# 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:** 27
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/521 "2017-12-21T19:52:01Z")
> [@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? Not so much murdering and raping, no. But lying, stealing, cheating, and killing? You betcha! Plus, they live forever! ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/522 "2017-12-21T19:55:51Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …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? Yes. Although as always, the default assumption is that they cannot, and then rules may be applied based on the needs as they arise. Your question hints that perhaps you had forgotten that aspect of my argument. Had you? > [@](#): > > Can you give me an example of a government-run store? [Sure.](https://www.basedirectory.com/fort-belvoir-directory/package-store-class-vi) [Happy to.](https://www.gsa.gov/acquisition/products-services/office-management/furniture/department-of-the-army-uph-furniture-program) > [@](#): > > Then why did it take two goes for you to answer? And why does your answer still require clarification? I’d prefer, at least in GD, not to speculate on your motives. > [@](#): > > 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? The answer is inherent in the nature of government. Government should leave me alone, if it can, and only use its power over me sparingly. Government cannot leave itself alone. It is the only source of regulation for its own works. This is a basic axiom about the proper role of government. As you may recall from your sixth grade math class, an axiom is a proposition that is assumed without proof as the basis for a system. So you may say, of course, that you disagree that this is the proper role of government. Go right ahead. Disagree. Fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/523 "2017-12-21T20:04:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What country specifically are you picturing? 2017 is the first year we even cracked the top ten list for internet speed by country: > **[Internet Speeds by Country - Fastest Internet In The World Map](https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-connection-speed-by-country.php)** > > Our tables and map visualize average internet speeds of more than 200 countries. Find the fastest internet speed in the world with a single click. Yet we are 7th highest in terms of cost. > **[Internet Speeds by Country - Fastest Internet In The World Map](https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-connection-speed-by-country.php)** > > Our tables and map visualize average internet speeds of more than 200 countries. Find the fastest internet speed in the world with a single click. The gold standard, though, seems to be South Korea. > **[Internet in South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_South_Korea)** > > About 49 million people in South Korea (or 97.0% of the population) use the Internet. The country has the world's fastest average internet connection speed. South Korea has consistently ranked first in the UN ICT Development Index since the index's launch. The government established policies and programs that facilitated the rapid expansion and use of broadband. The country has 97.6% of the population owning a smartphone, which is the highest in the world. > It is recorded that Kilnam Chon played ... ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/524 "2017-12-21T20:05:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Government should leave me alone, if it can, and only use its power over me sparingly Off-topic, I know, but was this your defense of same-sex marriage when it first started becoming a thing? Is this your defense of abortion? ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/525 "2017-12-21T23:59:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Ok. Then I have a couple follow up questions which I think get to the heart of the matter. First, do you think you can be persuaded that your belief is incorrect if presented with sufficient evidence? Second, if you are persuaded that there is not a well functioning market in ISPs, would that be enough to rebut the normative approach? Third, what do you consider to be the key characteristics of a well functioning market? I would characterize a well functioning market in ISPs to be one which consumers had a variety of available options to choose from with a certain minimum speed available. So if all consumers only had 1 choice in broadband providers with speeds over 25 mbs, then I’d say that’s not a functioning market because it would be monopolistic. Would you agree with that? Of course there’s a continuum where a customer may have 2 choices and that would be better, but still not crossing the threshold for me. If there were 4-5 available choices, I’d say that’s pretty close. I realize this isn’t a precise measure, but it’s meant to get a flavor of how we each look at the fact pattern and evaluate it. And that’s how it is for a huge number of people. There’s a lack of choice, and that results in consumers not being able to exert pressure on providers such that they avoid doing things that consumers would typically penalize them for financially. I have Comcast. There is no other broadband provider in my area. I hate Comcast. If there was a job opening, in terms of well behaving companies, I’d rather work at a tobacco company, a porn distributor, or a patent troll than work for Comcast. But if I want internet where I live, that’s all the options I have. [Here’s the type of behavior](https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/) that Comcast engaged in that would otherwise make me cancel my service. They throttled Netflix traffic, and demanded whatever concessions they agreed to. Now, as a consumer, there was no agreement between me and Comcast when I signed up for their service that said they’d slow down traffic from various vendors. That’s not the deal we had. But I as a consumer was impacted by Comcast’s actions. Is this the end of the world - certainly not. But it’s also not a functioning market where I had any kind of choice. That’s the same situation that 10s of millions of people are in. Of course, I could go without internet. Just as people can go without electricity. But we accept the regulation of electricity because utility companies are able to exercise monopolistic power. Comcast can do the same thing. I agree with the normative approach in general - but in this case there is market failure and in those situations it’s appropriate for intervention. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/526 "2017-12-22T00:33:42Z")
