Net Neutrality

[AltF4]

Hey everyone. I'm back for yet another nerdy subject for debate. This is an important one, and one that's been put back on the forefront of attention lately: Net Neutrality. I don't have hours and hours to put together a full book on the subject like other threads, but I'll post enough to hopefully spark debate.

First, let's get a definition. Google has a really good page about it. I would suggest reading the whole page (it's not long). Or, I'll take this snippet from their page...

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet

Boy, with a definition like that, and supporters like Google (who are universally the "Good Guys" in virtually every situation) why would anyone oppose Net Neutrality?

Some misinterpret the proposals as "regulation on the internet". When this is exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to avoid: restrictions of any kind. Regulation is just simply not what this is about. Not unless you think laws that say the mailman isn't allowed to read your mail is a "regulation", too.

Some give arguments about how the TelCom companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc... have invested their own money into building an infrastructure, and ought to have the right to do with it as they please. Including charging different amounts to different people, blocking access to some people altogether if bribed to do so, and all kinds of other nasty things.

But even the premise of such an assertion is untrue. The TelComs do not exist of their own accord, but through government sponsored monopolies. They're granted the same status as a utility company. Just like with the electric company, the tradeoff for having a government sponsored monopoly is that you are subject to government rules. Otherwise companies go off doing bad things... like raising rates to unreasonable levels, failing to innovate, and participating in anticompetitive and discriminatory business practices.

Luckily, the FCC finally agrees. They have just recently promised to enact Net Neutrality as law in the United States. Unfortunately, lots of European countries are in the exact opposite situation.


There are so many links, websites, and videos to watch on the subject that I couldn't possibly try to enumerate any of the good ones. Just looks around!

To come later... more text? Certainly more sources.


Thanks for reading!
-Alt

 

[Reaver197]

Ahh, another great topic, and one I greatly enjoyed covering in one of my computers and society class.

I know that Ars Technica has some great articles on net neutrality. Here's an editorial and response to a recent attempt to call the net neutrality initiative "net neutering".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...l-network-neutrality-or-network-neutering.ars

I wish I had more to debate about, but I don't think there is anyway for me to argue against net neutrality.

 

[Crimson King]

I am actually completely opposed to net neutrality on the very principle of what you said it's not: regulations of the internet. The internet does not need a law/bill/whatever to state what private companies can and cannot do. By doing so, you are essentially setting the precedence that the government CAN regulate the internet later.

The biggest issue with NN is the fact that it is using TONS of scare tactics to get its way into becoming a law or whatever. Companies will not suddenly switch to unfair practices; it'll be a slow transition. What more there is still a free market in play, whereas with NN that will not be the case. Right now, let's say AT&T chose to block certain porn sites. From this restriction would arise ISPs that would CATER to those who crave that which is blocked. On top of that, there is the whole thing in the late 90s where free ISPs (usually gaining revenue by having you surf within a browser with ads) were actually stealing large numbers of people from AOL.

Next, there is absolutely no reason for a company to have to suffer any sanctions. If a company, who does pay for the bandwidth you use, and offer it to you at a reduced rate, chooses to not let you use their bandwidth in a way that they don't want, that is THEIR choice. Now, if you don't like it, you have the freedom to change. With NN, you'll just have a standard for ISPs where there is no way anyone can offer much in the terms of different services. Once an ISP tops out, speed-wise, for the time, all that they will have to work on is lowering their price to become dominate while maintaining good customer relations.

Net Neutrality is just not needed.

 

[AltF4]

Man, CK, why do you hate the internet so much? jkjk


In principle, much of what you're saying could be true. But it just isn't. There is no competition in ISP's. There is no free market. The vast majority of locations have two options for ISPs, and many have only 1 choice.

I, for instance, have no choice. My apartment complex uses Cox Communications. I can take it or leave it. No options. We can't have satellite dishes, nothing. And this is not the exception, but the rule. In the Phoenix metropolitan area, there is only two major ISPs: Cox and Qwest. Which one you get depends entirely on where you live. Only a small percentage of Phoenix even gets a choice. If you want to switch ISPs, you have to move homes! That is not competition.

