Net Neutrality is an obvious good, needs to be implemented in strictest form. A great day especially if it applies to mobile as well. Careful with fine print. Doubt any conservative court will be able to help this time.
3 Likes
I believe it does.
Here is the News, Warren is referring to:
1 Like
In that case its one of the best days ever.
@Warren What outcome are you hoping for with this regulation?
The one we just got to start with, and the ability to have a lot more like it. I don’t believe any concession on free speech should ever be made to business. I don’t agree with concessions with business in any context. I also see money as censorship vice speech. Its more like undue loudness, meant to drown out distract, censor and spin. Further I want the world to be rid of both cable and TV as these are both centeralized top down propaganda control models. I want a world where sponsorship is illegal (with tech providing a replacement for wanted product info) and recognized as an outright destroyer of democracy and power sharing.
This right here is a finger in the eye of crap like buckley and citizens, and it means we are further away from war inducing cap melting stuff like the Keystone pipeline.
1 Like
Perhaps you aren’t aware of the law of unintended consequences: Unintended consequences - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Businesses, when they don’t go to the State for support, must follow the laws of economics - that keeps them honest. When you apply coercion in such a system - regulation, you make the system uneconomic…that’s when the system becomes vulnerable in many ways. The complexity of such systems means that such future vulnerabilities cannot be fully, if at all, measured - hence there are unintended consequences. I hope that MAIDSAFE itself has the ability to hinder/block/stifle whatever new regulations that are put into place, such that those consequences can be muted. But I fear that this global internet dominance plan called Net-Neutrality is only the beginning of a means to cripple free speech through bureaucracy.
3 Likes
To anyone who thinks this is a great thing, I would ask you to consider these points:
This ruling was made by an unelected panel, along political lines, very blatantly deflecting requests to delay until it could be reviewed by Congress. However good the decision MIGHT be, it is a very major decision which will put a federal agency further in the midst of all sorts of economic and contractual business decisions. It will almost inevitably require more taxes to ISPs which will be passed directly on to the end users. It will prevent ISPs from building high-bandwidth pipelines for movie, etc., providers and charging them for the added facility (and therefore providing better service to customers), thus forcing all of that high-bandwidth traffic onto the lines that the rest of us use for our other uses, potentially slowing that traffic measurably for everyone. Then we can complain about slow cat picture downloads AND choppy movie streaming. Many other unintended consequences are possible.
But let’s assume that, by some miracle, this particular decision comes up roses. What do we have? We have a group of political appointees deciding that their agency can have its way with a very dynamic, fast moving industry with escalating technology. Can we really think that, having established this precedent, these political actors won’t be up to more pernicious actions which will work to enforce government control over the internet? Control which could very easily be used to stifle speech and action? They say that that’s not their intent and that they act to preserve free speech, but how much do you trust political promises?
I, too, hope that the SAFE network will work to make a lot of this less relevant, but political intrusion may be tried in order to limit the effects of decentralized technology, and FCC laundry lists can’t help.
3 Likes
What neutrality means is the internet wont be run by defacto or dejure sponsorship. This is what the public wanted too. Almost all of the record breaking traffic to the FCC was pro neutrality or non censorship. This means the net wont be replaced by Fox news. It means ISPs wont become the new net.
If you have an in place captive industry as we do with the geo monopoly telcos you can tax profit and keep the price from being passed on to end users. This bs that says governments must guarantee a reasonable ROE is wrong especially for phony utilities.
We have a ocean of unlit fiber- that is the only pipe that was needed and its already in place. These firms wanted to engage in the fraud of premium pricing which would further disincentivise them from fIxing the US’s already worst performance in the developed world which was due to the deregulation. Fixing things would undermine the fake scarcity of premiums.
As for complexity, markets by long history tend toward useless monopoly if left alone. This is a huge knock against censorship and making money off of denying access, dumbing down and keeping people in the dark. Its a huge knock against money-as-speech and those who don’t get that democracy exists to allow people a share of the power and by extension a share of the wealth to stuff self appointed royalty. To be against neutrality is to be for censorship.
I don’t see this as an off topic, neutrality or anti lock-out is at the heart of the internet and what makes it work. Its the core principle. The attack on neutrality was an attack by malevolent money because the net is the most democratizing force we have ever had and its a threat to money and the unnecessary oppressive power of money. The attack on neutrality was what generated my personal interest in a new internet and SAFE.
4 Likes
No, it doesn’t.
The government is sponsored by people you want to control.
Good luck with that.
I’m really enjoying this net neutrality circus because it will soon become the very opposite of what it was supposed to do. Like the FDA, EPA and all other useless Federal agencies turned out to be.
Gotta love statists!
2 Likes
Well, I have to say I’m with Warren here. I would just say this appears to be the same argument as the one about tax, splitting opinion in the same way and along the same lines with the same economic arguments.
There are those that believe a totally frree market following some idea of Austrian economics (Mises) should be the end goal - a roughly speaking Conservative/Republican view.
On the other side we have those that believe that we should consider societal concerns as well, (welfare safety net, more even distribution of wealth etc) - a totally free market is desirable insofar as it provides these things. This would be the more Democrat/Left view.
I agree that there appear to be some politics at play here and questions around due process arise. I will just restrict my opinion to the 2 basic ideas in play.
If it does, then iI does, but I think it’s un-clear how it will play out. As with tax used for a societal safety net, those leaning more to the Left will believe that creating a fairer more equitable society, takes precedence over giving free reign to the markets.
