# 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:** 26
**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 21, 2017, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/501 "2017-12-21T05:13:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your question confuses government-as-actor with government-as-mediator. …my question didn’t confuse anything. Here is my question again. “Is less regulation always better? Or is it only better on this occasion? How do you personally determine when less regulation is better and when it isn’t?” Your sentence confuses “claiming I’m confused (when I’m not)” with “this is your answer to your question”. So no you don’t think less regulation is always better, but it is better on this occasion. And you determine whether or not it is better or not by whether or not the government-is-an-actor or if the government-is-a-mediator. Is that a fair summary of your position? So why the distinction? Why do you not have a problem with the former, and why do you have a problem with the latter? What is the objective difference? ---
**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 21, 2017, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/502 "2017-12-21T06:40:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The one caused by Barney Frank’s addition of language forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy low-quality mortgages in the name of affordable housing? THAT financial crisis was caused by, of course, government meddling. No commentary on the banks and mortgage brokers who peddled NO-quality mortgages? It was all government’s fault? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/503 "2017-12-21T11:46:49Z")
It does seem to be the preferred American way to wait for something to turn out wrong, and then see what corrective action maybe taken; rather than up front seek to prevent that from going wrong, lest the preventive measure be what’s wrong. Or something like that. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No commentary on the banks and mortgage brokers who peddled NO-quality mortgages? It was all government’s fault? To be fair, they may not have done that if not under the impression that the taxpayers had their backs (which in the end we did). On Net Neutrality I land on the side that in the world of 2017 internet access should be seen as an essential public utility and just as happens with the telephones and power grid, the business that put in the “tubes” (in the Senator’s immortal words) should feed the customers seamlessly _even when it will profit a competitor_ and regardless of content. Again to be fair, that was mostly the de facto status before the 2015 rules. But it is a genuine concern that with consolidation in a few big providers of backbone and last-mile service (e.g only two for me), that would soon give way to preferential treatment and tiered services and content-based exclusion. (I know, I know, “oh, it’s a private business so it’s not censorship”…) “Nobody needs to be on the internet”? Well, not unless you want to be more than a mom-n-pop corner store. Heck, they’re selling net-connected toasters and refrigerators these days. Even “over the air” broadcasters move a lot of their signal over IP before it goes out the tower, and their network feed comes that way. ---
**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 21, 2017, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/504 "2017-12-21T12:42:06Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > It does seem to be the preferred American way to wait for something to turn out wrong, and then see what corrective action maybe taken; rather than up front seek to prevent that from going wrong, lest the preventive measure be what’s wrong. Or something like that. I gather there’s a wild-west mythology at play, but it looks like a giant game of Russian Roulette to me - do away with regulations, then every 15 years or so, have a major collapse. If you happen to be retiring and your investments are with a failed financial company, sucks to be you, pal. That’s why I chuckled at how common TD Bank branches were, the last time I was in New York. > [@](#): > > To be fair, they may not have done that if not under the impression that the taxpayers had their backs (which in the end we did). Yeah… unfortunately, the will to punish such abuses just isn’t there. Again, sucks to be you, pal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/505 "2017-12-21T15:04:31Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > And you determine whether or not it is better or not by whether or not the government-is-an-actor or if the government-is-a-mediator. Is that a fair summary of your position? It’s close. I expect a store to regulate itself: deciding what uniforms, if any, sales assistants wear. I don’t expect the government to decide what uniforms sales assistants at a store wear. Unless it’s a government-run store. See? Easy peasy. > [@](#): > > So why the distinction? Why do you not have a problem with the former, and why do you have a problem with the latter? What is the objective difference? The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how I set my routers in my company. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/506 "2017-12-21T15:56:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how I set my routers in my company. As a poster (a creator of content), you are part of the Net too. > [@Bricker](#): > > Astroturfing. And I’m pressed for time here but I also have to point out that you are also ignorant of what Astroturfing is, one important property of that is that it artificially increases numbers so as to give the false impression that a majority of the people and experts are in favor of something. This is not the case here as the polls show and the experts also tell us. [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules) > **[Congress should block FCC's net neutrality vote, Internet experts say](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/12/11/congress-should-block-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-internet-experts-say/941250001/)** > > More than 20 Internet experts want Congress to prevent the Federal Communications Commission's vote to overturn the 2015 net neutrality rules. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/507 "2017-12-21T16:12:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how I set my routers in my company. > > As a poster (a creator of content), you are part of the Net too. Sure! I don’t expect the government to regulate my creation of content. See? It all fits. ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/508 "2017-12-21T16:21:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how I set my routers in my company. This type of thinking seems applicable to many things. For instance: “The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how much I charge my customers for electricity” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/509 "2017-12-21T16:22:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure! > > I don’t expect the government to regulate my creation of content. See? It all fits. Mind you, what the ones talking about the issue are pointing out is that the creators of content that are not part of big conglomerates are bound to have more difficulty or pay more to get eyeballs with no net neutrality rules. ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/510 "2017-12-21T16:30:58Z")
I’ll try once more, **Bricker**. Do you think there is a functioning market such that typical market forces would apply in ISPs? ---