You know what my internet speeds are like? Terrible. Less than 100 KB/s. Only enough to use 1 computer at a time. We literally can't watch two YouTube videos at the same time. And I have no recourse. I can't switch to a competitor because there is none.

Try thinking of an ISP like a utility. They are granted public resources, and therefore have to obey the public interest.


Besides, don't you see that Net Neutrality is designed to preserve Free competition on the internet? As a "Free Market" kind of guy, I would expect you to see this. The government has lots of restrictions on business that preserve the Free Market. But we don't call them "regulations" in the same sense.

Already we're seeing really nasty anti-competitive business practices from ISPs. Companies like Comcast have been caught blocking access to websites because their competitor paid them to do so. How can a Free Market exist in that kind of world? Whoever pays off the ISP with more money gets to stay in business? That's not how things are supposed to work.

You wouldn't want the phone network to act like this. In fact, there are strict laws about the phone and mail networks. Net Neutrality is just the analog of this principle, but applied to the internet.

 

[Crimson King]

No, no, no, no, no.

In principle, much of what you're saying could be true. But it just isn't. There is no competition in ISP's. There is no free market. The vast majority of locations have two options for ISPs, and many have only 1 choice.

I, for instance, have no choice. My apartment complex uses Cox Communications. I can take it or leave it. No options. We can't have satellite dishes, nothing. And this is not the exception, but the rule. In the Phoenix metropolitan area, there is only two major ISPs: Cox and Qwest. Which one you get depends entirely on where you live. Only a small percentage of Phoenix even gets a choice. If you want to switch ISPs, you have to move homes! That is not competition.

Honestly, and this will sound harsh, but how is that anyone's problem but yours? I live in a town of 15,000 in the middle of nowhere, where it floods often, storms take out and destroy equipment YEARLY, and I have the choice between 3 VERY good ISPs. Your argument is just an isolated incident here that will vary from person to person.

Try thinking of an ISP like a utility. They are granted public resources, and therefore have to obey the public interest.

The government has done this EXACT thing before, it's call the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and anything else to break up monopolies. Who has it affected? Car industry got hit in the 50s or so, Oil got hit early 20s, as did Railways. Airlines got in the 80s, and a few others I am missing. You know what they all share in common? At least one company in all these are now owned by the federal government. Do you know why? Because when you place a cap on an industry, you kill competition. One of the least profitable railroads is STILL in use today, and we pay taxes to fund it, because it is still wildly used by people, even though it's a failure. When the government busted up the so-called robber barons that held high stakes in the industry (usually owning 50%+ of the profits from the whole industry), the smaller companies that were struggling in the shadow of the bigger ones were all that could sustain themselves. The problem was they weren't in the shadow because of anything necessarily wrong by the dominating industry, but because they were inefficient and terribly operated.

Their poor operations STILL cost the US several billion per year.

Besides, don't you see that Net Neutrality is designed to preserve Free competition on the internet? As a "Free Market" kind of guy, I would expect you to see this. The government has lots of restrictions on business that preserve the Free Market. But we don't call them "regulations" in the same sense.

You clearly have no understanding of free market economics. Free market implies that the will of the consumer, i.e. WHAT they want to buy, will succeed, and the will of the producer will have to satiate that need. By adding ANY restrictions, such as anti-trust, minimum wage, or anything that hurts the way a business can perform to its best is NOT free market economics. While some things are inevitable now, making a rule that the internet has to be presented without bias is about as ridiculous as the federal government forcing Lysander Spooner to stop his postal company because he was making a huge dent in the USPS's profit margin. There is no evidence that ISP will suddenly start blocking every competitor's website.

Since that is the basic premise of net neutrality, working off a hypothetical, I'll present my own, which is based on previous example of the government restricting an industry, only to have it tank later. Let's say all ISPs are equal, which when they are all equal and presented the same, you have no competition. So, you have a huge ISP that goes bankrupt, as I said earlier, like what happened with the car companies this year, or what happened with the airlines in the nineties, or what happened with railroads in the 20s. In order to not cause a huge cluster **** of people being unemployed, people losing internet, etc. the government will pay for and maintain an ISP. Well, what happens if I want to blast the government for buying out my ISP. Obama has been known to be opposed to people proclaiming their opinions, so who's to say the government won't impose some sanctions on members, which while not limiting the basic access and neutrality of the internet, would still be within their rights by hindering an individual user.

