The FCC doesn’t regulate the cable companies and thank God they don’t.
I don’t like the idea of the FCC neutering Game of Thrones.
I suspect those of us who aren’t fans of the way the FCC has gone after TV shows and radio hosts they don’t like may not be as upset as others about this decision.
Once you say the FCC has the right to regulate ISPs, you’re saying the government has the right to regulate ISPs and that’s when you open a whole can of worms.
In that last sentence, substitute “we the people” for “government” and “ensure fair pricing for services and equal treatment of all content” for “regulate” and see if that sounds any better.
Yes, I’m familiar with how the FCC went after CBS with a half-million dollar fine for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”. I’m also familiar with the baseless lies and venomous hate that permeate the airwaves, and how some cable “news” outlets specialize in distortion and just making things up. The question is, what is more damaging to free markets and to democracy itself: government regulation, or the unbridled self-serving proclivities of unaccountable corporations?
If government regulation does stupid things, like getting all worked up over a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s boobie, then I suggest the solution is better government, not the abolition of regulation.
Respectfully, if I’m reading you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that you think the government should be allowed to censor the cable news networks that engage in what you consider to be “distortion” and “making things up” in order to “protect democracy”?
Am I wrong?
Why would the FCC censor Game of Thrones? It’s on a pay channel. The basic cable/subscription channel dichotomy has become settled tradition. People know the rules and that while the basic cable shows might get edgy, particularly late at night, you have to pay extra for the hardcore stuff. There’s no outcry against HBO and the like so no reason to alienate anyone in the donor class. Federal oversight of cable companies/ISPs would be for anti-competitive business practices.
The FCC doesn’t censor HBO because can’t censor HBO, or any other cable network. They have no authority over cable whether basic or premium. They’re not using “the public airwaves”.
However, if tomorrow the courts ruled that the FCC could start regulating and fining cable the way they could Howard Stern(before he started using satellite) and telling the Officer Krupkes in charge that they can regulate HBO etc. of course they will, if for no other reason than you would see politicians would start demanding that it be regulated to “protect the children” or similar bullshit.
That. Net Neutrality is basically saying that you cannot force Netflix to pay you $X for access to your network. This would crop up over night because almost every ISP has a media interest outside of providing internet. So, if you go with Comcast, who has Xfinity, they don’t want you using Hulu or Netflix because that’s a potential customer loss if you happen to like those competitor’s offerings or rates better than Xfinity.
There is a huge conflict of interest between providing media and providing internet service. Enforcing neutrality on internet service providers means that you can’t be locked into their offering simply because they price out their competitors before the competitors ever reach you, the consumer.
So a regional monopoly (or oligopoly even in the most competitive areas) won’t be able to force consumers to use its own service despite alternatives. I’m not sure how this is an argument against net neutrality from the consumers’ perspective or that of a competitive market.
But that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this.
The other argument, in that reclassification may lead to FCC’s brand of NetNanny internet for all is more compelling.
Ibn Warraq, correct me if I’m wrong but your argument is if broadband internet was reclassified as a telecommunication service, the FCC have the authority to ‘censor’ the internet the way it has for public radio and television. Could you substantiate this? Is public radio and/or television classified as a telecommunication service or another category subject to common carrier authority?
(BTW I’m not trying to be a dick, just trying to figure out what the arguments are)
Instead of responding to individual posts I’ll try to sum up why I think net-neutrality is the wrong way to get what we want: better service. I’m not the best at articulating what I mean in writing so bear with me please.
It doesn’t take advantage of existing incentives. I am no more trusting of companies than the rest of you. They are in existence for only one thing–to make money–and will screw over their customers if it makes them more money. However, if there’s one thing that companies like to do more than screw over their customers for more money it’s screwing over their competition for more money. Screwing over the competition is usually good for customers. Net neutrality doesn’t make it any easier for companies to screw each other.
It will largely be ineffective. Sure, it might stop certain practices but companies will find other ways to screw over their customers. We’ve tried this before–the 1992 CTCPC Act put some prohibitions on cable companies but it didn’t increase competition. I think we can all agree that cable companies still suck. I am not against regulation at all–I just want the most effective legislation.
Enforcement is through lawsuit/penalties. What happens when a company doesn’t comply? They get sued and we all know who wins lawsuits: lawyers. Meanwhile the companies are still dragging their feet.
Ensuring competition is a narrower focus and less open to abuses by lobbyists. Companies will be fighting every change and the lobbyists will be out in full force. One problem with the CTCPC Act is that it’s massive with numerous caveats and loop holes. I believe anti-competitive laws will be simpler and less prone to lobbyist abuse.
Net neutrality does nothing for innovation. It probably hampers it.
Regulation that increases competition has had some success. I’ve mentioned the laws that make it easier for users to switch cell carriers. Breaking up AT&T and pressure on IBM has helped their respective industries.
This op-ed in Wired better explains why I think we’re in this mess to begin with and a lot of it is company/government cozying. This Information Week op-ed agrees that increased competition is the correct remedy. Thanks for reading.
It’s not, it’s an argument FOR net neutrality.
Yes.
Pretend you’re Comcast. Too many of your internet users want to switch to Netflix and your revenues are dropping.
So, you go to Netflix and say “To use our network, you must pay us $200 million.” to which Netflix cannot and still stay in business at it’s current rate structure. So they have to jack up pricing to something similar to traditional cable, driving consumers away. Or, Netflix reject the offer and no one on Comcast can subscribe to Netflix because Netflix traffic is blocked.
Since the consumer has few choices in internet service, you have now driven a competitor out of business.
Right now, they are claiming that it’s all going to be “backbone” only. Except that Comcast has a history of calling their private network a “backbone”.
Yes, they could. And there are groups in Washington pushing for it.
Respectfully, if I’m reading you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that you think the government will automatically censor the cable networks in order to “protect the children” or for some other nonreason because that’s just how big bad government operates?
Am I wrong?
Or if you prefer a response with less snark, I could simply reiterate the argument you ignored. I’m not saying that the feds would never censor HBO. I’m saying they would need a reason to take on powerful media companies. Preventing adult material from being seen by children is something some people take very seriously. A big part of that is being able to rely on public media adhering to standards of decency. There are plenty of nipples to be seen on your television if you look for them and there is no public outcry like there was after the Janet Jackson incident. People don’t, and shouldn’t have to in many people’s minds, expect to see nudity at football games on regular TV. But this isn’t TV. It’s HBO.
How so? If I invent YouTube 2 and I pay to host my website in a warehouse somewhere with a data service connecting me to the outside world, why should I then have to sign agreements with every backbone company out there so that my traffic-heavy site can be seen by the most internet subscribers?
Hampering innovation is where companies can hedge out those that compete with them,
No, it makes it harder for companies to be anti-competitive and screw both customers and competition at the same time. If a company wants to compete, they need to do so via customer service, product, or price. Not via a stranglehold on the last mile of infrastructure.
I have no idea why you think they would. Telephone companies are definitely common carriers and the FCC has never gone after sex chat lines.
But isn’t that a different argument?
I doubt many people believe net neutrality by itself leads to better service. The goal of neutrality is prevent service from getting worse through some of the more obvious anti-competitive practices.
And if the goal is to prevent service from getting worse, it doesn’t have to do much of what you claim it should do. Besides, lots of your claims aren’t really backed by much, other than personal belief.
Okay so you’re arguing for net neutrality. I asked what the arguments against net neutrality were in the post you quoted.
I asked Ibn to substantiate what I parsed to be his position. You responded, so I guess I’ll ask you too then. Cite?
Generally competition is good for consumers. But choking out competitors through anti-competitive means (i.e. monopoly power) is not. It’s in fact an antitrust violation. See US v. Microsoft.
Yeah why punish murder when people will keep on killin’ anyway. No law or regulation is perfect and unless you have better proposal, this is a weak argument.