Just to echo: I am one of those people **Bone** mentions. I have one such choice. There is no free market in ISPs, and now there is no free market online. Also, the majority of the US was against this move. Which means it is not democratic. It is the first indication of democracy falling. So that concerns me, too. ---
**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 22, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/527 "2017-12-22T00:35:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Although as always, the default assumption is that they cannot, and then rules may be applied based on the needs as they arise. …the default is “they cannot?” Don’t you mean the default is “they should not?” When the Obama administration introduced rules concerning net-neutrality it was because they saw that a need for those rules had arisen. So it seems that they complied with your criteria, so without more specific criteria than what you’ve supplied I don’t understand why you oppose net-neutrality. > [@](#): > > Your question hints that perhaps you had forgotten that aspect of my argument. Had you? My question hints at nothing but a desire to understand where you are coming from: no more, no less. > [@](#): > > [Sure.](https://www.basedirectory.com/fort-belvoir-directory/package-store-class-vi) [Happy to.](https://www.gsa.gov/acquisition/products-services/office-management/furniture/department-of-the-army-uph-furniture-program) Is running a furniture shop part of what you would describe as the “proper role of government”? > [@](#): > > I’d prefer, at least in GD, not to speculate on your motives. This sentence makes no sense in context to the questions I asked you. > [@](#): > > The answer is inherent in the nature of government. Government should leave me alone, if it can, and only use its power over me sparingly. If I were to say I agree with this, then would that surprise you? Don’t you think it is possible to both agree with this statement, and to have a disagreement over whether or not net-neutrality is an example of the government’s incorrect application of its “power over you?” > [@](#): > > Government cannot leave itself alone. It is the only source of regulation for its own works. But surely you wouldn’t disagree with the notion that less regulation in government is a good thing, would you? Government could very well follow your standard: of “applying rules based on the needs as they arise”, but otherwise “using its power over themselves sparingly”? Why would you not apply the same rules? > [@](#): > > This is a basic axiom about the proper role of government. As you may recall from your sixth grade math class, an axiom is a proposition that is assumed without proof as the basis for a system. As you should know by now I don’t live in the United States. I don’t know how sixth grade math relates to maths in my country, and what I think of the proper role of government is very different from what you think the proper role of government is. Even in your own country there is debate about the proper role of government. Plenty of people disagree with you. Plenty of people agree with your basic premise but don’t agree in how you are applying it to net-neutrality. > [@](#): > > So you may say, of course, that you disagree that this is the proper role of government. Go right ahead. Disagree. Fine with me. My opinions on the proper role of government have no bearing on your argument. Lets concede for the purpose of debate that my opinion of the proper role of government is identical to yours. I believe that the need for rules on net neutrality should be applied based on the need that has arisen, which fits your criteria on when regulations should be introduced. Do you think I’ve misapplied your criteria? ---
**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 22, 2017, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/528 "2017-12-22T04:09:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. As **Bone** showed, it is clear that you are just reaching here for a “[Chewbacca defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)”, that is really sad. But then one has to point out that when one sees nonsense as a reply it does follow that the points me and others made already do stand. Your nonsense does avoid dealing with the monopolistic power that does effect the development of new internet companies and new content creators. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/529 "2017-12-22T05:29:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Off-topic, I know, but was this your defense of same-sex marriage when it first started becoming a thing? Is this your defense of abortion? Marriage requires the action of the government. However, it doesn’t have to. And when the issue first arose, yes, that’s exactly what I said: government should simply issue civil unions for pairs of adults and leave “marriage,” to whatever church wanted to call it’s ceremony “marriage.” That solution, I felt, would solve the unequal treatment of same- and opposite-sex couples: the government would treat them equally. And the government would not issue any marriage declarations to any couple. Abortion involves what I believe to be a attack on the life of a human being. So you could just as well as if I believe the proper role of government is to prevent (by criminalizing) physical assaults against people by other people. Answer: yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/530 "2017-12-22T05:43:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ok. Then I have a couple follow up questions which I think get to the heart of the matter. First, do you think you can be persuaded that your belief is incorrect if presented with sufficient evidence? Yes. But it’s a high bar, since I would need lesser evidence to convince me to impose rules to curb actual abuses. You follow me? You’re asking if you can prove there’s no real market force in play here, and therefore we need to impose rules to curb the inevitable abuses. I say I’m perfectly willing to impose rules to curb actual abuses if they happen, so it seems ,Ike you want to take the scenic route. > [@](#): > > Second, if you are persuaded that there is not a well functioning market in ISPs, would that be enough to rebut the normative approach? Maybe, by that I mean: the question is not binary; markets can function very well, not so well, very poorly, or not at all. I’d say the normative approach survives a non-optimal market, but at some point along the journey to NO market, it collapses. > [@](#): > > Third, what do you consider to be the key characteristics of a well functioning market? > > I would characterize a well functioning market in ISPs to be one which consumers had a variety of available options to choose from with a certain minimum speed available. So if all consumers only had 1 choice in broadband providers with speeds over 25 mbs, then I’d say that’s not a functioning market because it would be monopolistic. Would you agree with that? Of course there’s a continuum where a customer may have 2 choices and that would be better, but still not crossing the threshold for me. If there were 4-5 available choices, I’d say that’s pretty close. I realize this isn’t a precise measure, but it’s meant to get a flavor of how we each look at the fact pattern and evaluate it. Tentatively yes, but note that you’ve described a well-functioning market. I would argue that even a somewhat marginally functioning market can still prove robust enough to offer sufficient alternatives. For example, widespread dissatisfaction wth “the only game in town” ISP could open the door to city-wide WiFi solutions, or satellite competitors. ---
**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 22, 2017, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/531 "2017-12-22T06:22:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Tentatively yes, but note that you’ve described a well-functioning market. I would argue that even a somewhat marginally functioning market can still prove robust enough to offer sufficient alternatives. For example, widespread dissatisfaction wth “the only game in town” ISP could open the door to city-wide WiFi solutions, or satellite competitors. Oh yeah, about that: > **[How big telecom smothers city-run broadband](https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband/)** > > Key findings: More than 130 U.S. cities currently offer a fiber or cable Internet connection to residents. Twenty states in the U.S. ban or restrict municipal broadband, cities say those bans stifle economic growth. Rather than invest in... > [@](#): > > **How big telecom smothers city-run broadband > AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable use statehouses to curb public Internet service** > [@](#): > > Janice Bowling, a 67-year-old grandmother and Republican state senator from rural Tennessee, thought it only made sense that the city of Tullahoma be able to offer its local high-speed Internet service to areas beyond the city limits. > > After all, many of her rural constituents had slow service or did not have access to commercial providers, like AT&T Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. > > But a 1999 Tennessee law prohibits cities that operate their own Internet networks from providing access outside the boundaries where they provide electrical service. Bowling wanted to change that and introduced a bill in February to allow them to expand. > > She viewed the network, which offers speeds about 80 times faster than AT&T and 10 times faster than Charter in Tullahoma according to advertised services, as a utility, like electricity, that all Tennesseans need. > > “We don’t quarrel with the fact that AT&T has shareholders that it has to answer to,” Bowling said with a drawl while sitting in the spacious wood-paneled den of her log-cabin-style home. “That’s fine, and I believe in capitalism and the free market. But when they won’t come in, then Tennesseans have an obligation to do it themselves.” > > At a meeting three weeks after Bowling introduced Senate Bill 2562, the state’s three largest telecommunications companies — AT&T, Charter, and Comcast Corp. — tried to convince Republican leaders to relegate the measure to so-called “summer study,” a black hole that effectively kills a bill. Bowling, described as “feisty” by her constituents, initially beat back the effort and thought she’d get a vote. > > That’s when Joelle Phillips, president of AT&T’s Tennessee operations, leaned toward her across the table in a conference room next to the House caucus leader’s office and said tersely, “Well, I’d hate for this to end up in litigation,” Bowling recalls. > > The threat surprised Bowling, and apparently AT&T’s ominous warning reached her colleagues as well. Days later, support in the Tennessee House for Bowling’s bill dissolved. AT&T had won. > > “I had no idea the force that would come against this, because it’s just so reasonable and so necessary,” Bowling said. > > AT&T and Phillips didn’t respond to emails asking for comment. > > **A national fight** > > Tullahoma is just one battlefront in a nationwide war that the telecommunications giants are fighting against the spread of municipal broadband networks. For more than a decade, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. have spent millions of dollars to lobby state legislatures, influence state elections and buy research to try to stop the spread of public Internet services that often offer faster speeds at cheaper rates. > > **The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.