# 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:** 17
**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 17, 2017, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/321 "2017-12-17T03:09:15Z")
You said it was custom, which it is clearly not. ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/322 "2017-12-17T03:17:04Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Are you calling me a liar? Because that’s just not cool. > > It is the AT&T Real Yellow Pages published by Dex dated 12/2017. NO, I’m not interested in sending you a PM. I’m merely asking for a cite. And the reason is simple: of the approximately 120,000 residential consumers who receive a printed phone book each day, you claimed to beat 1:1,000 odds to receive a phone book just “yesterday” as to make this argument. I’ve watched this industry die for over a decade, know the trends, and am, yes, I **am** skeptical that you received a _three county_\* phone book just “yesterday”. And as is commonly said, and demanded, on this board: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You beat 1:1,000 odds. Show me. And take your “you calling me a liar?” posturing to somewhere where asking for a mere _citation_ isn’t expected, like Facebook. That tactic might work there, but not here. \*The trend in directories has been towards smaller, community directories. A massive book covering 1,000,000 people? Now I’m _very_ interested. ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/323 "2017-12-17T03:17:33Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You said it was custom, which it is clearly not. [Marketing service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dex_Media) of which printing phone books was only a portion. Since I haven’t had a phone book delivered in at least 8 years, they aren’t covering the entire country. Therefore, any phone books they print are by order. ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/324 "2017-12-17T03:21:19Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I’m merely asking for a cite. A massive book covering 1,000,000 people? Now I’m _very_ interested. How am I supposed to cite a phone book that landed on my driveway? ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/325 "2017-12-17T03:26:47Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > How am I supposed to cite a phone book that landed on my driveway? Take a picture of it, with a post-it note with your screen name, with the production code and date of publication clearly visible (usually on the spine, or the lower right or left corner of the front page), and post yon picture to Google Drive/Imgur/whatever, and link to it. Send link to me. Thanks! (Sorry, but apropos of nothing, the number of phone books being delivered to residents in this country on a daily basis is _fewer_ than the average daily volume delivered by our business back in 2006… and we never had more than 10, 11% of the market.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/326 "2017-12-17T03:32:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Neutrality is not central planning. It’s the opposite - it’s saying “no 5 companies will be the gatekeepers of this new emerging market that rules the world” War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Lack of regulation is control, and regulation is freedom. Got it. > [@](#): > > Wanting those 5 companies to have complete power over who can or cannot access the market at all is far closer to the actual practical effects of central planning than neutrality is. Funny… I’m looking at a list of U.S. broadband providers ([here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in_the_United_States). And it sure looks like more than five. In fact, I count 36 for consumers, and 13 business-only, for a total of 49 different providers. And according to the FCC, 97% of census blocks in America have two or more internet service providers offering 10Mbps or better. When you get to 25 Mbps you find some monopolies, but the answer there is more competition, not the regulated monopoly model. If there are places where there is no choice at all, then the first level of government defence should be the implementation of anti-trust or anti-competitiveness laws. Otherwise, you’re going down the same old path of allowing monopolies, so long as they are regulated and controlled by the government. Our experience with airlines, trucking, postal delivery, rail freight and the telephone system is that such regulated monopolies accrue more regulations over time, squeeze out new entrants to the field, and slowly twist regulations to their benefit and profit. Every single one of those industries was deregulated, and each time, doom was predicted of the same variety - unrestricted, companies will seek profit at the expense of everything else. Fares will increase, choices will dwindle, little airports won’t be served or will be served by a single monopolistic airline that will rape them on prices, planes will fall out of the sky as maintenance and safety go out the window, yada yada yada. In EVERY case, the exact opposite happened. As we reduced regulations choice increased, quality increased, safety increased, and prices came down. How does that happen if belief in the power of markets is just a religion? I’d much rather trust the market than trust regulators over the next decades to keep from bowing to pressure from an increasingly-powerful regulated ISP industry. And like it or not, making ISP’s a Title II common carrier opens the door to a LOT of regulation creep without congress even having to be involved, with only the promises of the current group of regulators that they honestly, cross-their-heart won’t use all that power they’ve been given. The history of government tells me that’s highly unlikely to remain the case. > [@](#): > > Having a rule does not mean “central planning” - the government is doing the opposite of restricting the internet, it’s saying that by rule everyone has access to everyone else. That’s certainly the propaganda. But what it really says is that ISP’s must treat all data the same, and cannot change