# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/261 "2017-12-16T02:40:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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. As usual in the hive mind SDMB, I notice that I am the one that’s supposed to concede these kinds of points. If no one cares, then I assume no one would bring up a rebuttal, and I certainly would continue to argue it without any responses. But I’m responding to posts others make; why should I be the one to abandon the point, especially whne i am the one in the right? > [@](#): > > Speaking of which, I’d like to ask you a question about this post of yours: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. I’m not acknowledging any such thing, and I reject the absurd suggestion that “evil,” is in play here. > [@](#): > > 1. Government regulatory intervention. > 2. Market forces. > 3. Their own high moral fiber. > 4. Aliens invading and killing everyone. I’m willing to discard 3 and 4 without further debate. > [@](#): > > 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. Agreed. > [@](#): > > 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. Nope. > [@](#): > > 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? Since the second proposition isn’t true, the conclusion does not follow. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/262 "2017-12-16T02:47:07Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > No. **mhendo** made the claim that he “needs” the internet, and then went on to say that millions of Americans are similarly situated. > > I would like a cite for _that_. You made a claim, too. I know your MO is to ask questions and try to poke holes in everyone else’s posts, and refrain from making any assertions that you may be called on to provide evidence for; but I think you made a claim here that can be proven or disproven: that the Internet is merely a “want” for “most” Americans. So, prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/263 "2017-12-16T02:55:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not acknowledging any such thing, and I reject the absurd suggestion that “evil,” is in play here. Heck, I’d be content if you’d acknowledge that complex market forces are at play here _and you have no idea what the results will be_. For shitzengiggles (and perhaps out of a vague anti-government sentiment), it might be amusing to broadly deregulate (or, related, vote Trump) just to see if anything interesting emerges from the resulting chaos, but there’s little point pretending you have some rational expectations of the results. If it happens to work out for the better, I’m not likely to credit you and other anti-NN types for foresight. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/264 "2017-12-16T03:19:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I’m not persuaded this this is a likely outcome, but I’m open to the possibilit that my prediction is wrong, which is why I said, “_Potentially_ a good thing,” and “I’d be open to addressing any _future_ abuses with further rules.” > [@Slash1972](#): > > Good, because I’m just discussing these future abuses with you. > > But still, the only “potentially good thing” I’ve seen from you is “Less regulation is better”. Do you have anything that is potentially good about this that benefits the consumer? Ok, this is from page 1. Should I read 5 more pages to find if this was answered? ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/265 "2017-12-16T03:21:05Z")
_shrug_ Six pages. Thus far, the anti-NN people have offered NOTHING but “regulation bad” and pointless nit-picking. **How, precisely, is repealing Net Neutrality going to make the internet better for the American people as a whole?** For that matter, how is the service the ISPs offer any different than landlines, an undisputed Title II industry. They both involve providing communication service, after all. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/266 "2017-12-16T03:31:09Z")
Asking how anti NN is going to be better for consumers is a red herring. Since there is no obligation to be better for consumers, the question is irrelevant. It carries emotional weight, sure. But it assumes an unstipulated premise. For someone who is anti NN because they want market forces to work, the only line of argument available is that market forces won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/267 "2017-12-16T03:33:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Asking how anti NN is going to be better for consumers is a red herring. Since there is no obligation to be better for consumers, the question is irrelevant. It carries emotional weight, sure. But it assumes an unstipulated premise. > > For someone who is anti NN because they want market forces to work, the only line of argument available is that market forces won’t work. But if one trusts in market forces, then both buyer and seller should be acting in their own self-interest. It is perfectly fair for consumers to ask, “What’s in it for me?” ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/268 "2017-12-16T03:41:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Asking how anti NN is going to be better for consumers is a red herring. Since there is no obligation to be better for consumers, the question is irrelevant. It carries emotional weight, sure. But it assumes an unstipulated premise. > > For someone who is anti NN because they want market forces to work, the only line of argument available is that market forces won’t work. As the FCC is tasked to protecting the consumer, among other things, the question is most certainly NOT a red herring. And as in most regions the ISP has a monopoly\*, market forces will not be brought to bear - especially as the recent FCC decision also forbids community internet service efforts, last I heard. \*Monopoly, or at best, a duopoly. And when there are only two providers in town, there is little incentive for one to undercut the other, except in the short term. Which would you prefer, if you were running a company - an even number of people paying the same as the competitor charges, or more people paying less? I’d go for the former - easier to maintain minimal acceptable service. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/269 "2017-12-16T03:41:46Z")
Carrying it forward - consumers would be able to pressure bad market actors to avoid bad behavior. Consumers could be offered tiered choices of content delivery. For a $2/month add on, free pornhub and super fast speeds! The rebuttal is that market forces don’t work because there is no realistic market. And that’s the clincher for me. If there were a wide breadth of ISPs available so consumers could choose between many providers, then I’d be totally opposed to NN. But that’s not the case so I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/270 "2017-12-16T04:32:15Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > For most Americans, the internet is a want, not a need. I have a telephone. If my car needs a new transmission, I can look in the yellow pages for a place that can address that specific need – oh, wait, I have not seen a full-size phone book in more than a decade. No, the internet is not a need in the same way as lunch, a toilet or a place out of the rain. Still, in today’s world, it can be very difficult to get by without. The library here is about 4 miles away (I think it is still open these days). ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/271 "2017-12-16T04:42:01Z")