Already we're seeing really nasty anti-competitive business practices from ISPs. Companies like Comcast have been caught blocking access to websites because their competitor paid them to do so. How can a Free Market exist in that kind of world? Whoever pays off the ISP with more money gets to stay in business? That's not how things are supposed to work.

You wouldn't want the phone network to act like this. In fact, there are strict laws about the phone and mail networks. Net Neutrality is just the analog of this principle, but applied to the internet.

First off, why can't Comcast block access to websites that they have to spend bandwidth on? By that principle magazines, radio, and television have been breaking this "law" for years by not showing competing television stations' advertisements. Video game consoles are also at fault for not allowing their games to appear on other consoles or allowing games to be played on theirs. Hey, it's what the people want; who cares if they have to spend extra money to provide this neutrality service?

The point is it is NOT free market or capitalist to force a company to push a service/advertise for something it does not agree with. If I form my own religious ISP, under net neutrality I would not be able to block porn sites, or limit bandwidth to children's accounts. Net Neutrality benefits NO ONE.

 

[Dodongo]

I've only ever lived in small areas. Where I used to live, internet arrived with a single dial-up ISP. Three years later there were four ISPs and now everyone has broadband if they want it, even in the remote places.

The general rule is that if there is a need for a better option, someone will eventually see the profitability in it. Inevitably, a cheaper, better ISP will come along and will either attract all of the customers or force the other companies into having better services and rates to stay competitive, no government interference needed.

 

[AltF4]

I've only ever lived in small areas. Where I used to live, internet arrived with a single dial-up ISP. Three years later there were four ISPs and now everyone has broadband if they want it, even in the remote places.

The general rule is that if there is a need for a better option, someone will eventually see the profitability in it. Inevitably, a cheaper, better ISP will come along and will either attract all of the customers or force the other companies into having better services and rates to stay competitive, no government interference needed.

The issue isn't how widespread broadband access is. I was using my terrible connection only as an example of how there in the real world, there is little competition between ISPs. It's widely known that American broadband rates are abysmal. But this has little to do with Net Neutrality.


@CK

Some of your assertions are covered here.

The rest are just naive at best, and inflammatory at worst. This isn't a debate about the merits of a Free Market economy. This isn't a debate about Obama's response to smear ads. And nobody is considering the possibility of a government takeover of ISPs.

I can't conceive of how you can think it's acceptable for an ISP to take bribes to block access to competitors websites. Or even nastier things like redirection. (Which Comcast has already begun doing.)

 

[Crimson King]

The issue isn't how widespread broadband access is. I was using my terrible connection only as an example of how there in the real world, there is little competition between ISPs. It's widely known that American broadband rates are abysmal. But this has little to do with Net Neutrality.


@CK

Some of your assertions are covered here.

The rest are just naive at best, and inflammatory at worst. This isn't a debate about the merits of a Free Market economy. This isn't a debate about Obama's response to smear ads. And nobody is considering the possibility of a government takeover of ISPs.

I can't conceive of how you can think it's acceptable for an ISP to take bribes to block access to competitors websites. Or even nastier things like redirection. (Which Comcast has already begun doing.)

Because they are businesses. If they want to produce an inferior product, it is their right to do so. Net Neutrality is saying that they cannot produce a product to the way they want and seeks to create a homogenized experience. The market will work itself out, but with Net Neutrality, the market is stifled because everyone has a certain expectation to live up to, as well as a certain standard to perform up to. When I was 13, my parents had AOL, which was abysmally slow on my computer. So, with my own limited resources, I found free ISPs that were much faster, and I didn't have to deal with AOL anymore. That's how free market economics works.

If there is something you don't like about your service, you get rid of it or deal with it. The market will work for the largest majority who demands a service or level of standard.

