided it did not like Ron Paul's message, they could cut off access to his website. AT&T also having a contract with Yahoo, could cut you off from Google and the Google owned YouTube.

[Gee]

There are something like 14 internet backbone providers - too many for a serious monopoly to occur. The concern is the "last mile" of connections, i.e. the ISP itself. Most people only have 2 or 3 ISPs available to them (its pretty common to have multiple DSL options), if you don't count satellite. If any of them do monopolistic crap, local governments could handle it. Or maybe the federal government could (under the interstate commerce clause), but the important thing is not to let any government increase in power because of a far-off threat. No ISP has expressed an desire to do what the Net Neutrality proponents claim they want to.

Preemptive legislation? We know how well our government works with other preemptive acts.

[tnvoter]

There are something like 14 internet backbone providers - too many for a serious monopoly to occur. The concern is the "last mile" of connections, i.e. the ISP itself. Most people only have 2 or 3 ISPs available to them (its pretty common to have multiple DSL options), if you don't count satellite. If any of them do monopolistic crap, local governments could handle it. Or maybe the federal government could (under the interstate commerce clause), but the important thing is not to let any government increase in power because of a far-off threat. No ISP has expressed an desire to do what the Net Neutrality proponents claim they want to.

Preemptive legislation? We know how well our government works with other preemptive acts.


Exactly. This issue is completely mis-represented.

In order for an online provider to be able to legally give you access to the internet, they have to be federally liscensed.

You know what it takes to get federally liscened to provide internet access? You have to be un-biased and provide access to ALL of the internet. No company is willing to risk losing, or not getting re-liscensed at the end of the 10 year registration.

This is an issue used primarily by a democratic side of congress, in order to open up future legislation on the internet- perhaps leading to a taxation of the internet.

I recommend to all of you spreading the word on this. Thanx

ps. most of this info was given to me by Congress Rep. John Duncan Jr. of tennessee, whenever i sent him a letter of concern on the issue.

he happens to be a huge supporter of dr. paul.

[tonyr1988]

Exactly. This issue is completely mis-represented.

In order for an online provider to be able to legally give you access to the internet, they have to be federally liscensed.

You know what it takes to get federally liscened to provide internet access? You have to be un-biased and provide access to ALL of the internet. No company is willing to risk losing, or not getting re-liscensed at the end of the 10 year registration.

This is an issue used primarily by a democratic side of congress, in order to open up future legislation on the internet- perhaps leading to a taxation of the internet.

I recommend to all of you spreading the word on this. Thanx

ps. most of this info was given to me by Congress Rep. John Duncan Jr. of tennessee, whenever i sent him a letter of concern on the issue.

he happens to be a huge supporter of dr. paul.
Is there any way I could get a source about the federal licensing (about how they have to be unbiased)? I hope this doesn't come off as accusing you of being a liar, but I just haven't heard of that before, and a quick Google isn't giving me anything.

Thanks.

P.S. I found this (http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/federal_licenses.htm) site, but it doesn't mention Internet (only TV and radio). On the FCC's (http://www.fcc.gov/licensing.html) site, it's somewhat written in legalese, but I don't see mention of an Internet license. What bureau do they have to go through?

[buffalokid777]

You know, I think net neutrality is a good thing....

I get it now.....no one has blocked anything yet.....but if they do....

Then it's time to legislate it.....until the try to block stuff no need to legislate some monstrosity of a lie bill we'll have to analyze 400 pages of for the hidden crap...

Because if a company starts trying to double tax us coming and going.....then it's time to force net neutrality for blocking our first amendment rights on the net....

So far the only company that's tried it for sure was ATT in canada blocking some of their workers unions website.....

But if they start trying to block stuff, then there's no option but to impose fair access on them....we should call it fair access instead of net neutrality....sounds better...

I think we all can agree if we pay for x amount of bandwith....we should get x amount of bandwith.....