Quickest way for conservatives to get the point is for George Soros to buy Comcast and throttle all conservative websites and blogs down to 2 bytes a second. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/272 "2017-12-16T04:46:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But if one trusts in market forces, then both buyer and seller should be acting in their own self-interest. It is perfectly fair for consumers to ask, “What’s in it for me?” And in a perfect capitalist scenario, the consumer can take their business elsewhere. In a monopolistic scenario, the consumer’s question will go unanswered, and the consumer will just have to accept the consequences. To trust in market forces, the market needs to be a fair competitive capitalist market. Would not work in a an unregulated monopoly. ---
**Author:** ![Rushgeekgirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rushgeekgirl/32/3715_2.png) [@Rushgeekgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rushgeekgirl)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/273 "2017-12-16T05:16:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > For most Americans, the internet is a want, not a need. I know I can’t be the only parent here with a child in a public school that requires home internet service. I had to agree to this and pay the insurance fee for my daughter to get her laptop from school, which is also required. This is hardly a wealthy district and it’s required for us. Of course I had the option to “just say no” that fateful night 13 years ago when she was created I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/274 "2017-12-16T05:20:30Z")
> [@Rushgeekgirl](#): > > I know I can’t be the only parent here with a child in a public school that requires home internet service. I had to agree to this and pay the insurance fee for my daughter to get her laptop from school, which is also required. This is hardly a wealthy district and it’s required for us. Of course I had the option to “just say no” that fateful night 13 years ago when she was created I suppose. See? You failed to plan for every conceivable (sorry) and inconceivable outcome of every possible and impossible situation that could occur. Your fault. (A paraphrasing of **D’A’s** philosophy) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/275 "2017-12-16T06:02:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Carrying it forward - consumers would be able to pressure bad market actors to avoid bad behavior. Consumers could be offered tiered choices of content delivery. For a $2/month add on, free pornhub and super fast speeds! > > The rebuttal is that market forces don’t work because there is no realistic market. And that’s the clincher for me. If there were a wide breadth of ISPs available so consumers could choose between many providers, then I’d be totally opposed to NN. But that’s not the case so I’m not. That’s pretty much exactly my position. The funny thing, in the whole debate over regulation and competition, is that there are some countries that have competition precisely _because_ of regulation. In countries like France, they required that incumbent broadband providers offer to lease capacity on their networks to new entrants selling competing Internet services to consumers. This created price competition, and gave smaller internet service providers a chance to get into the market, from where they then began, in some cases, to build out some of their own networks, thus creating even more competition. Make no mistake: the ISPs talk about free markets and competition and the burdens of regulation, but they don’t really want free markets and competition. They want the advantages of monopoly and oligopoly, with none of the drawbacks. The fact that so many Americans seem willing to take them at their word that they only want what’s best for consumers is a pretty damning indictment of some people’s gullibility or willful blindness. ---
**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 16, 2017, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/276 "2017-12-16T07:26:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You made a claim, too. I know your MO is to ask questions and try to poke holes in everyone else’s posts, and refrain from making any assertions that you may be called on to provide evidence for; but I think you made a claim here that can be proven or disproven: that the Internet is merely a “want” for “most” Americans. > > So, prove it. Need vs. want is subjective, of course, so it cannot be proven. IMHO, watching tv, listening to radio, and gaming (to use examples from this thread) are wants not needs. ---
**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 16, 2017, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/277 "2017-12-16T07:28:38Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > I have a telephone. If my car needs a new transmission, I can look in the yellow pages for a place that can address that specific need – oh, wait, I have not seen a full-size phone book in more than a decade. And I just had a phone book dropped off on my doorstep literally yesterday. :shrugs: ---
**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 16, 2017, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/278 "2017-12-16T07:31:19Z")
> [@Rushgeekgirl](#): > > I know I can’t be the only parent here with a child in a public school that requires home internet service. I had to agree to this and pay the insurance fee for my daughter to get her laptop from school, which is also required. This is hardly a wealthy district and it’s required for us. What does the school district do to accommodate low-income families that cannot afford it? ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/279 "2017-12-16T07:35:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What does the school district do to accommodate low-income families that cannot afford it? How, precisely, is repealing Net Neutrality going to make the internet better for the American people as a whole? ---
**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 16, 2017, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/280 "2017-12-16T07:45:43Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > How, precisely, is repealing Net Neutrality going to make the internet better for the American people as a whole? Bold and large font always makes the argument better. :smack: How did enacting Net Neutrality (2 1/2 years ago) make the internet better for the American people as a whole? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=15)