As for the article you linked, since you wanted to link to something clearly FOR regulation (which is the antithesis of free market economics), I'll link to people who know what they are talking about:

http://mises.org/story/2139 - Ludwig von Mises is called one of the best economists of all time, and the institute named after him produces some of the most cutting-edge economists of our time. Here is one heavily cited article explaining who really owns the internet.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson7.html - Another article by Tim Swanson who gives the best quote of the topic:

The internet is not a public utility, nor should it be treated as such. In fact, up until the late 1980s the network was largely nationalized and innovated at a snails pace. It was not until the primary backbones and datacenters were privatized that the modern internet was born due to commercial incentives for private entrepreneurs. And by renationalizing the pipes, the federal government will be undoing all of the liberalization that has made the internet glorious.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk3.html

 

[Crimson King]

TThis isn't a debate about the merits of a Free Market economy.

Besides, don't you see that Net Neutrality is designed to preserve Free competition on the internet? As a "Free Market" kind of guy, I would expect you to see this. The government has lots of restrictions on business that preserve the Free Market. But we don't call them "regulations" in the same sense.

Already we're seeing really nasty anti-competitive business practices from ISPs. Companies like Comcast have been caught blocking access to websites because their competitor paid them to do so. How can a Free Market exist in that kind of world? Whoever pays off the ISP with more money gets to stay in business? That's not how things are supposed to work.

The second quote is why my attacks are more rooted in free market economics.

It's one thing to believe that the internet and ISP providers shouldn't hurt freedom to do whatever online, but it's another thing to demand that they are outlawed from doing it.

 

[AltF4]

You're right, people like Vinton Cerf, who invented the ****ing internet don't know what they're talking about.

Get off it and debate the real issues instead of your mindless mudslinging.


Everyone knows the story of how the internet took off after being opened for commercial business in the 90's. That has little bearing on what we're discussing now. Nobody's talking about de-privatising the web.

The internet is, and has always been, successful because it is open, Free, and neutral. There is little to no startup costs on the internet. Google was at one time two college dropouts with a single computer under a desk. Even right now, the next huge thing to change the internet is sitting on some 19 year old's hard drive.

How can this freedom exist in a world when corporations can pay off ISPs to shut them down? All of what makes the internet special, different, and a success will be gone.

A level playing field for all members of the internet, no matter whether you're a multibillion dollar corporation or a teenager with a hand built machine running under your bed, is absolutely essential to cultivating innovation.

 

[Crimson King]

You're right, people like Vinton Cerf, who invented the ****ing internet don't know what they're talking about.

Get off it and debate the real issues instead of your mindless mudslinging.


Everyone knows the story of how the internet took off after being opened for commercial business in the 90's. That has little bearing on what we're discussing now. Nobody's talking about de-privatising the web.

The internet is, and has always been, successful because it is open, Free, and neutral. There is little to no startup costs on the internet. Google was at one time two college dropouts with a single computer under a desk. Even right now, the next huge thing to change the internet is sitting on some 19 year old's hard drive.

How can this freedom exist in a world when corporations can pay off ISPs to shut them down? All of what makes the internet special, different, and a success will be gone.

A level playing field for all members of the internet, no matter whether you're a multibillion dollar corporation or a teenager with a hand built machine running under your bed, is absolutely essential to cultivating innovation.

Your basing your entire argument off of assumptions. Just because a corporation blocks a website on one ISP, doesn't mean that website won't gain more notoriety elsewhere. You of all people know that if people want to share something, they will. Why does the government have to get involved at all? By adding regulations and "making the playing feel level" you are creating the exact scenario that hurt the railroad, car, and oil industries. In business there IS no level playing field. If someone wanted to compete against Wal-Mart, they can, but it will be a steep climb; however, the reward for being able to outprice and outwit Wal-Mart will be billions of dollars daily. ISPs are just a business that utilizes the internet. Forcing ISPs to remain neutral and not take so-called bribes (also called revenue when used in terms of advertising dollars) does not help these smaller sites or "the next big thing." This argument has no basis to prove ANY of this. All it's dealing with is speculation that corporations will start trying to shut down access to sites that want to compete with them. The problem that this argument ignores is that the internet is global, whereas ISPs are national. So a person in Sweden can have full reign of the internet, post about something really innovative on a message board, I learn about it, and I start to work out ways to obtain this service.

You of all people should know that no matter what happens, people will find ways to get around it.

Fact is all promoters of Net Neutrality do is work on this imaginary belief that companies will say "**** the consumer who pays our bills; I am going with this corporation." They are also under the assumption that alternatives will never exist ever, because you know when there is a lack of choice innovation never has ever come out of that.