I’m not really sure it will too much, but if it does, it does. The more equitable distribution of resources is more important than a totally free market in my opinion in any case.
Really? What happened when we de-regulated the banks then? Your “honest” bankers (by your reasoning) followed the “laws of economics” you are advocating and ended up being bailed out at society’s expense. You are basically advocating a “safety net” for the “free-market” (banks/ISPs), whereas I am advocating a “safety net” for society.
I believe Warren is correct and has identified the underlying fundamental issues.
I’d be in agreement with:
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it.”
The whole set-up seems to be more akin to an Ombudsman system, than regulation - the way I see it anyway.
3 Likes
You either don’t know the truth, or you are deliberately twisting it. The bankers, who by and large control the State deregulated areas they wanted for the sake of profits - they DID NOT deregulate the parts of the banking establishment that would have allowed competition against their interests, against their profits, and against their insanity. Deregulating PART is not honest, it’s gaming for profits. The laws of economics must be obeyed in a free market - if you really believe bankers exist in such a marketplace, you either live in fairyland or you have your head stuck in a hole.
You are not advocating a safety net, that would be insurance, you are advocating the use of coercion to have things your way, that makes you an immoral violence promoting statist.
1 Like
Ok, this would be the “hard -Right” view…lol
"Free Markets above all else - bollocks to society, economic “Darwinism”…
Lol…we’ve had all this, all the tax arguments etc…that was my point, we’d just be having the same old Left/Right arguments, there is no coercion or theft or buggery involved.
And that’s a non-sequitur and makes your argument incoherent and shrill sounding.
1 Like
And who bailed them out? Did the banksters bail themselves out? Where did they get the money?
Or did they get bailed out by the same people that told you they’ll protect you from the greedy telcos and ISPs - namely, the government?
This is awesome, I can’t wait till the shit hits the fan on this Net Neutrality nonsense. Satists will surely be the first to complain and their solution will call for even more government regulation.
Okay, let’s see: who believes that WiFi mesh participants - who provide public data service (free or paid, it doesn’t matter) - should be regulated by the government? If not, why not? How do I know I’m not being discriminated against?
How about data storage service providers such as data farmers? I understand they might decide to run farming schemes that give them a better ROI, instead of equally sharing their data capacity at the same, affordable price.
2 Likes
@janitor Oh but they called it “deregulation” didn’t they? Its what the free marketers generally provide when they go about improving government by getting rid of it in ways selected for their benefit.
But its a solid point about regulating end user controlled mesh, that’s sacred to me. Favorable is pull the plug on incumbent media businesses for eminent domain free speech, unfavorable is having cable suck up freed white space spectrum.
@AlKafir that Jessica seems to rock, straight up, called their BS.
@TylerAbeoJordan Have to disagree, safety net is not insurance, that is what is wrong with Social Security. Insurance where there is profit is a gambling game. And insurance is incomplete. Social Security would be fine today if Roosevelt could have got rid of the BS insurance angle aspect to it, it wasn’t for lack of trying it. It needs to be a right, no SSI or insurance angle. Even under the Affordable Care Act we are getting finger-in-the-eye insurance spin letters that try to say “our profit is the law” from firms that underline their perspective that crime is the law.
The fight is over the nature of money. We need some mechanism to get material things done but we don’t want those who use the means to be able to control the future.
1 Like
I think monopolies are not good for capitalism 
and I mean this pro-(reasonable)-regulation in the sense of Antitrust Division
1 Like
There’s nothing even close to monopolies and awful service at exorbitant prices except in the areas where the government protects you with their reasonable regulation
1 Like
Except that is simply not the truth. The EU does much better than the US on price performance and its because of more and better regulation. The US is in global last place because it allows allows supplier collusion to try to collectively screw the public to the point of undermining free speech. The idea that they would be paid more to undermine speech was ludicrous, but that is was what the anti neutrality group wants.
1 Like
Give me an example of a well regulated EU market that provides good products/services at a reasonable price.
Telcos? Healthcare? Banking services?
That isn’t going to work. Its common knowledge that the US has the worst price performance and tries to justify it with excuses about geography etc. You could probably find a thousand references with an easy Google search. You can find it in the annuls of Econ Talk. If I am not mistaken under 20 megabits per second in Japan is largely free with no cap. In South Korea 100 megabits throughout the country may be the norm- a couple firms were trying to weaken this situation in Korea, but again the equivalent price was much much less than in the US (were 100mbs is still largely a pipe dream) and latencies much lower. Access in both countries was close to 100 percent. The EU isn’t all that far behind. The US has been in absolute last place.
There is absolutely no sense in opposing neutrality. Opposing neutrality was literally trying to create a paid censorship market and bring it out into the open and make ok. It was censorship systems (sponsorship) understanding their business and political model would be killed off if they didn’t. They lost. Between SAFE and this its over for them. They don’t know it yet but this is the biggest defeat they have ever had. Citizens, Buckley and Citizens don’t add up to this and it will impact them in the next election cycle. So it appears will the launch of SAFE and Slur.
1 Like
If something is free, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t cost anything.
There’s seen and unseen. Someone always has to pay.
In the EU, related to this topic (telco services), data roaming costs are ridiculous and probably 100% higher than they would be if the EU wasn’t “protecting” the customers. Look it up, cost of roaming in the EU.