FCC Passes Net Neutrality

[Whiskeyjack]

You're a principled libertarian, wizards, we get it.

Do you think monopolies are harmful? If so, is the government justified in regulating to stop them from forming, or, when inevitable, to limit their ability to harm consumers?

 

[Ndaccountant]

You're a principled libertarian, wizards, we get it.

Do you think monopolies are harmful? If so, is the government justified in regulating to stop them from forming, or, when inevitable, to limit their ability to harm consumers?

Is there really a discussion about a Monopoly or how to charge for content expansion? I can see how people would think monopoly, but I don't understand why people don't think Netflix needs to pay for delivery of their product to an end user when that delivery is costing others millions.

 

[Bubbles]

Sorry if its already been brought up, but i'm curious; for those who think that the internet has become a public service, or is becoming a human right.....even if you buy that, which I can wrap my head around....is Netflix a necessary part of daily life? Youtube? Itunes? Streaming porn? (insert any other high-bandwidth service)?

FWIW, still forming my own opinion of the topic.

 

[wizards8507]

You're a principled libertarian, wizards, we get it.

When people question me directly, I'm going to respond. Sorry if it gets repetitive.

Do you think monopolies are harmful? If so, is the government justified in regulating to stop them from forming, or, when inevitable, to limit their ability to harm consumers?

Natural monopolies are an economic fiction. It will never be the case that a monopoly comes to be "on its own." The government is complicit in the forming of such monopolies; therefore, the government's role is not to destroy them but to simply not create the conditions where they come to be in the first place.

I found this quote with a quick Google and I quite like it: "If a monopoly is evil in itself, how much greater an evil is the monopoly of force that the government constitutes when it has enough power to be capable of keeping the former in check!"

 

[connor_in]

A couple of quick questions...

net neutrality may possibly be the greatest thing since sliced bread...personally I don't know as I do not have enough knowledge at this time...however...

1) Why is the 300+ page document of regulations still not public even though it has passed the FCC and is therefore legal and enforceable (until the inevitable lawsuits start)?

2) While I am a big believer that Condgree is the opposite of progress, do you think this is something that should have come before elected officials versus appointed officials?

3) How can anyone say exactly what this will do when we don't know the wording or the level of enforcement of the regulations? And how will those regulations be interpreted and enforced when they were designed for items such as broadcast networks?

4) Is this really just a response to Netflix/Comcast? If so, could it have been handled another way?

I understand the need to have regulations, but I also believe too many regulations or not the right ones can cause more hassle than good. Thus my problem with passing large scale regulations on something that consists of vague and unknown items and thus very unknown effects.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

When people question me directly, I'm going to respond. Sorry if it gets repetitive.


Natural monopolies are an economic fiction. It will never be the case that a monopoly comes to be "on its own." The government is complicit in the forming of such monopolies; therefore, the government's role is not to destroy them but to simply not create the conditions where they come to be in the first place.

I found this quote with a quick Google and I quite like it: "If a monopoly is evil in itself, how much greater an evil is the monopoly of force that the government constitutes when it has enough power to be capable of keeping the former in check!"

What governmental regulation fostered Standard Oil?

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Should Jews be able to turn away neo-Nazis on the basis of politics?

Should Christians be able to turn away homosexuals on the basis of religion?

Should the Catholic Church be able to turn away women on the basis of divine authority?

Are you wanting to discuss how the extant laws actually operate or what laws might exist in a parallel universe?

 

[GoIrish41]

When people question me directly, I'm going to respond. Sorry if it gets repetitive.


Natural monopolies are an economic fiction. It will never be the case that a monopoly comes to be "on its own." The government is complicit in the forming of such monopolies; therefore, the government's role is not to destroy them but to simply not create the conditions where they come to be in the first place.
I found this quote with a quick Google and I quite like it: "If a monopoly is evil in itself, how much greater an evil is the monopoly of force that the government constitutes when it has enough power to be capable of keeping the former in check!"

This is exactly what is happening. Giving Comcast, for example, the power to price their competitors out of the market or completely reject them altogether is a condition by which a monopoly happens. The government is ensuring that this is not the case with the Internet.

 

[GoIrish41]

What governmental regulation fostered Standard Oil?

It was the lack of regulation that fostered Standard Oil.

 

[wizards8507]

What governmental regulation fostered Standard Oil?

1. Standard Oil controlled 88% of refining business at its peak, down to 64% in 1911 (before the anti-trust case). That's not a monopoly.

2. Tariffs on kerosene.

3. Overly broad and overly enforced patents that gave them an advantage over their competitors above and beyond what was reasonable.