** ---
**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 22, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/532 "2017-12-22T13:53:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh yeah, about that: > > [How big telecom smothers city-run broadband – Center for Public Integrity](https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband) Eh, not to put words in **Bricker** ’s mouth but a free-marketer would point to that being an attempt to introduce a _public-owned_ service which they’d call an unfair competition and not a “real” market-driven solution. I’d look favorably upon it provided the “public” internet carrier set rates on a realistic basis, even if much cheaper than the commercial ones due to being nonprofit. (Full disclosure: in PR legislation was filed to keep the state-owned power utility from providing retail-level internet—they can still do “wholesale”—, but that was because we knew it is a hive of cronyism and patronage and what would happen would be the entire public sector would use them and NOT pay but the utility would logroll that loss onto everyone else’s power bill. Surely there are jurisdictions that could run such a service properly and in fair competition but ours wasn’t one of them) ---
**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 22, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/533 "2017-12-22T14:51:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Marriage requires the action of the government. > > However, it doesn’t have to. And when the issue first arose, yes, that’s exactly what I said: government should simply issue civil unions for pairs of adults and leave “marriage,” to whatever church wanted to call it’s ceremony “marriage.” That solution, I felt, would solve the unequal treatment of same- and opposite-sex couples: the government would treat them equally. And the government would not issue any marriage declarations to any couple. > > Abortion involves what I believe to be a attack on the life of a human being. So you could just as well as if I believe the proper role of government is to prevent (by criminalizing) physical assaults against people by other people. Answer: yes. Fair enough, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/534 "2017-12-22T14:57:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > \You follow me? You’re asking if you can prove there’s no real market force in play here, and therefore we need to impose rules to curb the inevitable abuses. **I say I’m perfectly willing to impose rules to curb actual abuses if they happen** , so it seems ,Ike you want to take the scenic route.\ :smack: Actual abuses DID happen (as have been pointed out several times). And that’s why NN was put in place. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/535 "2017-12-22T16:52:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh yeah, about that: > > [How big telecom smothers city-run broadband – Center for Public Integrity](https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband) I’m sorry, but I don’t regard that story, in which an AT&T rep kills legislation by saying, “I’d hate to see this end up in litigation,” if passed, as evidence that legislation can’t be passed. Please don’t contradict me. I’d hate to see this conversation end up continuing. (Man, if this works…) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/536 "2017-12-22T16:53:33Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > :smack: Actual abuses DID happen (as have been pointed out several times). And that’s why NN was put in place. The scope of the rules imposed far exceeded that necessary to address the actual abuses thus far mentioned. ---
**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 22, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/537 "2017-12-22T17:00:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The scope of the rules imposed far exceeded that necessary to address the actual abuses thus far mentioned. It seems to me like they tried to limit the rules, but were unable to due to lack of oversight authority or something to that effect, because of which they then did something that they had authority to do to address the actual abuses. And when they did that, they specifically laid out a lot of regulations that, while encompassed in classifying them as a “common carrier”, were not going to actually be enforced. ---
**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 22, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/538 "2017-12-22T17:13:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > But it’s a high bar, since I would need lesser evidence to convince me to impose rules to curb actual abuses. > > You follow me? You’re asking if you can prove there’s no real market force in play here, and therefore we need to impose rules to curb the inevitable abuses. I say I’m perfectly willing to impose rules to curb actual abuses if they happen, so it seems ,Ike you want to take the scenic route. Yes I get you here. I think we are at different places in our assessment of the current landscape, so a walking through the details/steps along the way may identify specifically where there