Net neutrality repealed!

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2017, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: We aren't talking about government taking over private businesses. We are talking about government relinquishing public control of access to a public good--as in relinquishing that control to private business. You are framing the issue as if the internet were already privately owned and some folks wanted big bad big government to weasel its way in.

The internet is not a true public good in the economic sense. The service being provided by an ISP is access. If you can be excluded, then it is at best a club good. Since bandwidth is limited, it is debatable whether or not it is even a club good. From a policy standpoint, where the usage of the term public good is a bit different, internet access is not considered a public good at this time. This is why I often say we should start treating it as such instead of it is a public good.

Bfine's analogy isn't far off. But what we need to consider in all of this is that the analogy is somewhat accurate because of the number of vertical mergers that have occurred over the years making ISPs and the companies that generate and provide the content all under the same umbrella. This is the problematic situation that could be considered a market failure in itself. Would net neutrality be needed to solve this problem if we had done a better job regulating against these behemoth corporations in the first place? Shouldn't the ISP just be a bakeshop rather than a bakery itself, so that someone could go and have equal access to all of the baked goods without the bakeshop being undercut?

[Dill]

(12-15-2017, 05:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But aren't they the ones doing the driving? Ever ride the bus? Do you tell the bus driver how fast he should go or which roads to take?

In all honesty, I'm with Matt on this one. I don't think things will be as bad as some think AND I think internet access should be a public utility.

If you think the internet should be a public utility, then we are on the same side of this issue, PHilhos.

No, I would not tell a bus driver which roads to take (under normal circumstances). But I also have choice of whether to drive or ride the bus. If the bus driver controls access to the highway, he might limit private vehicle access. There's a chance for him to make a profit from the road my taxes helped pay for.

 So he can control his own bus if he wants to; the issue is that I don't want him controlling access to the roadway and figuring out ways to profit from that.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The internet is not a true public good in the economic sense. The service being provided by an ISP is access. If you can be excluded, then it is at best a club good. Since bandwidth is limited, it is debatable whether or not it is even a club good. From a policy standpoint, where the usage of the term public good is a bit different, internet access is not considered a public good at this time. This is why I often say we should start treating it as such instead of it is a public good.

Bfine's analogy isn't far off. But what we need to consider in all of this is that the analogy is somewhat accurate because of the number of vertical mergers that have occurred over the years making ISPs and the companies that generate and provide the content all under the same umbrella. This is the problematic situation that could be considered a market failure in itself. Would net neutrality be needed to solve this problem if we had done a better job regulating against these behemoth corporations in the first place? Shouldn't the ISP just be a bakeshop rather than a bakery itself, so that someone could go and have equal access to all of the baked goods without the bakeshop being undercut?

I think you meant to say bfine's analogy is perfect.

As to the last bolded; that supports your assertion that it should be a public utility and it makes some sense; although, I'm still not sure the capitalist in me would concede to it. Basically you are saying the Government takes over my bakery and allows everyone to sell pies in it. Of course the government is now responsible to pay all my overhead. 

I get the "it should be a public utility" stance, but where do we stop when we allow government to regulate our entertainment and convenience? 

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2017, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you meant to say bfine's analogy is perfect.

As to the last bolded; that supports your assertion that it should be a public utility and it makes some sense; although, I'm still not sure the capitalist in me would concede to it. Basically you are saying the Government takes over my bakery and allows everyone to sell pies in it. Of course the government is now responsible to pay all my overhead. 

I get the "it should be a public utility" stance, but where do we stop when we allow government to regulate our entertainment and convenience? 

Nothing is perfect, my friend.

The reason I am in favor of the public utility option is because of how reliant we are on the internet today for everything. In the end, this isn't just about entertainment and convenience. Yes, that is what seems to be the focus when it comes to the net neutrality fight, but my argument for it being a public utility goes far beyond that. Corporation busting could be just as beneficial to help resolve the market issues with net neutrality if that was the only issue at hand, but that is far from the case. With the corporation busting option, the bakeshop stays privately owned, but just doesn't bake their own goods. The companies are split to avoid the conflicts of interest.

[Millhouse]

(12-15-2017, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me ask folks a question as it seems we prefer analogies over what has really happened: 

You own a bakery and you bake pies, another baker wants to sell his pies in your bakery, many of your customers like his pies better, what are you going to do?  

Once you provide a honest answer to that, then ask yourself: 

How would you feel if the government stepped in and said you must sell his pies in your bakery, you cannot charge him anything additional to sell them, and they must be displayed exactly like yours?

Since this isnt a bakery or pies that being sold, the internet should be a medium of having a free market and full capitalism within it. Major ISP companies should not be allowed to influence the free market on the web which they can do thanks to the orange haired buffoon.