**Author:** ![Doughbag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Doughbag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doughbag)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/511 "2017-12-21T16:43:10Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why should the government mandate that outcome? Why would someone want a corporation to control the internet usage? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/512 "2017-12-21T17:26:36Z")
> [@Doughbag](#): > > Why would someone want a corporation to control the internet usage? Why not? After all, corporations are [people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.), too, just like you and me. ---
**Author:** ![Doughbag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Doughbag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doughbag)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/513 "2017-12-21T17:28:54Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Nope. YOU need to answer the question as to why the NN rule was necessary in 2015. Here some cites [Verizon blocks Google Wallet](http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm) [Verizon blocking apps](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.ef3012bdf6f6) [AT&T blocking FaceTime](https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality) [Hijack your searches or redirecting your browser](https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-helps-make-case-net-neutrality) ---
**Author:** ![Doughbag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Doughbag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doughbag)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/514 "2017-12-21T17:51:08Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Why not? After all, corporations are [people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.), too, just like you and me. Ah, right… eh, what? They eat, sleep and have sex? Like any other person? Cool, awesome… does that also mean they lie, steal, cheat, murder, kill and rape people? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/515 "2017-12-21T19:23:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ll try once more, **Bricker**. Do you think there is a functioning market such that typical market forces would apply in ISPs? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/516 "2017-12-21T19:26:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This type of thinking seems applicable to many things. For instance: “The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how much I charge my customers for electricity” Correct. The initial assumption should be that government should not regulate the price of electricity, and then that default approach can be changed based on specific evidence that such regulation is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/517 "2017-12-21T19:28:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mind you, what the ones talking about the issue are pointing out is that the creators of content that are not part of big conglomerates are bound to have more difficulty or pay more to get eyeballs with no net neutrality rules. Also, Anna Kendrick goes on the Jimmy Fallon show on NBC but never on my podcast. What’s up with that? Blatant favoritism to wealthy conglomerate NBC, amirite? The FCC should require Ms. Kendrick to treat all content creators equally. Poor girl’s gonna be tired, but right is right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/518 "2017-12-21T19:35:21Z")
> [@Doughbag](#): > > Ah, right… eh, what? They eat, sleep and have sex? Like any other person? > > Cool, awesome… does that also mean they lie, steal, cheat, murder, kill and rape people? I see you didn’t actually read the link. The decision in question held that corporations are entitled to constitutional protections. It did not claim they eat, sleep, or have sex. I can’t understand your confusion on that point; to me, the concept is very clear. But I’m happy to help you clear up that misconception. Corporations do not eat, sleep, or have sex. Do you have any other questions on this topic? Better you get them out now, anonymously, than in an embarrassing public disclosure of error. ---
**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 21, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/519 "2017-12-21T19:45:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s close. > > I expect a store to regulate itself: deciding what uniforms, if any, sales assistants wear. I don’t expect the government to decide what uniforms sales assistants at a store wear. …but can the government decide that a supermarket can’t sell rotten and unsafe meat without labeling it so? Do you object to the government regulating food and drugs or electricity? Is it just the internet that is problematic? > [@](#): > > Unless it’s a government-run store. Can you give me an example of a government-run store? > [@](#): > > See? Easy peasy. Then why did it take two goes for you to answer? And why does your answer still require clarification? > [@](#): > > The government can regulate its own processes, like voting, but not my processes, like how I set my routers in my company. You still aren’t addressing my questions. This is merely an assertion. Why the distinction? Why do you not have a problem with the former, and why do you have a problem with the latter? What is the objective difference? The government \*does \*regulate \*your \*processes and it does this all the time. How are you quantifying and measuring “less” regulation? ---
**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 21, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/520 "2017-12-21T19:47:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > The initial assumption should be that government should not regulate the price of electricity, and then that default approach can be changed based on specific evidence that such regulation is needed. Ok that’s great. So as to Net Neutrality, the initial assumption was that the government should not regulate ISPs when it comes to how they offer access to the Internet. This assumption held firm until around 2005 when the default approach was starting to cause issues for consumers who had little choice in what avenues they could use to access the Internet. Starting in 2005, various small forms of regulation were tried, with the ISPs predictably fighting against them, until a change in how ISPs were treated was determined to be the only way, absent Congressional action, that could protect the consumer. Sometimes it seems like you are completely unaware of the things that happened between no regulation and now. They have been listed numerous times. Are you just not concerned? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=27)