4. Sweetheart deals with the railroads (largely private but not without public influence).

5. Outright bribery.

 

[wizards8507]

This is exactly what is happening. Giving Comcast, for example, the power to price their competitors out of the market or completely reject them altogether is a condition by which a monopoly happens. The government is ensuring that this is not the case with the Internet.

Comcast is not "the Internet." Neither is Netflix. The issue at hand is not "the Internet," but the bandwidth and infrastructure used to access the Internet.

We do the same thing when we talk about "health care" but what we really mean is "health insurance."

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

1. Standard Oil controlled 88% of refining business at its peak, down to 64% in 1911 (before the anti-trust case). That's not a monopoly.

2. Tariffs on kerosene.

3. Overly broad and overly enforced patents that gave them an advantage over their competitors above and beyond what was reasonable.

4. Sweetheart deals with the railroads (largely private but not without public influence).

5. Outright bribery.

Do we not care about anti-competitive effects resulting from entities which control less than 100% of the market?

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

A couple of quick questions...

net neutrality may possibly be the greatest thing since sliced bread...personally I don't know as I do not have enough knowledge at this time...however...

1) Why is the 300+ page document of regulations still not public even though it has passed the FCC and is therefore legal and enforceable (until the inevitable lawsuits start)?

2) While I am a big believer that Condgree is the opposite of progress, do you think this is something that should have come before elected officials versus appointed officials?

3) How can anyone say exactly what this will do when we don't know the wording or the level of enforcement of the regulations? And how will those regulations be interpreted and enforced when they were designed for items such as broadcast networks?

4) Is this really just a response to Netflix/Comcast? If so, could it have been handled another way?

I understand the need to have regulations, but I also believe too many regulations or not the right ones can cause more hassle than good. Thus my problem with passing large scale regulations on something that consists of vague and unknown items and thus very unknown effects.

1) The document isn't yet finalized. It's not yet an existing regulation. Publication will come once dissents have been addressed within the text and it comes up for a final review by committees, etc.

2) The FCC's grant of authority comes from congress. Congress is free to approve by doing nothing or change the law legislatively.

3) It's always an unknown with any law or regulation. Net neutrality is certainly only a part of what's going down.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do we not care about anti-competitive effects resulting from entities which control less than 100% of the market?

If Rockefeller would have gotten his way, Americans might still be lighting their homes with lanterns every night. He was trying to eliminate all competition so everyone had to depend on him and his company. This is the point where you always lose me when you discuss the wisdom of free market forces and how they will always lead to progress.

We can see the same processes playing out in today, when stacks of money lead to policies that stop our progress in its tracks. The involvement of the Koch Brothers in our politics is a perfect example. When this nation should be heavily investing in alternative energy such as solar power to avoid our dependency of foreign oil, the Koch brothers are trying desperately to use their vast fortune to ensure that we remain frozen in time with regard to our energy supply. Why? Because they profit tremendously from the status quo. These corporations are not interested in your notion of a competetive marketplace. They want to be monopolies who control not only the commodities that are vital to the society, but the people who need those commodities to survive.


EDIT: Sorry Pops, this post was mean for wiz, not you.

 

[wizards8507]

If Rockefeller would have gotten his way, Americans might still be lighting their homes with lanterns every night. He was trying to eliminate all competition so everyone had to depend on him and his company. This is the point where you always lose me when you discuss the wisdom of free market forces and how they will always lead to progress.

We can see the same processes playing out in today, when stacks of money lead to policies that stop our progress in its tracks. The involvement of the Koch Brothers in our politics is a perfect example. When this nation should be heavily investing in alternative energy such as solar power to avoid our dependency of foreign oil, the Koch brothers are trying desperately to use their vast fortune to ensure that we remain frozen in time with regard to our energy supply. Why? Because they profit tremendously from the status quo. These corporations are not interested in your notion of a competetive marketplace. They want to be monopolies who control not only the commodities that are vital to the society, but the people who need those commodities to survive.


EDIT: Sorry Pops, this post was mean for wiz, not you.

Corporatism is NOT the free market. Neither are cronyism, bribery, corruption, deceit, rigged elections, political machines, or insider trading. You're doing a fabulous job creating strawmen but what you're criticizing is far from what I'm advocating.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Natural monopolies are an economic fiction.

Really? Public utilities are the classic example. You think that without government meddling, there would be open competition among power and water companies, despite the prohibitively high barriers to entry?

It will never be the case that a monopoly comes to be "on its own." The government is complicit in the forming of such monopolies; therefore, the government's role is not to destroy them but to simply not create the conditions where they come to be in the first place.