I really hate time warner....they're trying to sell me their voip phone for $40 month....i told them vonage is $25 and this is what this is all about.....they want to put vonage on the slow lane and their service on the fast lane...to stifle compitition.....

They haven't tried it yet....but if they do, I think regulations will have to be imposed so we do have a free market....and FAIR ACCESS!...I sure like the sound of Fair Access better than Net Neutrality :)

[tonyr1988]

If any of them do monopolistic crap, local governments could handle it. Or maybe the federal government could (under the interstate commerce clause), but the important thing is not to let any government increase in power because of a far-off threat. No ISP has expressed an desire to do what the Net Neutrality proponents claim they want to.

Preemptive legislation? We know how well our government works with other preemptive acts.

What would you consider "monopolistic crap?" For me, the biggest (quantifiable) indicator is prices (http://reclaimthemedia.org/broadband_cable/fcc_quits_tracking_deceptive_per_channel_cable_rat es).


The FCC said that cable rates on Jan. 1 2005 were up 5% for the year and up 93% overall since July 1995 . . .
. . . . . .
. . . [FCC Chairman Kevin] Martin stressed the 93% increase and related data showing that cable rates drop 17% in markets where a second company competes with the incumbent.

Granted, it's debateable how the price increases should be measured (as the article mentions) - you've got to balance additional channels vs. the value of such channels to the consumer, which is hard (if not impossible) to do.

Still, the "drops 17% when competition arises" is virtually undebateable. If they weren't abusing their monopoly, would there be any need to lower the prices when the market becomes free?

[tonyr1988]

So far the only company that's tried it for sure was ATT in canada blocking some of their workers unions website.....

Actually, something happened back in 2005:


In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed a willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service. While it is often thought that the FCC fined Madison River Communications following the investigation, it did not. The investigation was closed before any formal factual or legal finding. Instead, there was a settlement in which the company agreed to stop discriminating against voice over IP traffic and to make a $15,000 payment to the US Treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its inquiry. Since the FCC did not formally establish that Madison River Communications violated laws and regulation, the Madison River settlement does not create a precedent. Nevertheless, the FCC's action established that it would not sit idly by if other US operators discriminated against voice over IP traffic.

(emphasis mine). That's from Wikipedia (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_US), so it's obviously not the best source. However, they do link to a PDF of the settlement (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf), lending them some credibility.

It wasn't long ago when the SBC's CEO said that (paraphrasing) "these websites need to start paying if they're going to be using our tubes!". Everyone laughed at him, saying there was no way that anyone would believe that crap. Now, we seem to be getting closer and closer.

P.S. Oops - just realized that I double-posted. Sorry - that's what I get for trying to multi-task.

[buffalokid777]

Hey I think Fair Access is a good thing....I'm just waiting for Time Warner to start blocking Vonage....I just know them greedy scumbags are dying to....I just despise Time Warner.

I thought I would never see a more terrible internet provider than Adelphia...

I stand Corrected.....Time Warner is MUCH WORSE......

[tonyr1988]

Hey I think Fair Access is a good thing....I'm just waiting for Time Warner to start blocking Vonage....I just know them greedy scumbags are dying to....I just despise Time Warner.

I thought I would never see a more terrible internet provider than Adelphia...

I stand Corrected.....Time Warner is MUCH WORSE......
lol - you hate Time Warner, I hate Cox Communications, and beermotor hates Comcast.

Can we safely assume that customer service is negatively impacted with a local cable monopoly? :P

Since I'm gaining more of an interest in this topic, I would really love to see my local government take this on and protest to get it changed. Then again, I'm 95% sure that the contract is auto-renewing as long as Cox doesn't leave town (I don't believe the City has much, if any, say after the first 5 years). :(

[Montana]

Then again, I'm 95% sure that the contract is auto-renewing as long as Cox doesn't leave townGetting around contracts like that is generally not that hard. What you really want a competitor to do is build a fiber network, not a cable or phone network. So you just enable that, and it doesn't violate their contract to be the monopoly cable or phone provider because the competitor isn't building a cable or phone network.

