NET NEUTRALITY

[DanWeiss]

Without retching at the observation that government regulates in some way nearly everything significant to the economy, we must ask two questions. How and why?

Students of history will note myriad private efforts that ultimately required government intervention to one degree or another to avoid or destroy the perils endemic to consolidation of resources. Railroads, telephone, television, radio, transportation, fuel, food, medicine, explosives, chemicals, scaffolding . . . typing out a complete list would break everyone's fingers but Mike Fick's.

While not exhaustive in explanation, the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to enter markets to regulate them.

Here, the resource upon which both public and private economic interest rely is data transfer across networks owned by separate entities aka the Internet. Throttling data throughput by one company can serve as a leverage to negotiate license fees charged by another. It also would permit imbalanced competition since data providers now also produce their own consumer media that competes directly with the media the providers seeks to throttle. The law regularly frowns on that circumstance and it is the basis why public company mergers often get rejected by the FTC. The concern is that consumers lack much if any negotiating power with their provider who often operate without any market competitors. That imbalance almost always results in significant price increases to the consumer. While not a total monopoly, the throttle situation results in the same concern underscoring why we rarely permit monopolies to survive.

If anyone cares to learn about the "good ol' days" of monopolies and what they wrought on the country, check out this academic paper: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=facultyworkingpapers;

[mrgybe]

[isobars]

Even the advertised purpose of this Trojan Horse, as I understand it in a nutshell, is egregious: Prevent people with money from buying faster service. Yeah, Obama ... that's the American way, alright; remove yet one more incentive to succeed in business and life. We'll be back to one choice when he's done: electric Model Ts in any color we like as long as it's black.

[nw30]

[techno900]

Got their toe in another door. I guess we will have to wait until we see what comes through once it is wide open. Sounds good on the surface, but what's the real story? Skeptic? You bet!

[swchandler]

Who would you choose, the government or corporations to ensure your freedom? More often than not, corporations care about your money and not your liberty. When it comes down to it, there just aren't that many providers of internet service. I don't know about you, but my monthly Verizon DSL internet bill is ever going up. Same with cable (the other internet provider), and the viewing selection under basic cable service has been getting worse and worse over the years. I should point out that where I live, Cox Cable TV is really the only choice, because we can only receive one over-the-air broadcast channel without it.

Do I feel like I'm being worked over and taken advantage by the federal government? Not really. At least with the government, we have the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution to protect us. What do you have from corporations? These days I think that Republicans, and those adamant folks on the right, like the idea of America but not the reality, unless they can bend it to their will and profit from it.

[nw30]

[quote="swchandler"] At least with the government, we have the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution to protect us. [quote]

Obama: I've heard of those two papers, they had something to do with the founding of our country, or something like that I believe, but I might be wrong.

[DanWeiss]

Without responding to every detail posted in reply, let me just say that all that the FCC did, more or less, is to include ISPs in roughly the same regulations on the books for decades. Government takeover of free commerce "because Obama wants it" doesn't hold water if for no other reason than major commerce has not been free from regulation of some costly sort since before 1776!

Here, we may experience individualized cost recovery charges similar to wireless and traditional service but never without negotiated terms similar to other utilities. Subscription rates may rise, but alternatives now exist that didn't prior that effectively discourage leveraged clamping that hurts consumers.

Who's similarly frustrated with the sniping and blatant partisanship exhibited by nearly everyone responding to a conclusion different than their respective own? Even the great dissenters here likely could engage in respectful exchange in person. Yet somehow we feel license to dismiss each other as idiots. Or maybe I don't know how to swim in the deep end?

[mrgybe]

[swchandler]

"Unelected government officials institute regulations that effectively nationalize a huge segment of the economy, ..."


Nothing like stretching things way out of proportion and getting far far from the truth. Pretty hard to be considered credible doing that.