(1) I'm glad to hear you think government regulation to prevent the formation of monopolies is justified; and (2) if the government is justified in preventing them, it logically follows that it must also be justified in dismantling them, no?

I found this quote with a quick Google and I quite like it: "If a monopoly is evil in itself, how much greater an evil is the monopoly of force that the government constitutes when it has enough power to be capable of keeping the former in check!"

I agree with this whole-heartedly, but you don't seem to understand the full implications of it. Laissez-faire capitalism and big-government Progressivism both lead to vertical power hierarchies that ultimately crush human flourishing. We had the former during our Gilded Age, and the latter arose in direct response to it. Creating new leviathans to check the power of old ones has not worked well. But you'd be content with hamstringing the Progressive leviathan so that the Corporatist one can run free. Do you not see the sad irony in rooting for one over the other?

This article from The Atlantic's Crispin Sartwell is on point.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Corporatism is NOT the free market. Neither are cronyism, bribery, corruption, deceit, rigged elections, political machines, or insider trading. You're doing a fabulous job creating strawmen but what you're criticizing is far from what I'm advocating.

What GoIrish described is how laissez-faire capitalism has operated historically. You're arguing in favor of a libertarian utopia that has never and will never exist anywhere. Governments and markets are both social constructs, so they're just as fallible as the people who create and sustain them.

 

[GoIrish41]

Corporatism is NOT the free market. Neither are cronyism, bribery, corruption, deceit, rigged elections, political machines, or insider trading. You're doing a fabulous job creating strawmen but what you're criticizing is far from what I'm advocating.

If left unincombered by regulatiion, the natural result of the free market is, indeed, Corporatism. The biggest companies will always look for ways to shut out their competition. That is what will happen if we allow telecom companies to control who can and cannot use the internet, or to price their competition out of the market. It may not be precisely what you are advocating, but it is the natural conclusion to what you seem to be arguing for.

 

[woolybug25]

My primary concern is the government's involvement but I'll try and be more specific.

Who else could possibly stop them from abusing their power over the internet if not the government?

I think we're exaggerating how slow these slow lanes would be. If the "slow lanes" would mean I have trouble getting to my email, then that would be a problem. If the "slow lanes" mean I can't stream Breaking Bad in 1080P, then I think people should either quit bitching about being stuck in said slow lane or ante up to get out of it (as Netflix did before all this went down).

Is Comcast "ante'ing up? No, they aren't making any infrastructure modefications without government tax relief. So why should Netflix be the one to do it? Furthermore, you still simply aren't understanding that it's not just fast lane vs slow lane. It's access control. Without net neutrality, the Comcasts of the world have power to limit access to whomever they choose. Hell, they can say that if you want to access Google for instance, then you have to the upgraded package to do so. See their practices with premium channels and ESPN. That's exactly what you would see them doing and they would be doing it off of the back of our tax dollars.

It would all depend on whether we could have actual competition in the ISP space. Right now, I can only get Comcast where I live so the "slow lane" option wouldn't result in any cost reductions. If people could pay less for "less internet," then I think it fast and slow lanes would be a good thing (but again that would only happen if there were competitive providers in the same market).

Why do you believe that if they went to lanes, and there is no competition, they would decrease your rates? If they kept them the same, would you leave the internet? You would see them have a basic package with their own platforms. If you wanted to use more, stream videos (which they wouldn't want you to do away from their platform) or access the internet with a mobile device it would all be premium access. Bottom line, as it's been explained ad nauseam to you, this world where ISP competition could exist isn't real. There is nothing we can do to change that. Not at this point in the infrastructure life cycle.

 

[wizards8507]

Really? Public utilities are the classic example. You think that without government meddling, there would be open competition among power and water companies, despite the prohibitively high barriers to entry?

Mises Daily | Mises Institute

A few highlights:

The very term "public utility" … is an absurd one. Every good is useful "to the public," and almost every good … may be considered "necessary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is completely arbitrary and unjustified.

It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

If competition is viewed as a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in time is of little or no consequence.

There is no evidence at all that at the outset of public-utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly."

The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and then, with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an ex post rationalization for their monopoly power.

ETA (not to Whiskey): To everyone bringing up Standard Oil, Vanderbilt was making a superior product at a fraction of the cost of his competitors. You don't like it? Build a better mouse trap.

 

[wizards8507]

So why do we have to build their infrastructure...

We don't!

[/ARGUMENT]

 

[woolybug25]

We don't!