[tonyr1988]

Getting around contracts like that is generally not that hard. What you really want a competitor to do is build a fiber network, not a cable or phone network. So you just enable that, and it doesn't violate their contract to be the monopoly cable or phone provider because the competitor isn't building a cable or phone network.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't fiber be the same as an optical line?


No person shall construct, install, maintain or operate on or under any street, any equipment or facilities for the distribution of television signals or radio signals or other intelligence, either analog or digital, over a Broadband Telecommunications Network to any subscriber. . .

They define Broadband Telecommunications Network as:


. . .all of the component physical, operational and programming elements of any network of cable, optical, electrical or electronic equipment, including cable television, used for the purpose of transmission of electrical impulses of television, radio or other intelligence, either analog or digital, for sale or use by the inhabitants of the City.

Also, I had mentioned earlier how hard it is for the City to get out of the contract, even if they wanted to. Could anyone that's more fluent in legalese tell me if that's right or not? Here's part of the section under "Franchise Renewal:"


Subject to Section 626 of the Cable Act, the City reserved the absolute right to grant or refuse to grant any renewal of the franchise following the expiration of the initial term of the franchise and to condition any such renewal upon the Grantee's agreement to comply fully with all amendments or other modifications to this Franchise as may be specified by the Board.

Does that mean that the City could cancel the agreement, but has to do so because Cox didn't do what they were supposed to? The "amendments" part is pretty confusing to me.

The only other part I see that mentions ending the agreement is under "Termination of Franchise":


Subject to subsection B below, the City reserves the right to terminate this Franchise and rescind all rights and privileges associated with the Franchise in the following circumstances, each of which shall represent a default and breach under this Ordinance and the franchise grant:

1. If the Grantee should default in the performance of any of its obligations under Sections V, Vi, VII, ..... and XXIV of this Franchise.
2. If the Grantee ceases to provide service over the Broadband Telecommunications Network without cause, except for circumstances beyond the control of Grantee.

I interpret that as "we won't cancel unless you break the contract or move out." If my interpretation is right - are these agreements normally this....evil?

Oh yeah, and sorry for going overboard on quotes. My bad. :D

[Kuldebar]

Without net neutrality, a website could cut you off from its competitor or content it doesn't like. For example, if AT&T decided it did not like Ron Paul's message, they could cut off access to his website. AT&T also having a contract with Yahoo, could cut you off from Google and the Google owned YouTube.

I simply don't agree. My Sony DVD player plays DVD's from other companies, not just Sony Pictures Studio...

If such a provider started that type of practice they would soon lose whatever market share they would have had, people would leave in droves.

For every bloated, excessively greedy grubbing Goliath company that arose there will be a bevy of little Davids running to throw stones.

I don't buy the idea that companies will attempt to pull that crap. The whole brave new world is about the free flow of information and the way to make money is to provide the means. If you start swimming against that stream, your company will become a pariah. Unlike the government, public opinion is far more effective against people that enjoy profit, especially when faced with their customers directly unable to hide their policies behind government regulations or federal laws. This is why we need government to stay the hell out of it.

As awful as AOL is, even they decided long ago to allow customers to "bring your own service" in order to access AOL content. They did this because the market demanded it, they were losing savvy internet users who didn't wish to be herded or corralled to online content.

AND LET"S NOT LOSE OUR MINDS here folks. It may be the godamn internet but it ain't magic. The now aged near obsolete telephone companies never felt the need to restrict you from calling people outside their network, why in god's name would a modern day communication company try to do so? Did GE a maker of televisions, among other things, and owner of NBC, design their TV's to only pick up NBC broadcasts?

It would be simply inconceivable and corporate suicide. I'd be more worried about the government shutting down all or parts of the Internet.

[tonyr1988]

I simply don't agree. My Sony DVD player plays DVD's from other companies, not just Sony Pictures Studio...

If such a provider started that type of practice they would soon lose whatever market share they would have had, people would leave in droves.

