Net Neutrality vs the FTC (or, is Al Franken right for once in his life?)

[Racehorse]

I've already admitted telecoms were a bad example.

[AmbulanceDriver]

As someone else (was it CNY) pointed out, my understanding of the "Net Neutrality" rule was that it was establishing a quasi "common carrier" rule on ISP's, in other words, they have to treat all traffic the same.  Is that now not the case?

[mtnbkr]

As someone else (was it CNY) pointed out, my understanding of the "Net Neutrality" rule was that it was establishing a quasi "common carrier" rule on ISP's, in other words, they have to treat all traffic the same.  Is that now not the case?

It is still the case: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

This is the sort of thing is aims to prevent: http://www.itworld.com/legal/131220/data-shows-comcast-really-villain-netflix-case

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm sorry, what does net neutrality mean to everyone here?

I always thought it meant that it prohibits ISPs from filtering out content.  For example, under net neutrality, it would be illegal for Verizon FiOS to limit access to Yahoo! at 5KB/s because FiOS is in bed with Google (mythical situation, just an example).

I thought net neutrality is just a way to codify the status quo, the unfiltered, unchoked, full-speed-to-any-website intertubes we enjoy today.

On the rare occasions when a major telecom company tried to do what you describe, the market slapped them back down and forced them to abandon the practice.  

Net neutrality seeks to give government control over the internet in order to prevent the telecom companies from doing what the market already prevents them from doing.  Government gets shiny new powers.  We get... nothing we didn't already have.

Sound like a good deal to you?

[RaspberrySurprise]

To top it off, aren't common carriers given government money to expand their network size and capacity, and haven't most just been sitting on their thumbs?

Or am I wrong?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Also, the FCC has already tried to implement net neutrality once.  The courts ruled it illegal, said it was an overreach of their authority.

Ok, that's easy enough to fix, just have congress change the law to grant FCC the authority needed to enforce net neutrality.  

Problem is, congress consistently votes down any such changes to the law.  It's been brought up a bunch of times over the years, but never comes anywhere close to passing.  Congress has even sent the FCC chairwoman letters telling her to back off with this net neutrality stuff.

So after the courts say enforcing net neutrality is a no-no, and after congress says enforcing net neutrality is a no-no, what does the FCC do?  They decide they're going to enforce net neutrality anyway.

Hooray for out of control government.

[MechAg94]

So will it just take another court action to say no again?

[tyme]

On the rare occasions when a major telecom company tried to do what you describe, the market slapped them back down and forced them to abandon the practice.  

Net neutrality seeks to give government control over the internet in order to prevent the telecom companies from doing what the market already prevents them from doing.  Government gets shiny new powers.  We get... nothing we didn't already have.

There is no free market in ISPs.  All of your comments about the free market are true if there's a free market, but there isn't.

This FCC rule is pissing everyone off.  It's an abomination according to free marketeers, and it doesn't go far enough according to net neutrality proponents.

[BrokenPaw]

This FCC rule is pissing everyone off.  It's an abomination according to free marketeers, and it doesn't go far enough according to net neutrality proponents.

I've heard it said that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction is to support net neutrality, from the standpoint that a) net providers are a de facto common carrier, and b) as you say, there isn't really a free market in ISPs.  There may be one in the future, especially as wireless technology gets better, but for now, you're essentially limited to either a Cable provider or a phone provider.  And in many areas only one of those is available.  And that amounts to a monopoly.

I haven't seen anyone arguing the point from a Commerce Clause standpoint, but it's a very real factor that must be considered.  Suppose Verizon got in bed with (for example) Amazon, such that Vz customers were given preferential QoS when visiting Amazon.com, versus other online retailers.  Suddenly you have a legitimate interstate-commerce situation; a common carrier that is creating a commerce bias.  What the right way is to handle it, I can't say, but it is an interstate-commerce issue, and that does lend legitimacy to the FCC's involvement.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There is no free market in ISPs.  All of your comments about the free market are true if there's a free market, but there isn't.

Eh.  You could say that nothing in America is a truly free market any more.  "Free" markets aren't a binary, yes or now, this or that kinda thing.  They're matters of degree.  

With all telecoms we're dealing with a legacy of old government regulated monopolies.  Many of the laws, infrastructures, and mindsets are leftover from that paradigm. Those leftovers aren't doing us any favors today, yet we still cling to them.  

Beyond the scary new government powers, I can't help but think that this net neutrality nonsense is a step backwards, back towards the old government regulated monopoly paradigm.

There are other ways, better ways, to deal with the threats that net neutrality purports to defend against, ways that don't take this step backwards, and don't hand over scary new powers to FedGov.  Consider instead using the FTC to implement some antitrust, fair trade, and consumer protection requirements.  I bet you'd find that treating it as a trade matter would solve the same problems that net neutrality solves, only in a smarter and safer way.  I bet this won't be considered, though.  Too much inertia to overcome.

I've spent too much time dealing with telecom infrastructures in foreign countries.  It's a completely different world out there, a completely different way of doing things. The perspective is enlightening, to say the least.  This is one area where the American way is not the only way to do things, and certainly not the best way.   The government regulated monopoly model is NOT the right way to handle this stuff.

[sanglant]

make encryption a requirement for all net based communications, and a lot of the crap there using to drum up fear umm support for this, just fade away.

[MechAg94]

I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction is to support net neutrality, from the standpoint that a) net providers are a de facto common carrier, and b) as you say, there isn't really a free market in ISPs.  There may be one in the future, especially as wireless technology gets better, but for now, you're essentially limited to either a Cable provider or a phone provider.  And in many areas only one of those is available.  And that amounts to a monopoly.

As mentioned, why do we keep these local monopolies?  Why is the entire Houston area saddled with one over the wire cable provider? 
I guess I would also say that favoring regulation because of the problems caused by other regulations just doesn't seem very logical.