I think administrative proceedings would follow. But so what? All civil/regulatory violations are lawsuits and admin action. Would you propose the abolition of all civil rights of action because lawyers are parasites?
Do you mean pro-competitive laws? If so, how is it pro-competitive to allow oligopolies to have free reign over an essential part of modern communication?
How does it hamper it?
What regulation are you referring to? Net neutrality? Are you arguing for net neutrality?
Because you are limiting how companies can react to competition. NN is also attempting to force the status quo. Instead we should foster competition, let companies put their best product forward (or not), and let users decide.
I strongly disagree. NN does not help new companies come in and kick ass. Instead it makes it even harder by limiting what companies can do.
My opinion is that attempting to get better service by fostering competition is a goal that does better than just trying to prevent it from getting worse (which will just allow the companies to find other ways to screw customers).
Ok, but what does that have to do with whether or not net neutrality is effective on its own at the job it was designed to do? Complaining that a hammer is not a useful wrench is odd.
Lobbying for improved competition in other ways is fine, but it’s a different debate than the one here. It also smacks of letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
I’ve already said that:
You probably won’t agree with those points but if you will concede that I do believe them it makes sense to oppose NN in favor of competition.
This is getting a bit off topic – though I admit it was my own comment that led to it! 
I think I was fairly clear in my earlier posts about why I think regulation in regard to enforcing net neutrality is important. Let me respond briefly to this larger question.
Would you consider “truth in advertising” laws to be “government censorship”? If not, if we agree that it’s not acceptable to make provably false claims about a laundry detergent for commercial gain, why should it be acceptable to make provably false claims about national affairs for political gain?
I readily concede that a good answer to the second part is that free speech is paramount to freedom and should be the first and foremost consideration in most cases. However, the use of public communications facilities by a major news organization which purports to broadcast “news” – a specific category of journalism pertaining to factual information about current events – must be held to a high standard of public trust. Democracy truly does depend on an informed public, and perils to democracy should surely rank at least as high on the scale of truthful information as the cleaning power of a laundry detergent.
One could argue that any kind of regulation of broadcast journalism smacks of “government censorship”, and indeed in extreme cases it can be, and can be an impediment to necessary free speech. I would argue that in the absence of any regulation at all, broadcast journalism becomes censored and propagandized by its commercial ownership, by its sponsors, and by the powerful vested interests that control both. Sadly, this is not merely a “risk”; today it is a fact of life. It is a fact of commercial broadcasting, and of the US having one of the most under-appreciated and poorly funded public broadcasting systems of any major country in the world.
Will not work for what? Net neutrality isn’t meant to rein in cable companies, and I have no idea why you argue that it is. Yes, it adds a constraint to cable companies. No, that’s not the same as reining them in.
Again, you’re still trying to argue net neutrality doesn’t do a job it was never really designed to do.
Basically, arguing that we should throw away our hammers because they don’t work as wrenches.
Instead, keep the hammers and pick up some wrenches.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and other tech companies disagree. And even if you don’t believe them, belief itself is a poor proxy for evidence.
Regardless, it doesn’t really make sense to oppose it on these grounds.
Innovation itself isn’t 1 dimensional and sometimes, additional limitations or freedoms (depending on whether you are a service provider or a tech company) forces you to innovate to keep up.
The alternative to net neutrality isn’t other measures. It’s nothing. It’s letting ISPs shape their network traffic.
This is the point I’m repeatedly making. Net neutrality isn’t an alternative to encouraging competition among ISPs. At worst, it’s orthogonal to it. At best, it complements other efforts to foster competition.
When I moved to this apartment, I had two options for high-speed Internet. Maybe I’m lucky, maybe not, I don’t know. But the two options I had were the cable company, and the phone company. The cable company would really prefer that I not use online streaming video services instead of the TV service I would pay them for, and the phone company would really prefer that I not use voice over IP services instead of the phone services I would pay them for. Take away net neutrality, and yes, I would have a choice between those… But I wouldn’t have a good choice.