# FCC Repeals Net Neutrality Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522 "2017-12-14T18:35:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/201 "2017-12-15T19:09:15Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > It seems likely that as soon as the big studios can reach a payment agreement with the ISPs, BitTorrent speeds will be throttled down to almost zero. > > Better download movies while you can! 😃 No! That will never happen because of market forces and consumer choice. It’s not like BitTorrent was ever blocked by an ISP before. [Oh wait…](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking) ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/202 "2017-12-15T19:09:32Z")
Bricker and his cohorts are merely faith-based witnessing in this thread, which is, in fact, appropriate for this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/203 "2017-12-15T19:10:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It’s porn, isn’t it? All over the country, at any given moment, thousands of people are rubbing one out watching _Teenage Vampire Lesbian Sluts from Outer Space_, and they aren’t making \*any \*money off that! > > They don’t have to invest anything, don’t have to build infrastructure, don’t have to do anything but reach out and grab it! So to speak. Do you have a link to that movie? Uh…it’s for a friend. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/204 "2017-12-15T19:20:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does this delightful analogy capture the fact that I could still browse Vonage’s web site, send and receive e-mail from Vonage, and even ssh into their Linux box? Are you _still_ going on about this idiotic semantic thing? Good lord. I hope you at least understand that literally nobody is going to fall for this bullshit - the only possible reason to keep banging on it is to distract from rational discussion. Speaking of which, I’d like to ask you a question about this post of yours: > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > This analogy fails because the supposed danger is that the ISPs will exact payments from the content providers, as opposed to the customers, which they are already permitted to to by offering different speed tiers for different prices. So in your analogy, the taxi driver can charge more for higher speeds even WITH net neutrality rules in place. > > The analogy also fails because the taxi market would punish such behavior by customers shunning those taxis. > > This analogy fails because it totally misrepresents the scale of the privilege that it’s possible to apply. Assuming the average person can read at least 200 pages a day, it’s simply unrealistic to imagine a slowdown of that magnitude. And, as before, the market would punish such behavior. In this post you seem to be acknowledging the fact that any pretense you have of this not being an open invitation for exploitation and abuse is wholly and entirely dependent on the idea that the “market” would “punish” exploitative behavior, presumably through the mechanism of other service providers flooding in to offer competing, less-evil service. And it makes perfect sense that you would say this, because there are only four possible forces that could stop ISPs from using their newfound, hard-fought, and expensively-paid-for freedom to throw everyone under the bus in various creative ways: 1. Government regulatory intervention. 2. Market forces. 3. Their own high moral fiber. 4. Aliens invading and killing everyone. You don’t seem to be arguing that morality or aliens are going to be keeping ISPs in line, either. And so: RESOLVED: **Bricker** understands that in the absence of government regulatory intervention, market forces are the only thing that could prevent ISPs from exploiting everyone around them in various ways detrimental to both individuals and society at large. And I’ll hazard another one: RESOLVED: **Bricker** understands that in a huge number of markets around the US there are infrastructure and regulatory obstacles that utterly prevent competition from being able to spring up and thus market forces are utterly neutered and will entirely ineffective at applying any kind of restraining forces on ISPs. And of course, based on the magic of modus tolens, of both of the above are true then the following must be true: RESOLVED: **Bricker** understands that without government regulation ISPs _absolutely will_ exploit everyone around them in various ways detrimental to both individuals and society at large (absent a sudden influx of morality or aliens.) Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/205 "2017-12-15T19:21:03Z")
I’d normally be sympathetic to the arguments against net neutrality, however given the current environment that’s not the case. I support net neutrality for many of the substantive reasons mentioned in this thread. But the case against net neutrality has been poorly laid out here, and it would beneficial to address the substantive arguments. The ones I see, though not inclusive, are as follows: [ul][li]Bandwidth is limited and needs to be allocated to users in a systematic way. That way should be determined at the company level rather than at the federal government level.[/li][li]Allowing the government to step in between users and internet access allows them the ability to further their spying regime and is detrimental to privacy.[/li][li]Disallowing ISPs from managing their network means they will not be able to innovate to provide better products that meet market demand.[/ul][/li] And one that I am particularly sympathetic to is that ISPs own their networks and should have the right to control how their networks are used. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/206 "2017-12-15T19:27:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > RESOLVED: **Bricker** understands that without government regulation ISPs _absolutely will_ exploit everyone around them in various ways detrimental to both individuals and society at large (absent a sudden influx of morality or aliens.) > > Thoughts? When have companies ever exploited everyone around them absent government regulation? It’s never happened in the history of the world, ever, so it definitely won’t happen THIS time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/207 "2017-12-15T19:28:14Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > They did it because the order establishing NN was in February of 2015. No, the rule took effect June 12, 2015. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/208 "2017-12-15T19:36:08Z")