for ‘fast lanes’. My reading of the act says that if it had been in place when Netflix came along, we’d all be suffering from choppy playback today, because ‘that’s just the way it is’. That’s the problem when you socialize something - you strip away the rights of people to pay more for premium service, which reduces total investment and kills innovation. > [@](#): > > The idea that you can somehow improve on “everyone can put a product or service on the market, and anyone else in the world can find them” by giving the power to restrict that to a handful of companies is bizarre. So tell me. Here I am, someone who wants to put a product on the internet. My product is a VR social media and gaming network. It needs latencies an order of magnitude lower than is typical for average packets. So I need some kind of prioritization, or I need additional build-out of the infrastructure. Exactly how does Net Neutrality work for me here? Your gold standard is that I should be able to put my product on the internet, and everyone should be able to use it. That’s lovely. Now how does that happen? I can’t pay extra for prioritization, and the ISP can’t charge me extra to recoup its costs in building out a low-latency ‘fast lane’. Furthermore, if it does build that ‘fast lane’, it has to make it available to everyone, and not just the customers of my product. So now we’re back to the same problem. What’s your solution? > [@](#): > > This is honestly just a dogmatic insistence over and over again that government = bad, regulation = bad, with consideration of the actual situation. You keep saying that, even though I’ve been posting lots of reasons why. Either you’re not reading it, or you are dismissing it without thinking, or you are being disingenuous. In fact, I think I have a better case for making that claim about your side - all you’ve got is hypotheticals and some notion that a general regulation will make things ‘better’, because you think it makes the internet more like what you believe it should be like. Those of us who have been pointing out that markets managed this just fine until 2015 get hand-waved away, even though that’s the only actual, empirical evidence of a functioning internet we have. > [@](#): > > You guys both ignored a question I’ve asked several times: Will you at least admit this decision will most likely be bad for the average consumer? I’ve given you many answers, which tends to reinforce my belief that you’re not actually reading this stuff honestly with an attempt to understand. But to save you from having to go back and read, here’s a short list: - Net Neutrality will hurt innovation and slow down the adoption of novel new uses of the internet - Net Neutrality could raise prices, due to taxes being imposed on ISPs through Title II. Public carriers can have taxes imposed on them by state and local governments, just like your phone bill and power bill can be taxed. According to [these economists](https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/01/26/on-net-neutrality-title-ii-regulation-means-higher-taxes-on-consumers/#38ff042463fb), those taxes were likely to add between $51 and $83 per year to the average internet bill. -Net Neutrality could raise prices for consumers due to something called the ‘Waterbed effect’. That is, when regulations push down prices in one area (i.e. taking away the ability for ISPs to charge fees to content providers who need additional network infrastructure), the fees will necessarily rise somewhere else. This can be compounded if Net Neutrality reduces infrastructure investment, which would make bandwidth more scarce and drive up the price. - Net Neutrality will stifle investment in the internet infrastructure, as it takes away the ability of ISP’s to charge specific providers and users for new infrastructure. If you don’t believe me, you might want to read [this](https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/capital-expenditures-in-broadband-2q-16-update/): > [@](#): > > Capital continues to flee digital infrastructure. The table below compares the first six months of 2016 with the same period in 2014–the last year in which ISPs were not subject to Title II regulation. > \ > Aggregate capital expenditure (capex) declined by nearly $2.7 billion relative to the same period in 2014. While Title II can’t be blamed for all of the capex decline, it is reasonable to attribute some portion to the FCC’s draconian rules. After all, the rules (needlessly) bar ISPs from creating new revenue streams from content providers, and (needlessly) expose ISPs to price controls. Both measures truncate an ISP’s return on investment, which makes investment less attractive at the margin. That’s from economist Hal Singer. And since those of us on the ‘repeal’ side have been accused of ignoring science, let’s see what other economists think of it. Here’s an interview with four economists discussing their opinions on net neutrality: [Bringing economics back into the net neutrality debate.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/07/12/bringing-economics-back-into-the-net-neutrality-debate/#52f9aa2369da) If you want more scientific evidence, consider [this paper by two economists](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1093393). They went looking for natural experiments to see if something like Net Neutrality could be found. The Abstract: > [@](#): > > Network neutrality (NN) regulations governing how broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) package and price high-speed last mile access are being considered. Advocates say such rules are necessary to separate transport and application layers of the Internet, protecting innovation at the edge. Opponents argue that such rules are unnecessary and could block efficient forms of vertical integration. Either side points to future developments - NN advocates to anti-competitive foreclosure by ISPs, opponents to a deterrence of investment due to regulatory disincentives - as primary arguments. Such predictions are sharply contested. > > A natural experiment, however, may yield market evidence. U.S. residential