Where would they go? The problem is that most local governments restrict the number of broadband Internet providers allowed in an area (usually just one).

And the DVD player analogy just doesn't work. In order for your Sony Player to use the DVD logo, it must conform to a standard ("enforced" by the DVD Forum (www.dvdforum.org)). This would only be analogous to the Internet if ISPs were forced to abide by a "Net Neutrality" agreement in order to say they allowed you to connect to the Internet. Which, if they did, this debate wouldn't be taking place. :)


Did GE a maker of televisions, among other things, and owner of NBC, design their TV's to only pick up NBC broadcasts?

No. Why? Because you could always buy another brand of television set. That's the point of the free market.

[Kuldebar]

Where would they go? The problem is that most local governments restrict the number of broadband Internet providers allowed in an area (usually just one).

And the DVD player analogy just doesn't work. In order for your Sony Player to use the DVD logo, it must conform to a standard ("enforced" by the DVD Forum (www.dvdforum.org)). This would only be analogous to the Internet if ISPs were forced to abide by a "Net Neutrality" agreement in order to say they allowed you to connect to the Internet. Which, if they did, this debate wouldn't be taking place. :)

No, my purpose of the DVD example was a simple illustration how the free market can work out standards when left alone and not a direct analogy for the telecomm industry. The fact that net neutrality is a defacto industry standard is the point. Allowing Congress to get involved will simply pave the way to the usual abuses that always occur when politics and business sleep together.

You think local politics is bad concerning competition of providers, wait until the fedgov jumps into the mix.



No. Why? Because you could always buy another brand of television set. That's the point of the free market.

Well, duh. LOL that's what I am saying. You don't need the government to pass laws to have a free market, because you won't have one if they do. It's the difference between managed trade and free trade. People panic and run to the government to save them, and then a decade later the government is deciding nearly everything along with the powerful corporate backers.

If we let the companies make their own decisions with out government interference, they will have to face the music instead of hiding behind a law or regulations. And local governments are far more easily swayed by outraged citizens then the fedgov. You can fight city hall if they are locking out internet provider competition especially if the current provider is deciding censor access, which is unlikely to happen until the government steps in and decides to do things "for your own good".

[angrydragon]

I thought the tv analogy was good. Airwaves represent the internet. TV represents the computer. Except the internet is much more free (I mean less regulated) than tv.

[tonyr1988]

No, my purpose of the DVD example was a simple illustration how the free market can work out standards when left alone and not a direct analogy for the telecomm industry. The fact that net neutrality is a defacto industry standard is the point. Allowing Congress to get involved will simply pave the way to the usual abuses that always occur when politics and business sleep together.

You think local politics is bad concerning competition of providers, wait until the fedgov jumps into the mix.

I agree that the free markets works out standards just fine when left alone. I also think that the Internet should be completely unregulated - that's the biggest struggle I'm having with Net Neutrality (as stated in my first post - sorry if it was ambiguous). Once the government steps in, even if it's for good at first, we're admitting that they do have control over the Internet, and it can later be abused.

However, this is a slightly different issue. At what point should the federal government step in and "override" local governments in order to maintain a free market? If my State signed a law saying that we're only allowed to have WalMart, and no other grocery, clothing, home furnishing, electronics, or car repair store within the borders, should the federal government step in? That's what I'm having problems deciding...


Well, duh. LOL that's what I am saying. You don't need the government to pass lawst o have a free market, because you won't have one if they do. It's the difference between managed trade and free trade.

How can you have a free market when the governments are saying that no other companies can lay cables in their town? How can you have a bigger barrier to entry than making it illegal to have competition?

[Kuldebar]

How can you have a free market when the governments are saying that no other companies can lay cables in their town? How can you have a bigger barrier to entry than making it illegal to have competition?


We are on the same sheet here, Tony.