To add, here is your counter argument against Net Neutrality promoting innovation:

http://reason.org/blog/show/the-free-market-not-government

Net-neutrality proponents contend that they want to use regulation to increase competition and innovation, but their remedies would have the opposite effect. The growth in demand for bandwidth-intensive applications, such as streaming video, multi-player online gaming, and telemedicine, will require vast capital investments. Broadband providers will not invest in such projects, however, if there is not a good chance they will be able to recoup their costs and turn a profit. This is not unlike how cable companies currently rely on richer customers paying for premium services so that they can invest in less-profitable ventures, such as providing infrastructure for services to rural areas.
[...]
The costs of stifling competition and innovation through net-neutrality regulations would be significant. A May 2007 American Consumer Institute study estimated that regulation would cost consumers $69 billion over ten years. According to study author Stephen Pociask, “Despite proponents’ best intentions, net neutrality proposals would be a twofold problem for consumers. Innovations that require a guaranteed level of service won’t come to market, and consumers would have to pay more for the services they receive.”

Last link:

http://precursorblog.com/node/753 - This blog post takes apart one of the largest funders of net neutrality. His personal stance is that free market theory is flawed, which, if he believes that he doesn't belong on the internet because the internet is testament OF a free market. The article, while slanted, does make one question the in agenda and conflict of interests of people promoting net neutrality. As evident with this man's opinions that the free market is a flawed theory (the article goes in-depth with the man's own theory), it makes me question Google's true motives behind wanting to "level the playing field." I'll post more on this after some research into how Google will benefit most from NN.

 

[AltF4]

Again, all of your complaints are things that aren't covered by Net Neutrality. This nonesense about "But the internet won't be able to handle all the bandwith!". Nobody's talking about not letting ISPs properly manage their networks for congestion. Who would make a law that says "You MUST sit there and watch your network crash". That would be stupid. Net Neutrality only says that when if you have to reduce bandwith due to network constraints, then do it in a non-discriminatory manor. IE: Not picking out particular businesses, protocols, addresses, etc...


And also, startup businesses are not the same as an MP3. When just one copy of an MP3 gets out on the internet, it's too late. It's out there. But this stuff about "The problem that this argument ignores is that the internet is global, whereas ISPs are national" is wrong. You don't need to bribe the entire world's ISPs. Just the one the startup is using. There aren't any "copies" of the service mysteriously floating on the web.


I just can't wrap my head around how you think the Free Market can possibly naturally enforce such things. ISPs have the power to silently (not publicly) do all kinds of nasty anti-competitive things. And we expect for them to just not do it? If any brick-and-mortar company like Walmart had the ability to shut down a competitor without anyone else ever finding out they caused it... do you think they wouldn't?

 

[Crimson King]

I just can't wrap my head around how you think the Free Market can possibly naturally enforce such things. ISPs have the power to silently (not publicly) do all kinds of nasty anti-competitive things. And we expect for them to just not do it? If any brick-and-mortar company like Walmart had the ability to shut down a competitor without anyone else ever finding out they caused it... do you think they wouldn't?

Because THAT'S what the free market DOES. If the market consumers want a service that doesn't silently remove competition, they will get it. Once a single scorned small business owner reveals what happened to his business via an ISP, then his story will be out, and the market will decide what it wants.

Just because an ISP blocks one website from a person doesn't mean information can't get out. Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech still exist in the country. If my fledgling business got shut down because it was providing a service contradictory to my ISP, then I'd go to the local libraries, coffee shops, anywhere with free internet access, and tell me story to as many who hear it.

With Net Neutrality, it's creating this scenario that the free market somehow never foresees. Fact is the market WILL always dictate the will of the consumer, ie the people spending money. If an ISP choses to go against that will, then they will fail.

 

[blazedaces]

Before I begin I want to add more than just this response to the topic, but I only saw it yesterday and had quite a bit of work to finish. That being said I haven't had a chance to read the sources, though I wish to do so. I'll try to respond with something pertaining a bit more specifically to this topic (net neutrality) later this weekend after I have a chance to read through things...