is divergence. > [@](#): > > Maybe, by that I mean: the question is not binary; markets can function very well, not so well, very poorly, or not at all. I’d say the normative approach survives a non-optimal market, but at some point along the journey to NO market, it collapses. I agree with this. So it seems the significant point of contention is where we are on that journey, if we are on that journey at all. To explore that, we’d have to establish criteria for the various checkpoints along the way. The beginning where there is a free and functioning market, and the end where there is a full market failure and monopoly are not difficult. It’s the tipping point, or even the tipping range. Are there criteria that you believe would indicate such a collapse? I tried to identify some. > [@](#): > > Tentatively yes, but note that you’ve described a well-functioning market. I would argue that even a somewhat marginally functioning market can still prove robust enough to offer sufficient alternatives. For example, widespread dissatisfaction wth “the only game in town” ISP could open the door to city-wide WiFi solutions, or satellite competitors. Perhaps, but this hasn’t come to pass. I’m not saying that NN is the only available solution. My main point is that there isn’t a functioning market and I think that’s true for a variety of reasons. NN is a potential solution. Forcing ISPs to lease their bandwidth has potential. Forcing the granting of right of way to aspiring providers has potential. City wide or larger scale WiFi has potential. There’s probably lots of possible avenues to attack the issue. Some could be short term, and some could be long term. But the first step is recognizing there is a problem and that part we don’t agree on because what we have now is not a well functioning market. ---
**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 22, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/539 "2017-12-22T17:38:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sorry, but I don’t regard that story, in which an AT&T rep kills legislation by saying, “I’d hate to see this end up in litigation,” if passed, as evidence that legislation can’t be passed. Strawman. The point was that it is harder and the companies do know how and where to pressure to prevent change, or in the recent issue, to roll back rules to see a fair market in the internet. > [@Bricker](#): > > Please don’t contradict me. I’d hate to see this conversation end up continuing. > > (Man, if this works…) What works is that, as I have to notice yet again, you only resorted to ridiculous defences with a lot of ignorance of what did go on besides the money and influence the stronger corporations gave to get the current vote at the FCC and the lack of much interest on doing something about it in congress. Oh and once again, the points made by me and others do stand. That you have to realize that many like you are depending on poisoned sources of information and that still needs to be mentioned and reminded of. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/540 "2017-12-22T18:06:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not saying that NN is the only available solution. My main point is that there isn’t a functioning market and I think that’s true for a variety of reasons. NN is a potential solution. Forcing ISPs to lease their bandwidth has potential. Forcing the granting of right of way to aspiring providers has potential. City wide or larger scale WiFi has potential. There’s probably lots of possible avenues to attack the issue. Some could be short term, and some could be long term. But the first step is recognizing there is a problem and that part we don’t agree on because what we have now is not a well functioning market. I will say first of all that the fact that we agree that there is not a functioning market in this space should be understood in the context that we are ideologically on opposite sites of the political spectrum, so if we both see a problem here, then the perception of a problem is surely real and not an ideological artifact! 🙂 And indeed, examples of collusion and monopolistic abuses provided in this thread suggest that this industry functions more like an oligopoly than a free market. It’s not just in the US, either, but the difference is that most other countries are more amenable to regulatory remedies, and regulators have kicked ass where appropriate. Whereas this repeal reeks of totally caving to the industry’s lobbyists, as this administration seems to be doing everywhere. Regarding your potential solutions for competition, one of the reasons that common-carrier type of NN regulation is imperative is precisely because true competition is often difficult to achieve in this space. Forcing ISPs to lease their bandwidth is not necessarily going to give a reseller a free hand to operate his own network over his own signaling channel; in virtually all cases, the reseller piggybacks on the existing network, meaning that his customers’ packets go through the same routers and are potentially subject to the same traffic shaping abuses as the primary ISP. Granting right of way is an approach with immense cost of entry and may well be cost prohibitive, and is at most going to give you one competitor – one who is anxious to start recouping his investment and is as likely as not to go into collusion with the incumbent, as indeed has been happening with the telco ISPs and the cable broadband providers. As for wide-area WiFi, we might extrapolate its potential from the fact that the cost/performance of cellular data isn’t very competitive with landlines, though this isn’t an area I know much about. But again, for technical, practical, and cost reasons this might give you _ **one** _ competitor, not a plethora of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=28)