But, local governments should be held responsible for these shenanigans. When I lived in Arlington Virginia, I had to have Comcast as my provider because there wasn't a choice. The local governments (I later found out) had divvied up the pie and certain cable providers serviced certain areas.
It's ridiculous and outrageous in my opinion that this is happening, smacks of outright corruption.

I don't/can't see how getting the federal government to pass a Roe vs Wade equivalent Telecomm law would really help in the long run, and it's the long run you have to consider when letting the smelly camel's snout into our tent.


We have a mess on our hands that can only be partly solved by people waking up and demanding that their elected representatives at ALL levels of government straighten up and stop serving special interests. The federal government isn't the only government that's grown during the last 70 years, all levels of governemnt have become more bloated and intrusive.

By the way, some one many posts back mentioned roads...yes, I believe roadways/highways could easily be provided via the free market, in fact they exist already even in the US. But, that's another issue. And like Ron Paul says, it's not even on the list as far as priorities of what needs fixed soonest.

[Montana]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't fiber be the same as an optical line?Yes. Actually, with that contract it sounds like you're pretty screwed. Just by glancing at it, it looks to me like it would even prohibit the phone company from offering DSL service. That's sort of the exception I was looking for: Find what makes the cable company's contract not apply to the phone company and the phone company's contract not apply to the cable company and use that as the exception through which to bring a competitor for internet access.

Of course, if you really want out of the contract, as a government, it's not that hard. Threaten to pass a law which is highly unfavorable to the monopoly provider. Something like free municipal wifi. When they complain, claim that the purpose of the law is to create competition since there isn't any, and if they would agree to renegotiate their contract and allow competitors then you would scrap the idea. It's not very libertarian, but neither are government mandated monopolies.

[tonyr1988]

We are on the same sheet here, Tony.

But, local governments should be held responsible for these shenanigans. When I lived in Arlington Virginia, I had to have Comcast as my provider because there wasn't a choice. The local governments (I later found out) had divvied up the pie and certain cable providers serviced certain areas.
It's ridiculous and outrageous in my opinion that this is happening, smacks of outright corruption.

I don't/can't see how getting the federal government to pass a Roe vs Wade equivalent Telecomm law would really help in the long run, and it's the long run you have to consider when letting the smelly camel's snout into our tent.

We have a mess on our hands that can only be partly solved by people waking up and demanding that their elected representatives at ALL levels of government straighten up and stop serving special interests. The federal government isn't the only government that's grown during the last 70 years, all levels of governemnt have become more bloated and intrusive.

By the way, some one many posts back mentioned roads...yes, I believe roadways/highways could easily be provided via the free market, in fact they exist already even in the US. But, that's another issue. And like Ron Paul says, it's not even on the list as far as priorities of what needs fixed soonest.

True, I guess you're right about the federal government taking it as a mandate and abusing the power in the future (whoudathunkit?). That's what I was trying to figure out the whole time - sorry if it came off as confusing earlier.

I guess I was just disappointed at how hopeless my local scenario seemed, and figured that only higher governments would be able to fix the problem. I just wasn't sure (and I'm still not completely positive) where the line was between limited government and ensuring that local governments don't infringe on our personal rights.


Yes. Actually, with that contract it sounds like you're pretty screwed. Just by glancing at it, it looks to me like it would even prohibit the phone company from offering DSL service. That's sort of the exception I was looking for: Find what makes the cable company's contract not apply to the phone company and the phone company's contract not apply to the cable company and use that as the exception through which to bring a competitor for internet access.

Of course, if you really want out of the contract, as a government, it's not that hard. Threaten to pass a law which is highly unfavorable to the monopoly provider. Something like free municipal wifi. When they complain, claim that the purpose of the law is to create competition since there isn't any, and if they would agree to renegotiate their contract and allow competitors then you would scrap the idea. It's not very libertarian, but neither are government mandated monopolies.