[/ARGUMENT]

Then your solution is to do nothing and have no new infrastructure technology? Can you imagine if we did that with phones or electricity? Are you serious?

So if everyone agrees on the diagnosis of the problem, then why oh why are we only treating the symptom thereof?

Because treating the problem is completely impossible. Tell me... how exactly would you solve this access issue? Because frankly, you keep showing up in this thread and spouting nonsense until you show that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Then you leave for a while. Then you come back.

 

[wizards8507]

Then your solution is to do nothing and have no new infrastructure technology? Can you imagine if we did that with phones or electricity? Are you serious?

Yeah could you imagine if companies had to COMPETE for your business? What a terrible world of rising quality and falling prices that would be.

Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

Burton N. Behling, "Competition in Public Utility Industries" (1938), in Harold Demsetz, ed., Efficiency, Competition, and Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1989), p. 78.

Because treating the problem is completely impossible. Tell me... how exactly would you solve this access issue?

Quit the subsidies, return the tax dollars used to fund those subsidies to the people, and tell Comcast and friends that they can lay their own cable.

Because frankly, you keep showing up in this thread and spouting nonsense until you show that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Then you leave for a while. Then you come back.

I'm gainfully employed. I often have work to do that doesn't involved palling around with you yahoos.

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah could you imagine if companies had to COMPETE for your business? What a terrible world of rising quality and falling prices that would be.

Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

Your oblivious lack of knowledge on the subject is appalling considering how strongly you feel about the subject.

Tell me... how complex or costly do you think the electrical grid was in 1887? Do you think a single, local company could afford to implement a major grid component for a NYC size market today? Tell me, how many small firms would look to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to serve one market? Your argument here is absurd.

Quit the subsidies, return the tax dollars used to fund those subsidies to the people, and tell Comcast and friends that they can lay their own cable.

So you are completely against govt intervention, but you want govt to go into a private company and make them return tax dollars they already gave them? To lay cable that's already laid?

I'm gainfully employed. I often have work to do that doesn't involved palling around with you yahoos.

Cool. Peace out, braniac.

 

[woolybug25]

As posted above, is it Comcast, or Comcast and our local governments? We can blame Comcast, but it's the people we elect that have created the problem you reference.

Not exactly. Your article above makes a good point about local government's "taking their cut", but if they charged the same to everybody, the problem would still exist. If they didn't charge a premium for pole connection, it wouldn't magically put the millions of dollars necessary to play in this space available. It's not like local pole connections are what keep cable providers from entering the market. Major network deals, National infrastructure capabilities and billion dollar capex requirements are what keep competition away.

 

[ACamp1900]

Comcast can bend me over for 50,000.... Now how's that for free markets bitches....

 

[woolybug25]

Comcast can bend me over for 50,000.... Now how's that for free markets bitches....

Gross.

 

[ginman]

Having some interest in this topic and reading through posts from pages 1 and 5, I can truly say my teeth hurt and I am as confused as ever as to my position on this issue.
My concerns revolves around the government continuing to regulate in a manner that does not involve elected officials, and doing it behind closed doors without any public discussion about the merits of more government involvement. That alone makes me skeptical about what the actual goals of these regulations are. All to often we do not know the end result of policies until year later when it is too late to argue. Seems to me that there is a problem with the process.

 

[woolybug25]

Having some interest in this topic and reading through posts from pages 1 and 5, I can truly say my teeth hurt and I am as confused as ever as to my position on this issue.
My concerns revolves around the government continuing to regulate in a manner that does not involve elected officials, and doing it behind closed doors without any public discussion about the merits of more government involvement. That alone makes me skeptical about what the actual goals of these regulations are. All to often we do not know the end result of policies until year later when it is too late to argue. Seems to me that there is a problem with the process.

The thing you have to understand is that the FCC doesn't need approval to make this action. They have the legal right and responsibility to make this type of decision. It's not a "back room deal" that was done in a shady way. If congress, senate or anybody else wanted to change it, they can through bringing up a bill to address it.

The FCC is an independent government agency responsible for regulating the radio, television and phone industries. The FCC regulates all interstate communications, such as wire, satellite and cable, and international communications originating or terminating in the United States. They simply did their job.

 

[philipm31]

Consumers don't have to use Comcast or Time Warner for anything if they don't want to, either.

Spare me the bullshit argument that Internet is a need-based utility, because it isn't.

You really think you could live TODAY without the internet?

It is indeed necessary for work and play, in nearly everything that you do.

Thinking that the Net is NOT a necessity today is ridiculous, otherwise what would you call your Internet bill? It is a utility, every bit as much as your phone and TV are.