Net Neutrality pt.2

[GhastMaster]

Lissa, FiT, I realize you may be passionate about this too, but your responses...

I was looking for informative discussion. I wasn't able to prod in time before this comment. I think it would have come around. I have to admit, the notion that I don't know what net neutrality is, ruffled my feathers. Frankly though, Lissa is right. That is why I'm here. I roughly understand the history, much less the specifics.

In short, GhastMaster, I believe the free market doesn't apply here when the ISPs in question do not operate under free market conditions. The government has granted ISPs broad powers and stifled free market mechanics in order to establish them as monopolies. Thus, consumers such as myself have exactly one option for high-speed Internet access, putting me at that company's mercy regarding pricing and access policy. This makes their behavior to shape my Internet access a violation of my freedoms similar to having access to water or power controlled by them would be. Some could call this hyperbole, as "you don't need Internet access to survive," but it's also true that I cannot function in modern society without Internet access - financially, socially, and economically.

I'm going to be blunt with you. ISP *ARE* monopolies. They purposefully collude with each other to not compete. If you go into a large number of areas there's only one choice for an ISP. There is no free market for ISPs in the US. About the only places where you will see ISPs competing are in large Tech hub cities (like San Fran, Seattle, Washington DC) and in other locations, it's basically one or two (New York City is owned by Time Warner Cable or whatever it's called now).

You are correct. The various municipalities have worked hand in hand with ISPs to create vast monopolies. Yet, we have some alternatives with regard to individual access(eg. satellite, cell, cable line, phone line). I understand you are not able to host a website very well via cell data. A point of contention within myself arises when I consider that the landline ISPs are defacto utilities because of local regulations. However, it appears we are regulating something because we regulated it. We need the gov't to get involved, because the gov't got involved? Perhaps if we let net neutrality disappear, will more people will get involved in the local process? These local contracts are not permanent. If enough people complain about ISP blocking, they can change the available ISPs in their community.

I agree that Congress should have settled this issue long ago, but in our current political climate that has proven impossible. It thus falls on lesser organizations (in this case, the FCC) to overstep their authority, thus allowing members of Congress to publicly complain / make loud statements without having to take any action. And that's been the status quo for years.

It is interesting how congress allows its authority to be usurped when it is politically convenient. Unfortunately this sets precedent. It's nice when it works in your favor, but not so much when it doesn't.

Free market would be fantastic. If I could freely choose between five Internet providers and select the one that won't screw with my fundamental right to open Internet access, I wouldn't care what Verizon or Comcast would do. I would ignore them.

Out of curiosity, what is the derivation of your "fundamental right to open Internet access"? I'm genuinely curious. As I see it we have have a fundamental right to free association(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness sort of thing). Thus, we are free(setting aside protected classes) to choose whom we do and do not do business with. Do you mean, you should be free of the local constraints on ISPs in your area? Which would be in line with my idea of free association.

And before you go saying that the ISPs will do the right thing, no they won't. They have been given money by Congress since the late 90s to improve their networks from copper to fiber, do you know what they did with all that money? They pocketed it. They didn't improve their networks.

Agreed. It would be foolish to suggest ISPs will do the "right thing". There is no such thing when it comes to the marketplace. They offer services that we pay for or do not. Rural telephone modems were my first access to the internet. I have seen vast improvements since then. Due to telephony limitations other companies and technologies were developed to satisfy customer needs. Arguably they were holding onto profits in lieu of building infrastructure. Did the telephone company do the "right thing"?

I say yes and no. Yes they offered a service that some customers were fine with, but no they did not satisfy my demands as a consumer. I no longer use a modem. As to money going to the networks for infrastructure via gov't since the 90s; I am connected via fiber to the node. It is true that the companies did not fulfill their end of the bargain for many other locations. That said, it seems illogical to me to use a failure of gov't regulation(infrastructure spending) to promote further gov't regulation.

I'm sure Ghast is an ok dude.

I'm glad you are sure!

Either way, it is utterly mind blowing to me that any person (regardless of political orientation) who isn't a politician, CEO, or some corporate tool (I don't think Ghast falls under any of these, to my knowledge) could possibly think net neutrality is a bad thing. It's like the same crackpots who think free healthcare and education are bad things, for whatever outrageous reasoning and logic they employ to arrive at their twisted conclusions, and would rather not have them for the sake of having a perfectly "free market" (which again, is nothing more than libertopia fantasy straight out of an Ayn Rand novel anyways).

I do not think free healthcare and education are a bad thing. I wish everything was free. I wish the gov't would not try to make it free. It ends up costing way too much.

Here's the big thing that everyone should realize about the repeal of Net Neutrality, it allows ISPs to censor what you can and cannot get access to on the internet.

Some areas only have one car lot that only sells Ford vehicles. Has local zoning only provided enough room for one car lot? Is this akin to censorship? Are those people entitled to the same treatment that net neutrality ensures? The free market has not provided them with other options yet.

Ashock loves his Brietbart, but his ISP doesn't like Brietbart. They can stop any traffic that would come from Brietbart from entering there system thus censoring what Ashock wants to see. Another ISP may think that The Huffington Report should not be allowed on their network.

Are you suggesting I should pay taxes supporting regulation to ensure other people have equal access to news reports?