Yeah, it seems that they've got a pretty big grip on us. Actually, the municipal WiFi is something that has been debated a few times, but it doesn't seem to get very far. I like the idea of passing an unfavorable law. Our town is growing pretty fast, and it's a shame to see our terrible cable service continue to get more and more business, and devote very little to helping customers or sacrificing for our city (heck - even the franchise fee is passed onto us by charging us extra on top of our cable fees, which I'm sure is fairly common).

Ugh. It all sucks. :D

[literatim]

I simply don't agree. My Sony DVD player plays DVD's from other companies, not just Sony Pictures Studio...

The internet is nothing like media formats.


If such a provider started that type of practice they would soon lose whatever market share they would have had, people would leave in droves.

The only problem is the fact that they all have plans to do it, so they can focus their userbase in their own little part of the online world. It allows them to further increase their profits due to force feeding their populace content. Your intenert provider has a deal with Amazon, so they restrict your access to Buy.com and Barnes and Noble. Cut you off completely? Maybe not, but a good chance that they may charge you some extra cash to access that site.


For every bloated, excessively greedy grubbing Goliath company that arose there will be a bevy of little Davids running to throw stones.

This is clearly coming from someone who does not understand how the internet works.


I don't buy the idea that companies will attempt to pull hat crap.

You don't buy it? This is exactly why the argument has come up because they want to do this crap.


The whole brave new world is about the free flow of information and the way to make money is to provide the means.

Are you serious? Look at the mainstream media and tell me that the way to make money is the free flow of information.


As awful as AOL is, even they decided long ago to allow customers to "bring your own service" in order to access AOL content. They did this because the market demanded it, they were losing savvy internet users who didn't wish to be herded or corralled to online content.

AOL never restricted access to anywhere.


AND LET"S NOT LOSE OUR MINDS here folks. It may be the godamn internet but it ain't magic. The now aged near obsolete telephone companies never felt the need to restrict you from calling people outside their network, why in god's name would a modern day communication company try to do so? Did GE a maker of televisions, among other things, and owner of NBC, design their TV's to only pick up NBC broadcasts?

They do restrict your access, it is called long distance and they charge you an arm and a leg for it.

[Mesogen]

True, the government created the seed (I'm fairly sure the internet would have happened without the government too), but the market gave birth to the internet.

Maybe, maybe not. How would we ever know since the telecoms have never been part of a truly free market? Not even close.


Street and roads were privately built in the past, public roads aren't any more efficient than private roads. Private roads would cost less than the taxes we pay for public roads.
But if I ran a private toll road that was your only route to work, or somewhere you HAD to go, I could always deny your usage of my road. Some people could use my road, but not everyone.



Edited to add:Oh, but I agree that the current push for "Net Neutrality" is bogus. It is a solution looking for a problem.

[tonyr1988]

Of course, if you really want out of the contract, as a government, it's not that hard. Threaten to pass a law which is highly unfavorable to the monopoly provider. Something like free municipal wifi. When they complain, claim that the purpose of the law is to create competition since there isn't any, and if they would agree to renegotiate their contract and allow competitors then you would scrap the idea. It's not very libertarian, but neither are government mandated monopolies.

I think that the biggest problem that people have with ending these cable monopolies is that usually the cable companies give some services to the City at little or no cost. For example, free Internet service for all public schools and government buildings. With no monopolies, the schools would have to pay for cable service, usually resulting in a tax increase, right? I can understand how people would see that it just balances out.

Obviously, if the cable companies are willing to sacrifice that much free service, it proves how profitable having a monopoly can be. I'm just not sure how much of a difference it would make for taxpayers.

Also, how could other companies lay cable, considering that most of it is on public property? I think I remember learning in school a little about telephone companies having similar problems (tons of wires hanging everywhere until the government took control). I don't know much about the evolution of the telephone industry, though. Anyone know how the phone companies / governments combated those problems?

I know that some places were able to break away from their cable monopolies, but I'm having troubles finding any particular examples? Does anyone know any details on how it was done? There are just so many small details that are unclear to me.

[Kuldebar]

@literatim


The internet is nothing like media formats.