broadband markets have been subject to open access rules, analogous to NN regulation, that have varied across time and technologies. These policy switches allow empirical measurement of consumer reactions. Using the simple metric of market penetration, which incorporates both demand and supply effects, the relative effectiveness of rival policy regimes can be appraised. > > This paper considers three distinct regimes governing the two leading technologies for residential broadband, cable modems (CM) and digital subscriber line (DSL) service. Prior to 1Q2003, CM service was unregulated (and has remained so), while DSL was subject to network unbundling mandates that included line sharing rules enabling rival Internet Service Providers to access last-mile loops at incremental cost. CM service enjoyed nearly a two-to-one market share advantage during this period. Following 1Q2003, when line-sharing rules were eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), effectively raising wholesale access prices, DSL subscribership sharply increased relative to trend and to DSL trend and to contemporaneous CM subscriber growth. This pattern continued unabated following further deregulation in 3Q2005, when the FCC classified DSL as an information service. By year-end 2006, DSL subscribership was about 65% above the linear growth trend established in the regulated pre-1Q2003 era, some eight to ten million more households than predicted. \*\*This evidence, in sum, suggests open access broadband regulation deters subscriber growth, potentially important empirical input into the ongoing regulatory debate. > \*\* Bolding mine. Here’s [another paper](https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cdlcompol/qt81r3b7xs.htm) from two Berkeley economists: > [@](#): > > We examine the welfare effects of product-line restrictions, such as those called for by some proponents of network neutrality regulation. **We find that restricting a monopoly supplier to a single product has the following effects: (a) consumers who would otherwise have consumed a low-quality variant are excluded from the market; (b) consumers “in the middle” of the market consume a higher and more efficient quality; and (c) consumers at the top of the market consume a lower and less efficient quality.** Total surplus may rise or fall. We also examine a duopoly model and find that\*\* imposition of a single-product restriction always reduces welfare\*\*\*\*. Absent the restriction, the two firms engage in head-to-head competition across full product lines. In some circumstances, the restriction induces the two firms to offer identical products. The resulting loss of variety reduces welfare. In other circumstances, the restriction induces the firms to offer non-overlapping, or vertically differentiated, products. Here, the resulting loss of competition harms both consumers and economic efficiency. Lastly, we find that, to the extent that the regulation is intended to eliminate low-quality products, it may fail. Even though any one firm can offer only a single product, various firms can collectively offer a menu of products. Bolding mine again. By ‘single product’ they are talking about the essence of net neuitrality; ‘bits are bits’ and everything must be treated exactly the same. Finally, here is a poll of [45 economists](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii) from both sides of the political fence. The proposition they were asked to agree or disagree with: > [@](#): > > Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service. Note that this is a key part of the Title II Net Neutrality scheme. The respondent results: Strongly agree: 4% Agree: 40% Uncertain: 36% Disagree: 11% Strongly Disagree: 0% No Opinion: 4% So that’s 44% who agree or strongly agree that this provision of Net Neutrality will harm efficiency of the internet, vs 11% who disagree, with none strongly disagreeing. That’s a pretty wide gap. And if you weight by confidence it doesn’t change much: 45% who agree or strongly agree, vs 14% who don’t. Finally, here’s another paper from the [Journal of Economic Perspectives](http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.127) which has an excellent summary of the issues, and an overview of what economists think of it. Highly recommended. ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/327 "2017-12-17T03:33:04Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Take a picture of it, with a post-it note with your screen name, with the production code and date of publication clearly visible (usually on the spine, or the lower right or left corner of the front page), and post yon picture to Google Drive/Imgur/whatever, and link to it. Send link to me. > > Thanks! > > (Sorry, but apropos of nothing, the number of phone books being delivered to residents in this country on a daily basis is _fewer_ than the average daily volume delivered by our business back in 2006… and we never had more than 10, 11% of the market.) Nope, why should I? ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/328 "2017-12-17T03:44:53Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Nope, why should I? Well, it looks like you’ve already put in more effort refusing the request than you would in actually fulfilling it, so… diminishing returns? For what it’s worth, I believe you got a “phone book” recently, but your experience is increasing rare and the era of the annual delivery of a massive white-pages book and a similarly huge yellow-pages book are well past their heyday, because the internet has pretty much replaced them. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/329 "2017-12-17T03:54:53Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Same thing with the entire body of economics. It’s as much a “science” as sociology - sure you can make predictions based upon past trends, sure you can create mathematical models which might appear to “prove” one thing or the other… but it doesn’t. It’s a large body of work which is contradictory, basic “rules” being violated all the time - for example, according to economists, increasing the supply of money relative to the amount of goods produced increases inflation. I agree with everything you just said. I’ve seen making that case for years. But all economics is not macroeconomics, and not all macroeconomics is about trying to predict the future behavior of a complex adaptive system. But I hope you realize what you are saying. If a system’s future behavior cannot be predicted, then it also cannot be planned, because planning involves predicting what will happen when the plan goes into effect. And each time some grand new regulatory plan is unveiled by Congress, the CBO dutifully ‘scores’ it and predicts what will happen if the plan goes into effect. And EVERY SINGLE TIME their predictions are no better than throwing darts at a dartboard. So if we can’t plan the future, and we can’t predict the future, what’s the correct strategy for intervening in the economy? The answer: _interverne as little as possible_. If you are going to intervene, best to do it in small bits and wait to see what happens, rather than introducing sweeping, economy wide changes. Other than that, we should be focusing on helping those who get left behind by the constant churn and creative destruction, while being mindful of unintended consequences and moral hazards. But the idea that smart people should be guiding and steering the economy to make it ‘better’ should be a non-starter. > [@](#): > > So, sorry Sam, but you’re incorrect. Economics is a faith-based activity upon which the practitioners create models which prove which the particular economist thinks to be happening. Unlike science, especially the hard sciences, there are no fundamental rules (speed of light, chemical reactions, etc) upon which the the entire edifice is founded upon. Karl Popper certainly would have a hard time calling sociology or macroeconomics ‘sciences’, and so do I. But not all economics is about predicting the future or trying to manipulate a large complex system or understanding it based on the movement of a few aggregate indicators. There is plenty of real science in economics overall. But I’m confused by your position here - if you think economics is completely useless, what’s your argument for Net Neutrality? Just that it seems like a good idea? What logical scientific arguments can you put forth in its favor? > [@](#): > > Here’s a popular article about this very issue: [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-laws-of-economics-dont-exist/274901/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-laws-of-economics-dont-exist/274901/) Yep. This comes from using old-style formulas cribbed from physics textbooks and creating models that treat the economy more like a machine, rather than treating it like a living, growing ecosystem that responds to change by _computing_ new states for everything. Many of the ‘laws’ of economics are only true in certain ways and in certain regions. Prices return to an equilibrium after a shock - until they don’t. Prices move according to supply and demand - except for Veblen goods, which don’t. What looks like stability turns out to be a form of meta-stability that can suddenly collapse or change in nature. What looks like a law that things must return to an equilibrium are only approximations that remain roughly true so long as the conditions in the economy that cause it to calculate prices remain roughly the same. We should be treating the economy not as a machine, but as a computational, evolving system. That, by the way, is why Adam Smith didn’t need math, and why the Austrians saw the trend towards ‘scientific economics’ heavily based in math with suspicion. A set of differential equations can model a collection of connected springs reasonably well, but they can’t model the motion a litter of puppies - or the responses of the public to a major economic or social change. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/330 "2017-12-17T04:23:41Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I’m merely asking for a cite. And the reason is simple: of the approximately 120,000 residential consumers who receive a printed phone book each day, you claimed to beat 1:1,000 odds to receive a phone book just “yesterday” as to make this argument. I’ve watched this industry die for over a decade, know the trends, and am, yes, I **am** skeptical that you received a _three county_\* phone book just “yesterday”. > > And as is commonly said, and demanded, on this board: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You beat 1:1,000 odds. Show me. And take your “you calling me a liar?” posturing to somewhere where asking for a mere _citation_ isn’t expected, like Facebook. That tactic might work there, but not here. > > \*The trend in directories has been towards smaller, community directories. A massive book covering 1,000,000 people? Now I’m _very_ interested. …this is really an unfair burden to put on anyone on these boards. Either accept what D’Anconia has said or don’t. Either way the “extraordinary evidence” that D’Anconia would supply would contribute nothing to this great debate. Not everything demands a cite. If you aren’t going to accept an anecdote in good faith then D’Anconia is characterizing your demand correctly. ---
**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 17, 2017, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/331 "2017-12-17T05:08:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So tell me. Here I am, someone who wants to put a product on the internet. My product is a VR social media and gaming network. It needs latencies an order of magnitude lower than is typical for average packets. So I need some kind of prioritization, or I need additional build-out of the infrastructure. > > Exactly how does Net Neutrality work for me here? Your gold standard is that I should be able to put my product on the internet, and everyone should be able to use it. That’s lovely. Now how does that happen? I can’t pay extra for prioritization, and the ISP can’t charge me extra to recoup its costs in building out a low-latency ‘fast lane’. Furthermore, if it does build that ‘fast lane’, it has to make it available to everyone, and not just the customers of my product. So now we’re back to the same problem. What’s your solution? Can you explain what you mean by this? Because it looks a lot like bullshit to me. What do you mean by “building out a fast lane”? How does that work within the actual architecture of the internet, and how is it affected by net neutrality? ---
**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 17, 2017, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/332 "2017-12-17T05:28:36Z")
Sounds like that calls for a dual solution - a premium-priced high-speed lane for servers and clients who need (and are willing to pay for) that sort of thing, and a net-neutral regular lane for everything else on a first-come, first-served basis without discrimination based on source or content. ---