Because THAT'S what the free market DOES. If the market consumers want a service that doesn't silently remove competition, they will get it. Once a single scorned small business owner reveals what happened to his business via an ISP, then his story will be out, and the market will decide what it wants.

Just because an ISP blocks one website from a person doesn't mean information can't get out. Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech still exist in the country. If my fledgling business got shut down because it was providing a service contradictory to my ISP, then I'd go to the local libraries, coffee shops, anywhere with free internet access, and tell me story to as many who hear it.

With Net Neutrality, it's creating this scenario that the free market somehow never foresees. Fact is the market WILL always dictate the will of the consumer, ie the people spending money. If an ISP choses to go against that will, then they will fail.

Crimson, quite frankly, what economic background do you have to support this kind of statement?

The whole "free market fixes everything" ideal is nothing but republican dogma that has very little truth value in the real world. Picking a few examples where government intervention hasn't helped isn't evidence for the "free market fixes everything".

This imaginitive scenario where competitors always appear to provide for consumer demands ONLY OCCURS UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS and in economics these ideal conditions are coined "perfect competition". Notice the word perfect is italicized because nothing in this world is perfect. Examples of near-perfect competition is food sales and the stock market, but even they don't mimic entirely ideal conditions. On the other end of the spectrum are monopolies (when the market is controlled by 1 firm). You know what is right next to monopolies? Oligopolies (when the market is controlled by a few select firms). This is how the ISP market is controlled, by a few select firms (4 firms AT MAX in any given area in the entire United States and I dare you to find a location with many more than that. It is NOT a very competitive market).

Now, under "perfect competition" the market price is controlled quite literally by the consumer. Now, some might not exactly understand that, responding with "but a firm can set any price they want can't they". Yes, they can, but if there's hundreds of other stores selling eggs for 10 dollars a carton (hypothetically) and if you try to sell it for 1000 dollars in your store not one person is going to buy it there... and if you put too low a price you won't make enough money to keep your store open. Does that make sense? This is your ideal "free market fixes everything" scenario.

Now, under even ideal economical "monopolistic competition" I guess you would call it (again I use the world ideal because we're not taking into account everything else large corporation can do given free reign) you have what is coined in economics as "deadloss".

You see under ideal "perfect competition" the price that consumers want is also the price firms maximize their profit, so if you think of the gain from both parties as being positive, economic gain (total gain to both firms and consumers) is maximized as well (it's actually maximized to be 0, which if you think about it means what consumers lose, the firms gain, perfect equilibrium).

But deadloss occurs during monopolistic competition. Because now consumers have no alternative choice of where to buy their product, they will pay the price. Consumers still have a choice of not obtaining that product at all, which in cases of luxuries more often occurs, but with necessities less often occurs (how many people do you know who don't have heating in their homes) . This means the firm is deciding on whatever price to sell their product at, and will do so to maximize profits. The firm gains, but the consumers lose a lot more, so much in fact that you have deadloss, a loss economically speaking (a loss overall if you consider the gains of the firm and the consumers together as a whole).

Now, let's take a look at ISP's one more time and consider what's happening economically speaking. The market is controlled by a few firms (an oligopoly). Now, if you imagine a scale between "perfect competition" and "monopolistic competition" where on one hand we have great economic gain maximized and on the other we have it minimized, you have to realize that every real world scenario lies somewhere in between these two. Where do you think an oligopoly or monopoly situation would occur? Obviously leaning more towards the "monopolistic competition". And I just want to point out, I live in Philadelphia, a fairly major city in the US, and there are regions IN THE CITY with only 1 ISP provider. Sure, where I live specifically there are two (Verizon and Comcast), but that's still only two... Hardly a competitive market.

And just like heating, how many people these days don't have internet of some kind? It's no longer considered a luxury. I'm currently taking a class on computer crime where the professor (who has worked closely with law enforcement) mentioned that while a long time ago an offender could be told he was no longer allowed to use a computer/internet for "x" many years, today that can't really be done because it's almost impossible to go through life these days without it.