Well, duh, I didn't say it was. My point that you seemed to miss is that there are examples of how things are accomplished in the market.




The only problem is the fact that they all have plans to do it, so they can focus their userbase in their own little part of the online world. It allows them to further increase their profits due to force feeding their populace content. Your intenert provider has a deal with Amazon, so they restrict your access to Buy.com and Barnes and Noble. Cut you off completely? Maybe not, but a good chance that they may charge you some extra cash to access that site.

Yes, and this is the obvious reason that government force should not be wedded to corporatism. Let's treat the problems, not the symptoms.




This is clearly coming from someone who does not understand how the internet works.

Resort to insulting remarks all you want, I have worked in government telecomm for 20 years, enough time for me to form some opinions of my own. If you are old enough to remember the Telephone Monopoly, you will recall that the emergence of actual competition completely broke it apart and changed the face of the communications market.

Yes, such monopoly control has once again reared its ugly head in the newer technologies, but once again this is due to government backing and force being used in the market place.



You don't buy it? This is exactly why the argument has come up because they want to do this crap.

It won't stand. The people that work in, use and rely on the Internet won't allow it to occur. There are far too many "insiders" in the industry that share the same values regarding information flow and individual liberty. There's even a candidate that running for president that appears to be getting a lot of support from these webheads.




Are you serious? Look at the mainstream media and tell me that the way to make money is the free flow of information. That's the old media dinosaur, since when did we ever have free flow of information and ideas from them? Remember a 1976 movie called Network? There's nothing new about the how mainstream media is culpable.

But, we live in a time of simultaneous technological and social revolution. You may be pessimistic about it, but I see great opportunity and I see the decentralized dynamic and interaction between individuals as being the greatest thing since the invention of the Printing Press.




AOL never restricted access to anywhere.

Listen, bud, learn to read, not simply infer. I stated that AOL used to restrict access to THEIR content from outside, this is no longer the case because they realized it wasn't a good business practice. The practice of not allowing users to utilize other access providers as a means to log onto AOL was changed around a decade ago or so.. AOL used to be very heavy handed about presenting content, they have relaxed this tremendously. They did this because the market demanded it, they were losing savvy internet users who didn't wish to be herded or corralled to online content.




They do restrict your access, it is called long distance and they charge you an arm and a leg for it.

There's nothing wrong with charging for services, but competition is the key to balancing these things out.

[winston84]

I personally think the Yes Men are brilliant.

[tonyr1988]

Resort to insulting remarks all you want, I have worked in government telecomm for 20 years, enough time for me to form some opinions of my own. If you are old enough to remember the Telephone Monopoly, you will recall that the emergence of actual competition completely broke it apart and changed the face of the communications market.

Yes, such monopoly control has once again reared its ugly head in the newer technologies, but once again this is due to government backing and force being used in the market place.

Complete curiosity - how did the phone monopoly break up? I'm not old enough to remember it (not that you're old, I'm just a young whippersnapper :p). Extra credit if you can give me a good site that summarizes phone monopoly history.

[Kuldebar]

Complete curiosity - how did the phone monopoly break up? I'm not old enough to remember it (not that you're old, I'm just a young whippersnapper :p). Extra credit if you can give me a good site that summarizes phone monopoly history.

A good rundown is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture

Now, I don't want to put too much of a sugar coating, because much has happened in the industry since that time that has reversed the free market gains that resulted from the breakup.

Often the word de-regulation is used when it really means re-regulation to make something more advantageous for special interests. In the case of the Ma Bell breakup, there was a very positive expansion of the whole industry which also was related with the initial success of Cable TV and Internet/BBS'es early on.

But, much of what caused the big telecomm monopoly is happening again albeit in a more sneaky manner.

From the stand point of a customer at the time after the breakup: you were now allowed to actually own your own phone that could be purchased and manufactured by any company. Additionally, you were allowed far more choice in what telephone company you choose to use in your area.

An oft-heard remark at the time was "Ma Bell has you by the calls". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System)