LOL, okay. Perhaps you can answer my question below: > [@Slash1972](#): > > Let’s say my ISP now offers me connectivity to every site, application, service, etc., on the Internet right now for one set price at whatever speed I choose to pay for. > > What services could they offer me that would improve upon that? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/209 "2017-12-15T19:38:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And one that I am particularly sympathetic to is that ISPs own their networks and should have the right to control how their networks are used. This is a potentially valid point. Unfortunately, getting new networks in place to provide competition to exploitive ISPs isn’t easy. Hell, cities can’t even provide FREE access to their citizens in some cases due to ISP interference. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/210 "2017-12-15T19:58:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’d normally be sympathetic to the arguments against net neutrality, however given the current environment that’s not the case. I support net neutrality for many of the substantive reasons mentioned in this thread. But the case against net neutrality has been poorly laid out here, and it would beneficial to address the substantive arguments. The ones I see, though not inclusive, are as follows: > [ul][li]Bandwidth is limited and needs to be allocated to users in a systematic way. That way should be determined at the company level rather than at the federal government level.[/li][li]Allowing the government to step in between users and internet access allows them the ability to further their spying regime and is detrimental to privacy.[/li][li]Disallowing ISPs from managing their network means they will not be able to innovate to provide better products that meet market demand.[/ul][/li] > And one that I am particularly sympathetic to is that ISPs own their networks and should have the right to control how their networks are used. I appreciate the injection of actual, not-completely-moronic arguments into this thread. Seriously! It’s a welcome breath of fresh air. And so, my rebuttals: [quote] [ul][li]Bandwidth is limited and needs to be allocated to users in a systematic way. That way should be determined at the company level rather than at the federal government level.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] Excluded middle - there is a third option. Specifically, bandwidth should be allocated at the consumer level - users decide what gets to come down the pipe, and where from. This maximizes user satisfaction and also maximizes the effect of market forces on content providers, encouraging them to improve the quality of their content and provide it at lower prices. [quote] [ul][li]Allowing the government to step in between users and internet access allows them the ability to further their spying regime and is detrimental to privacy.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] Clarification is needed about what is meant by “the government [stepping] in between users and internet access”. It is certainly the case that government espionage and censorship of content is a bad thing for both consumers and the market forces on content providers. It is not clear that the government merely preventing censorship is a bad thing. And net neutrality is the latter kind of government interference. [quote] [ul][li]Disallowing ISPs from managing their network means they will not be able to innovate to provide better products that meet market demand.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] There is no market demand for ISPs to interfere with the delivery of specific kinds of content. (There _is_ a market demand for cheaper, thinner pipes that deliver less content in general, which is allowed under net neutrality and already occurs.) There’s an interesting way to look at this: by removing net neutrality, you’re putting ISPs in the position of governing and regulating the content that is passing through their pipes - which is to say, at a mechanical level, anything the ISP does with their new power _is functionally a form of government regulation_. It has the **exact** same kinds of effects on market forces - you can directly analogize everything they might it to adding taxes, tariffs, restrictions, and bans - right down to the two reasons to do so (to gain money and/or to limit or restrict certain products and substances) and also in that these actions by the governing body add no value other than to curtail things that are deemed “undesirable” (like preventing children from seeing porn or buying cars, for example). Competition between ISPs, then, is like citizens being able to change which country they live in and are under the governance of. And, as with countries, some people are in a good position to change their citizenship, and some people are less able to move between countries/ISPs for one reason or another. Really the only substantive difference between government regulation of content and ISP regulation of content is that, which governments are likely somewhat corrupt, ISPs are _guaranteed_ to be corrupt - in that they’re explicitly devoted to profiting themselves and the members of the governing body. There is significantly less incentive for companies to care about the welfare and happiness of their constituents than there is in democratic countries, and thus a rational person would expect ISPs to be more exploitative and abusive than governments are, given the chance. So, seriously, any proper and rational libertarian or free market conservative should _love_ net neutrality, and violently oppose any attempt to remove it. Because removing net neutrality doesn’t free you from your governing overlords - it just replaces them with gangsters. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/211 "2017-12-15T20:00:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And one that I am particularly sympathetic to is that ISPs own their networks and should have the right to control how their networks are used. Electric companies own the generating and distribution networks. It’s the same for gas and water companies. These along with ISP providers are natural monopolies which are regulated because they **are** natural monopolies. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/212 "2017-12-15T20:02:04Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The issue is that your solution prevents useful services from being offered. Let’s say that I’m shipping baby spinach and you’re shipping rice. My spinach has to be on the shelves in a week or it goes bad. Your rice can sit on a train for weeks without issue. The ideal answer is that I pay the shipping company extra so my shipment is shipped faster than yours. And yes, Netflix or Google or Facebook already do pay for that service. Additionally, in most cases the end consumer has a choice on the speed of a service that they purchase from their Internet provider. If the end consumer purchase a 5mbps plan that does not support streaming well, then they would expect that. If they purchase a 60mbps plan, along with the premium price they would expect that streaming a show, or even multiple streams, wouldn’t be an issue. They would also expect to be able to support fast file transfers, gaming, etc. But again, Netflix is paying for the bandwidth to support their data output, and the consumer is paying for the data they wish to consume. It is incumbent on the ISP to ensure their ability to provide that stated 60mbps plan to the consumer, and have the network to be able to support it. Heck, I believe that the majority of largish ISPs also have a Netflix appliance on-prem to significantly decrease the amount of peering or transport traffic. This is where the analogy breaks down due to the fundamental difference in shipping data packets/content vs. shipping perishable goods. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/213 "2017-12-15T20:02:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The issue is that your solution prevents useful services from being offered. Let’s say that I’m shipping baby spinach and you’re shipping rice. My spinach has to be on the shelves in a week or it goes bad. Your rice can sit on a train for weeks without issue. The ideal answer is that I pay the shipping company extra so my shipment is shipped faster than yours. This is the only even half-compelling argument I have seen against net neutrality. I can see an argument that it would be great if my ISP offered better service for streaming video, to pick everyone’s favorite random example of a high-bandwidth use of the net. My ISP is Comcast. Comcast owns NBC/Universal, which is a gigantic content provider. Now, they have an incentive not to fuck with the cable channels I get to advantage NBC properties (or disadvantage others), because there is a competitor for television (DirectTV) that’s nearly as good. But there’s no broadband competition to my house that’s meaningful (DSL is less than 1/4 the speed of cable). So Comcast has huge incentives to advantage content from services they own, and I can’t really do anything about it. In **treis** ’s analogy, it’s as if the trucking company could not only offer tiered service for speed of delivery, but also owned a spinach farm and delivered **their** spinach _even faster_. Who could compete with their super-extra fresh spinach? So, I guess I’d be OK with getting rid of NN if and only if the ISPs are required to open their last mile to competition, just like the local telephone monopolies were required to allow people to choose long-distance carriers (and, later, local carriers) on their equipment. I might even be ok with a “fast-streaming” tier of service, but only if it applied universally to all streaming content providers. I think this may be what **Bricker** referred to somewhere above as “by type”, rather than “by content”. But it doesn’t seem to me that the existing large broadband providers have any incentive to provide that kind of neutrality. And the evidence from before the 2015 rules is that they will indeed favor their own content. And if that wasn’t a thing the large providers had in mind, I doubt they’d have spent so much buying…I mean lobbying…Congress and the FCC. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/214 "2017-12-15T20:03:12Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Let’s say my ISP now offers me connectivity to every site, application, service, etc., on the Internet right now for one set price at whatever speed I choose to pay for. > > What services could they offer me that would improve upon that? They could offer to connect you to all of their sites at high speed but other sites at 56k, thereby ensuring that their sites are heavily trafficked, increasing their effectiveness at commercial marketing and political influence, as well as increasing their revenue. That would be a big improvement, from their perspective. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/215 "2017-12-15T20:05:26Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > :dubious: > > Try getting a job in 2017 without having internet access. Or increasingly, getting a college degree that would permit you to even qualify for such a job in the first place. Streaming video isn’t just for LOLz - it’s also for university lectures. Most job applications were already online in 2015. Many university courses, as well. If they worked (all the way back) then, why wouldn’t they continue to work today or tomorrow? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/216 "2017-12-15T20:09:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And one that I am particularly sympathetic to is that ISPs own their networks and should have the right to control how their networks are used. Like toll road owners decide speed limits and rules of the road. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/217 "2017-12-15T20:18:17Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > If one were to take your stated “less regulation is better” to further reaches than just Internet access, one might come up with a similar reasoning for repealing food labeling regulations. The reason you think this is a straw-man is that you fail to see the reasons that NN was implemented in the first place. Since my OP also acknowledged that specific abuses would justify correction by regulation, examples that assume some horrid situation would occur without correcting regulation are strawman attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/218 "2017-12-15T20:24:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since my OP also acknowledged that specific abuses would justify correction by regulation, examples that assume some horrid situation would occur without correcting regulation are strawman attacks. Sure, you acknowledge that specific abuses would justify correction by regulation. But what you, and others, fail to acknowledge is that specific abuses occurred ALREADY, and those abuses led to NN being implemented. When this fact is pointed out to you, it seems you conveniently ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/219 "2017-12-15T20:26:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > They could offer to connect you to all of their sites at high speed but other sites at 56k, thereby ensuring that their sites are heavily trafficked, increasing their effectiveness at commercial marketing and political influence, as well as increasing their revenue. That would be a big improvement, from their perspective. Wow! That doesn’t seem to benefit me as a consumer at all! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/220 "2017-12-15T20:29:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Wow! That doesn’t seem to benefit me as a consumer at all! 😉 Ah, but what if they let you pay more for it as well? Wouldn’t that make it better? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=12)