**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 17, 2017, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/333 "2017-12-17T06:15:48Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Bingo…Free market fundamentalism is a religion. It is not based on any science, evidence, or logic. Free markets are by definition better and if there is any problem with the market, it is really simply because it is not free enough. I’m still not understanding why US ISPs can’t provide the same free market neutral service as in other countries - I live in a city with about ten providers all keen for my business and the gov regulator would laugh them out the room at this idea. Is there a specific difficulty for the US market, other than Congress has been bought again by big business? ---
**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 17, 2017, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/334 "2017-12-17T07:05:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sounds like that calls for a dual solution - a premium-priced high-speed lane for servers and clients who need (and are willing to pay for) that sort of thing, and a net-neutral regular lane for everything else on a first-come, first-served basis without discrimination based on source or content. But that is not how the internet is laid out. I can possibly imagine that people might believe that “fast lanes” like that would be a good thing, but when you grasp the nature of the backbone, it stops looking so good. At least, as far as I can tell. ---
**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 17, 2017, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/335 "2017-12-17T07:59:36Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > But that is not how the internet is laid out. I can possibly imagine that people might believe that “fast lanes” like that would be a good thing, but when you grasp the nature of the backbone, it stops looking so good. At least, as far as I can tell. Maybe you need something akin to the Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways - a massive project to basically run fiber-optic (or make available high-speed wireless) to every home in America. That’d be a pretty great thing for America to do. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/336 "2017-12-17T07:59:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Actually, it is. Ever heard of Adam Smith? **He wasn’t a scientist**. He was a moral philosopher with some feel-good ideas who assumed every player would be an ethical moral entity in his system because that’s what, in his mind, would produce the best result and so naturally people would get it. Let’s just say he possibly maybe could have been wrong about that’un. Which is sort of a big’un because it’s the foundation block of his entire theory. ---
**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 17, 2017, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/337 "2017-12-17T08:12:08Z")
Heck, humans are great at working for their own best interests, thought often only in the short-term. Smith was bang-on, if all economic systems get rebooted every six months. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/338 "2017-12-17T19:27:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Ok, so regulations = central planning. > > And **Bricker** said he was in favor of eliminating the net neutrality regulation, unless problems arise, he would be open to new regulations to fix whatever problems arise. > > Which, by the transitive property of leftism, means that if any ISP abuses the end of net neutrality, **Bricker** is then in favor of a Soviet-style centrally planned economy. > > Solid logic, through and through. Well, it’s leftist logic, to be sure. As totally valid as the rest of the leftist agenda. ---
**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 17, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/339 "2017-12-17T20:21:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, it’s leftist logic, to be sure. As totally valid as the rest of the leftist agenda. **Right-Wing Logic** : we should punish people for breaking windows **Left-Wing Logic** : we should prevent people from breaking windows I generally prefer fewer broken windows. ---
**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 17, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/340 "2017-12-17T20:24:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, it’s leftist logic, to be sure. As totally valid as the rest of the leftist agenda. I’d love to hear a response to the substantive arguments rather than peripheral snipes. From the get go you intimated that your position would not be as strongly held in the case of natural monopoly. First, I’m not seeing the dif between natural or govt granted in the case of the analysis. Second, I think there are significant examples of ISPs being able to exercise monopolistic behaviors where consumers or the market are unable to act to correct these market failures. I think that results in a situation where there is no real market and in those cases the normative approach falls short. The only way around this I see is if you believe there aren’t monopolies of this kind. Is that your position or am I missing something? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=18)