You might suggest that a new firm could crop up at any moment to fill the demand consumers have for a better ISP. Really? Do you realize why so few firms can provide internet at these modem speeds? The only ones who have done it up to this point are cable providers (who had an existing infrastructure) and large phone companies (like At&T who also had a huge existing infrastructure). What new business can realistically provide the starting costs to starting up a new ISP that anyone would be willing to pay for? And how exactly do you think the current ISPs will react? Oh yes, please come in here, provide things we don't and make it harder for us to make money? Sorry, that's not how the real world works my friend, and I think you know that.

Sorry mate, but the "free market" doesn't "do" anything. It's just a result of interactions, which can sometimes work well, and sometimes not work so well.

-blazed

 

[aeghrur]

I'd also like to add that under "perfect competition", the market is easy to enter and leave. The internet provides that for websites. Net neutrality PROVIDES "perfect competition" in a way with its low start up costs. =/
Aside from that, blaze's got it.

 

[Crimson King]

The whole "free market fixes everything" ideal is nothing but republican dogma that has very little truth value in the real world. Picking a few examples where government intervention hasn't helped isn't evidence for the "free market fixes everything".

Republicans abandoned Free Market principles with Bush when he claimed it was time to abandon it in order to save it.

As for the market doing nothing, the market is THE indicator of what people want. If there is no market for something, it will not sell or will not sell well. Simple as that. If you don't see how that is the market working, then your knowledge of economics is laughable. As for my background in economics, I have studied some of the best of the 19th and 20th century including Ludwig von Mises.

To officially state, I am for the notion of an ISP being unbiased and leaving things and fair as possible. However, I am vehemently opposed to making any legislature in favor of that. If a company wants to limit their customers, they should be able to, but they are doing so at the cost of losing business.

You might suggest that a new firm could crop up at any moment to fill the demand consumers have for a better ISP. Really? Do you realize why so few firms can provide internet at these modem speeds? The only ones who have done it up to this point are cable providers (who had an existing infrastructure) and large phone companies (like At&T who also had a huge existing infrastructure). What new business can realistically provide the starting costs to starting up a new ISP that anyone would be willing to pay for? And how exactly do you think the current ISPs will react? Oh yes, please come in here, provide things we don't and make it harder for us to make money? Sorry, that's not how the real world works my friend, and I think you know that.

Also, this is incorrect. In the late nineties many free ISPs or Pay You to Surf ISPs cropped up that simply let you surf as long as you used their browser which loaded up advertisements. It served as an alternative to AOL, which was dominate at the time. While dial-up isn't great at all, it does provide a free alternative to businesses that don't give you free reign.

 

[blazedaces]

To officially state, I am for the notion of an ISP being unbiased and leaving things and fair as possible. However, I am vehemently opposed to making any legislature in favor of that. If a company wants to limit their customers, they should be able to, but they are doing so at the cost of losing business.

Let's bring discrimination into the picture since there's an existing law against such practice. Yes, a restaurant can choose to never serve food to black people at the expense of losing any profit from black customers. What if an entire town or county is committing this practice? This went on like this for decades. I'm sorry, but the free market didn't fix this, and to be quite frank would never completely do this. Unless it was law, it would still happen quite a lot and while I'm not going to go looking online for examples I'm sure it still occurs in many places, just in a much more subtle nature. Sometimes, the government really does not to step in to fix situations.

But now we're honestly straying a bit far from the original topic. The point I'm trying to get across is that these powerful ISP's, at least the major ones MOST people use do have major control over the market. They can abuse that control since most people NEED to have internet. If we give them free reign to ban certain people, cater to others, refuse to allow certain businesses to flourish, etc. what is going to stop them? It's also not always the easiest process to switch ISPs. ISPs are very synonymous to a commodity (like gas and water). That's really all it comes down to...

Also, this is incorrect. In the late nineties many free ISPs or Pay You to Surf ISPs cropped up that simply let you surf as long as you used their browser which loaded up advertisements. It served as an alternative to AOL, which was dominate at the time. While dial-up isn't great at all, it does provide a free alternative to businesses that don't give you free reign.

I probably should have specified that I was referring to the higher speed connections (cable modem, DSL, etc.). There are plenty of "wireless roaming" ISP's available in the city of philadelphia... just to be clear. But of course that type of ISP is slow, doesn't work well at certain locations (even if technically the ISP is available in the area, if you live very high up it still won't reach you for example.