FCC Repeals Net Neutrality Rule

[Bricker]

@up_the_junction

Meanwhile, in the developed world, an announcement today:

Of the G20 nations, only Italy and India have higher taxes on income than the UK. You say “developed,” with the implication that the United States is deficient in this regard.

And I guess we are, if you believe that development means that everyone is entitled to the same stuff regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

I don’t. I regard that view as destructive to innovation and development.

But it’s your opinion to have.

[JohnT]

@Bricker

“Less regulation is better,” is the reason. Why am I not allowed to use that as a reason?

As it is a faith-based argument, held without evidence, it is perfectly acceptable for this forum. Few argue that, and those that do are wrong.

On the other hand, this faith-based, no evidence provided belief is a poor guide for public policy. Which is, in fact, a point many have made here.

Goalposts: moved back into position!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

I don’t. I regard that view as destructive to innovation and development.

What’s your take on the Eisenhower interstate system?

[up_the_junction]

@Bricker

And I guess we are, if you believe that development means that everyone is entitled to the same stuff regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

I don’t. I regard that view as destructive to innovation and development.

You’re of a generation that accepted the free market as part of their American identity.

That free market has long since been co-opted by the oligarths through ownership of the political class - but, like with healthcare, it’s something so tied to personal identity some folks can’t re-calibrate their thinking.

You live in an oligarchy dressed as a free market democracy. Net neutrality only confirms that further.

[Bricker]

@up_the_junction

You’re of a generation that accepted the free market as part of their American identity.

And damn proud of it.

[up_the_junction]

Of course you are. A lot of politicians made big money relying on exactly that.

[WillFarnaby]

@Bryan_Ekers

What’s your take on the Eisenhower interstate system?

I don’t speak for anyone, but it is very clear that the interstate system was a play to subsidize automobile manufacturers. It has clearly been an ecological disaster on par with the central planning ecological disasters in the Soviet Union. It enabled white flight and urban sprawl and crowded out more efficient transportation systems.

There is no telling how much more efficient an alternate history transportation system would be or what it would look like absent govt intervention.

[up_the_junction]

@WillFarnaby

I don’t speak for anyone, but it is very clear that the interstate system was a play to subsidize automobile manufacturers. It has clearly been an ecological disaster on par with the central planning ecological disasters in the Soviet Union. It enabled white flight and urban sprawl and crowded out more efficient transportation systems.

There is no telling how much more efficient an alternate history transportation system would be or what it would look like absent govt intervention.

And of course there is the extraordinary cost of the automobile industry in relation to climate change - how much is kowtowing to that industry going to cost future generations …

[eschereal]

@Bricker

And damn proud of it.

Because lack of perception is definitely something to be proud of.

[up_the_junction]

Th thing a lot of guys like Bricker never got was it was always socialism for the rich and pure capitalism for everyone else - even the 2007/8 crisis didn’t shift them

[WillFarnaby]

The statists big hope for the future of the internet is for our internet service system to have the same level of innovation our transportation infrastructure has witnessed over the last 60 years.

Dream big guys.

Maybe if we are lucky we will avoid the carnage our subsidized mode of transport has delivered for generations.

[Bricker]

@eschereal

Because lack of perception is definitely something to be proud of.

On the contrary, my perception is generally correct, and certainly more correct than the claim that the free market has been “co-opted by the oligarths through ownership of the political class.”

I suppose the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers were involved? And the Illuminati, I expect.

[elucidator]

@eschereal

Because lack of perception is definitely something to be proud of.

Not everybody sees it that way.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

On the contrary, my perception is generally correct, and certainly more correct than the claim that the free market has been “co-opted by the oligarths through ownership of the political class.”

I suppose the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers were involved? And the Illuminati, I expect.

You supposition is clearly disingenuous.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Bricker

“Less regulation is better,” is the reason. Why am I not allowed to use that as a reason?

…I find it hard to reconcile your stance with Net Neutrality with your stance on voter ID. Voter fraud is a problem so insignificant as to be negligible. Yet you support new laws and regulations to address a non-existent problem.

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?

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

On the contrary, my perception is generally correct, and certainly more correct than the claim that the free market has been “co-opted by the oligarths through ownership of the political class.”

Your perception is not likely to be correct in this case:

The FCC Wants to Kill Net Neutrality and End the Open Internet. If It Does,...

Pai’s plan to repeal net neutrality provisions and reclassify broadband providers from “common carriers” to “information services” is an unprecedented giveaway to big broadband providers and a danger to the internet. The move would mean the FCC would have almost no oversight authority over broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

For years, those broadband providers have used lawsuits and agency filings to fight FCC oversight and overturn its authority to prevent net neutrality abuses. But never in those companies’ most feverish dreams did they expect an FCC chair would propose to demolish all net neutrality protections and allow ISPs to extract tolls from every business in the country.

If Congress allows Pai’s plan to pass, all that will be left of FCC oversight of broadband providers is a weak disclosure requirement: If Verizon, for example, wants to block content, charge sites to be viewable on its network, or create paid fast lanes, the company will simply have to tell its subscribers in their contract’s fine print. (Broadband providers won’t have to disclose, and the FCC won’t have control over, the sneakier ways they’ve found to mess with the internet.)

Enforcement will be left to the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that’s never enforced open internet rules and has no ability to formulate its own. The FTC won’t even be able to protect consumers against most net neutrality violations after the fact, and nor will it be able to protect consumers against greedy broadband providers.

Today, small and medium-size businesses rely on a myriad online business services for internal communications, sales, and accounting, to name just a few. Slack, Dropbox, Gusto, Quickbooks, and thousands more would have to pay access charges and fast-lane fees, costs they would likely have to pass to their customers.

Non-mainstream media news sources across the political spectrum would no longer be able to afford to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Even churches that now reach their members online with streaming sermons, video libraries, and online video chats, would no longer be protected from blocking or access fees.

Americans understand this and are rightly freaking out.

Since the order was released, they’ve flooded Congress with more than half a million calls, and that’s only counting calls placed through the site BattleForTheNet.com.
**
The citizen outrage crosses party lines; net neutrality is more popular than both parties combined. A poll this summer found that 77 percent of Americans support the current protections, including 73 percent of Republicans.**

This is not surprising. History has shown that internet freedom is the new third rail of US politics.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

“Less regulation is better,” is the reason. Why am I not allowed to use that as a reason?

Please see financial crisis of 2008.

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Please see financial crisis of 2008.

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.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Your perception is not likely to be correct in this case:

The FCC Wants to Kill Net Neutrality. But Congress Will Pay the Price | WIRED

Astroturfing.

[Bricker]

@Banquet_Bear

…I find it hard to reconcile your stance with Net Neutrality with your stance on voter ID. Voter fraud is a problem so insignificant as to be negligible. Yet you support new laws and regulations to address a non-existent problem.

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 question confuses government-as-actor with government-as-mediator.

In the voting realm, the government is the one conducting the business. I have no concerns about “regulation,” promulgated by the government to regulate its own internal processes.

In the Internet realm, the government is simply a rule-maker, and it is that role that I argue should be minimized.