You are allowed to use that as a reason, of course. I’m just asking if you had any other reasons besides that.
If you don’t, then just say so.
As it stands, your reason is easily rebutted with “Nope. More regulation is better” and doesn’t really advance the discussion.
Because, as a wise man repeatedly assures us on this board, “A gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied”.
Absolutely. Congress clearly has the requisite power. It just doesn’t flow from the Preamble.
Yes, there’s some truth to that. “Less regulation is better,” is a postulate, not a conclusion. As I said in post 7:
I freely concede that this is a basic assumption with which I approach ANY situation, which is why I described it by saying “I think,” and “any situation.”
Since this is a done deal, it seems to me that in a year or so, either this parade of horribles will have come to pass, and I will publicly post and admit my error, or the dire predictions won’t have happened, and my interlocutors will have busily moved on other subjects and won’t bring it up again.
Of course, I could then bring it up, and endure the chorus of, “Get a life,” “Move on, it’s history,” “Bricker, it’s really unappealing when you do these victory dances.”
It’s a good system.
For you.
That may be, but leaves you open to differing definitions of “deeply undesirable result”, especially when the only undesirable result you can put forward is “more regulations are bad” when confronted with others’ descriptions of what they consider “deeply undesirable results”
You started this Great Debate topic, and included in your opening post “potentially a good thing” without actually listing any potentially good things that may arise. If your only “potentially good thing” is “There will be less regulations” then a topic in IMHO probably would have been better.
My guess is we won’t have to wait a year, but further guess that you will be one of the people saying “So what it now costs extra money to access Netflix, why should people have access to the entire Internet for free? You don’t get all cable channels for free, do you??”
But it will be fun 
One year? Seems a conveniently short span. It took about thirteen years for Enron to go completely off the rails, so I suggest a decade is a more appropriate timeframe to judge if this change has caused damage or not.
I don’t think “Wait a year and see” is a good way to determine if something is bad or not when there are multitudes of smart people telling you it is bad up front and the only offering for it being a good idea is “less regulations are better”
For instance, take the invasion of Iraq - “There might be some positives, let’s wait a year and find out”
***** A year later *****
“Yeah, seems like it was a bad idea, you were right. Luckily only 100,000 civilians were killed in the meantime” :rolleyes:
I love California’s response to the FCC telling CA that they had no authority over the NN issue.
CA points out that they do, in fact, control the service areas each cable providers serve, and those boundaries are not set in stone.
Fair point – no recovery from 100,000 deaths.
But what sort of irreparable harm happens here? ISP de-prioritize electrical company control traffic, streetlights go out, owls deafen us with their incessant hooting?
Sure, with the proviso that my recommended approach includes rules-making to address actual egregious behavior that arises.
I’d suggest the pivotal date was May 23, 2003: L. Paul Bremer issues Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2, dissolving the Iraqi Army and other entities of the former Ba’athist state. Two months into the invasion, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men with military weapons and training were fired. It would have been hugely cheaper just to keep paying them, instead of encouraging the angrier among them join the insurgency and ultimately ISIL.
Have you HEARD owls incessantly hooting? Could drive a man crazy!
You are, of course, free to bow out of this discussion whenever you like, but I still haven’t heard you (or anyone else on your side of this argument) address the fundamental issue: Accepting your premise that the default position should always be little to no regulation, of the “parade of horribles” the pro-NN interlocutors here have presented you, which of them do you think would merit moving off your default position?
For the record, I have already accepted that net neutrality regulation would likely be superfluous in an environment with a robust market of broadband ISPs. That market does not exist for most Americans, and, given the extraordinary capital cost barrier to entry for new market participants, I don’t think it’s likely to develop.
Yes, I am sure that in a year, you will be able to cherry pick predictions from this thread, and others like it, and find that all of the predictions did not come to pass. And because all of the predictions that everyone in this thread did not come to pass, then you will declare your own personal victory.
That some or most of the predictions have come to pass will not matter, just the ones you have cherry picked, along with the ones that you will have misinterpreted by then.
If, in a year, the more reasonable predictions have come to pass, that content will be restricted, that sites that have content and services that competes with the ISP’s content will be throttled or otherwise made less accessible, I strongly doubt that you will admit that those predictions have come to pass.
Which is why those “victory dances” you do are so unappealing.
I daresay that if in less than a year, there’s enough obvious need to re-regulate and enough political pressure to force re-regulation by this president and this congress (presumably still in power), then this is evidence in itself that dropping Net Neutrality was a bad idea. If you’re suggesting you could claim vindication somehow, I’m not seeing it.
Re-regulation in the next ten years… well, I suppose that depends on whether or not the Democrats (I assume) are re-regulating just for political show or if a genuine and obvious need has arisen, and not to address some weird unexpected technical problem that nobody could’ve reasonably seem coming, but to address issues that have been discussed and predicted in this thread and similar discussions elsewhere.
The caveats are my effort to be fair, but I suppose they make the post hard to read. Let me try:
Definition of “re-regulation” : a restoration of Net Neutrality or something very much like it, imposed on the major carriers. Minor tweaks here and there, I wouldn’t count.
Scenario 1: Re-regulation occurs within the next year. I assume this current government will still be in power and if the demand for re-regulation is so great that they have to accept it, then killing NN was an obvious failure.
Scenario 2: There are obvious problems calling out for re-regulation, but this president and this congress will not re-regulate. Judgement call, and I’d expect discussions of how serious these problems actually are.
Scenario 3: The Democrats take back the House in 2018, but not the Senate. The House demands re-regulation but can’t get it passed. Same result as Scenario 2.
Scenario 4: The Democrats retake Congress in 2018. They pass regulation but it gets vetoed by Trump. Does he have a good reason? Are there signs the loss of NN are positive?
Scenario 5: Same as 4, but Trump signs the bill. I’d take this as a sign killing NN was a failure.
Scenario 6: Sometime in the next decade, a major carrier completely collapses because of Enron-style commodity trading gone wild. Clear sign that killing NN was a bad idea.
I’m open to other scenario ideas, and if as in #4 there are signs that killing NN has a positive effect, I’m sure these will come to light by and by. Maybe in ten years there will be enough wireless broadband available that the U.S. in 2027 (at least in the urban centers) has internet capabilities close to what South Korea enjoyed in 2010.
Anyway, the presumption that one’s opponents are playing “heads I win, tails don’t count” is among the sourest of grapes.
Heh, I obviously should have included a scenario number 7, where everything is just okie dokie. That was an oversight on my part.
Why wait a year? You could you know, address the substantive arguments now. Does the character of your argument depend on the outcome?
You’ve identified your normative approach which is fine and I share it. But you also identified where the normative approach would no longer hold. It’s clear that this is the current situation - where there is not a functioning market. But you stop short there and don’t address that. The prerequisites for your normative approach include customers being able to act in such a way to motivate service providers to avoid bad behavior - but since that’s not true your normative approach justification fails.
Do you believe there is a functioning market in ISPs? This is the part you have been ignoring all thread and it undercuts your entire premise.
Meanwhile, in the developed world, an announcement today: