I have no problem with this, and the bulk of criticisms I have heard in the public sphere rest of misunderstandings of the rule or of how traffic move across the Internet.
So, potentially a good thing, but I’d be open to addressing any future abuses with further rules.
Perhaps you can explain why you think it’s a good thing?
It’s legal, isn’t it?
I’ve said several times on this board that I was not prepared to assume the worst about this change in rules. But during the course of those debates, a few posters asked a question that I cannot find a good answer to: What is improved by these new rules?
So I ask you, Bricker, how do you think things will be better with the end of net neutrality?
On the upside, massive lawsuits will keep the existing rules in place for a few more years, I’m sure. That gives advocates a chance to vote in a government that supports net neutrality again.
You’re sure?
I’m trying to understand who might have standing to sue to force rules to stay in place, and what specific cause of action their suit might identify. This is not my area of law, though, so I got nothin’. What are you picturing?
At a minimum, I think the normative approach to ANY situation is to allow the market to adjust prices on its own, and interfere only when the market is producing a deeply undesirable result.
So my initial answer is: what’s improved is the removal of regulations which didn’t arise in response to the narrow conditions that I believe justify regulation.
So what problem was the net neutrality rule creating? What is improved b eliminating it? Is it just a fight between Netflix and Verizon? Or were there some forms of consumer protection that in there that are going away?
I think most people hate their cable/internet provider because they usually only have a choice of one or two you have all the problems you normally have with monolopy/oligopoly. Does this open the doors for more monpolitisic abuse or is it just Verizon putting the squeeze on Netflix so that they can charge their subscribers less money (LOL I couldn’t say that with a straight face).
ISPs have monopolistic power. So the free market might not be functioning like the econ 101 supply demand model.
Do you think what happened when an ISP blocked Vonage calls justifies regulation?
Profits before regulation.
ETA: Last line of the article
Alternatively, one could fairly ask what problem the net neutrality rule was created to address? It’s only two years old; what was so bad between 2000 and 2015 that necessitated the rule in the first place?
High-speed internet is not an especially well-functioning market. In addition to huge percentages of the public having only one provider, there are also significant competition problems with vertical integration of ISPs and content providers as well as transparency problems.
What we’ve seen on mobile networks, which actually have a LOT more market competition than high-speed ISPs, is exactly the things that net neutrality supporters talk about: special lanes for favored content, censoring of unpopular political speech, and behind-the-scenes jiggering with speeds that are very hard for consumers to police through market choice. It’s somewhat naive to think these problems aren’t going to be worse as ISPs gain even more market power through mergers and deregulation.
Of course, you might not regard those things as problems. But if so, I think it is incumbent to openly acknowledge that, since I think the vast majority of people disagree. That’s not the approach that folks like the FCC Commissioner have taken. Instead, he’s basically just lying about the underlying facts. Just today he lied about the rate of investment in this sector.
I would suggest that if you think critics of this change are misinformed that you’re probably not seeking out well-informed critics. Maybe you should do that?
I’m wondering this as well. I keep hearing that people are going to sue, but on what grounds?
Besides the link I already posted, there were several more cases including Comcast blocking BitTorrent.
It really comes down to “Do you think that ISPs should be able to block traffic to their competitors?”
If you answer “Yes” then you are against net neutrality
If you answer “No” then you are for net neutrality
And if you think that ISPs should be able to block traffic to their competitors, then why do you think that is good for consumers?
This is GOPland. Who gives a fuck about consumers?
While I somewhat agree with your sentiment, I’d like to hear from people who actually think this is a good idea.
So, to provide an instructive telephone analogy, you think it’s “a good thing” if you pick up the phone to call Giovanni’s Pizzeria and end up connected with AT&T Ripoff Pizza Monopoly instead. And you think it’s “a good thing” that the only way you can actually get your pizza order to Giovanni’s is to have a telegram delivered via horseback courier. Because the telephone company has decided to spin off into the pizza business, and by golly, they’re gonna make sure there aren’t any Giovannis in their way.
You think this is how public utilities should operate. I don’t. Not surprising that the FCC thinks this sort of thing is great, since just about every federal agency is now headed by a crackpot who thinks the agency shouldn’t even exist.
This is about a lot more than “prices”. And if you believe in free markets and fair competition, then you should be in favor of policies that support them, instead of policies that encourage monopolistic domination.
You guys now owe a nickel every time you post.
No.
I don’t think ISPs have any moral obligation to to choke their bandwidth.
Madison River Communication can block VOIP. If they just targeted Vonage VOIP, I’d be open to a remedial rule.