But you and a few others are ok with the ability to sacrifice the free market and the pure capitalism of the internet under net neutrality, just because you dont feel the governnment should step in with a regulation to do so.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 08:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: 1.Since this isnt a bakery or pies that being sold, the internet should be a medium of having a free market and full capitalism within it.

2. Major ISP companies should not be allowed to influence the free market on the web which they can do thanks to the orange haired buffoon.

3. But you and a few others are ok with the ability to sacrifice the free market and the pure capitalism of the internet under net neutrality, just because you dont feel the governnment should step in with a regulation to do so.

1. The internet is a medium of having a free market and full capitalism within it. 

2. I disagree with your assertion that private businesses should not be able to influence the free market.  Many call it capitalism. Perhaps even the "orange haired buffoon" 

3. Yes, yes, I want to sacrifice the free market and pure capitalism. Because before Net Neutrality this Nation did not have a free market or pure capitalism; government please save us. 

I will say the discussion to this point has been quite civil; but the tone of your post may change that. so I'll leave it where it lies.   

[Au165]

(12-15-2017, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get the "it should be a public utility" stance, but where do we stop when we allow government to regulate our entertainment and convenience? 

What makes a telephone more of a necessity and less of an entertainment and convenience device than the internet? I'd argue it is merely a case of policy not keeping up with technology which is often the case. The internet is basically the telephone of this generation and so it should be regulated the same way we regulated the telephone industry; as a utility. 

I can easily argue the internet is far more important to day to day life than the telephone. Look at how many homes over the last 5 years are forgoing putting in home telephones at all. Here is another thought, what about VOIP phone systems? If telephone is a utility, by that very thought the internet would have to be a utility because most phone systems for businesses are moving to VOIP and many of the home systems are already switching over to VOIP systems. 

[BigPapaKain]

(12-14-2017, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many people here would like the federal government controlling their private business?

Uh I do if it makes them safer, better, or more environmental friendly.

Or maybe you never lived in the shadow of a refinery before the clean air laws were put in place. Not that I did either but I work in one and I've heard the horror stories.

[Dill]

(12-15-2017, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:
The internet is not a true public good in the economic sense. The service being provided by an ISP is access. If you can be excluded, then it is at best a club good. Since bandwidth is limited, it is debatable whether or not it is even a club good. From a policy standpoint, where the usage of the term public good is a bit different, internet access is not considered a public good at this time. This is why I often say we should start treating it as such instead of it is a public good.

Bfine's analogy isn't far off. But what we need to consider in all of this is that the analogy is somewhat accurate because of the number of vertical mergers that have occurred over the years making ISPs and the companies that generate and provide the content all under the same umbrella. This is the problematic situation that could be considered a market failure in itself. Would net neutrality be needed to solve this problem if we had done a better job regulating against these behemoth corporations in the first place? Shouldn't the ISP just be a bakeshop rather than a bakery itself, so that someone could go and have equal access to all of the baked goods without the bakeshop being undercut?

So far as I can tell, Bfine is framing the issue as if government is, or can in principle, be wholly external to his beloved free market, as if the latter could function just fine without government "interference."

If I have correctly understood the critique and defense of net neutrality, the question is whether these ISP providers constitute a club as opposed to a public good. So a claim they are a club good is not a given which can frame the debate for both sides.

Right now I don't see any difference between this debate and previous ones which have occurred over common carrier access--like those debates which arose over airlines, railroads, gas pipelines, power plants, radio, television and telephones.  Eventually when technological innovations become necessary elements of economic infrastructure, and the private sector seeks to gouge profit from access, the resulting "market failure" pushes that infrastructure into the realm of public good.

And the profiteers complain about government interference in their "freedom" to gouge.

Would you say that I am reading this current debate too much through the lens of past? Access is still a "club good" which has not yet flipped to public? You seem to agree with me in post #64, when you say "The reason I am in favor of the public utility option is because of how reliant we are on the internet today for everything. In the end, this isn't just about entertainment and convenience."

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2017, 12:33 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Uh I do if it makes them safer, better, or more environmental friendly.

Or maybe you never lived in the shadow of a refinery before the clean air laws were put in place. Not that I did either but I work in one and I've heard the horror stories.

Yes, I have stated that if a company was harming the environment or breaking Federal law then government should intervene. I made the faulty assumption that folks reading about Net Neutrality would understand that is not the issue(s) at hand. It is about how I must package my product to the public.

I have seen no logical reasons provided other than faulty analogies or it should be a Public Utility. Nothing on the actual over-reach that Net Neutrality imposed on private companies.

[BigPapaKain]

(12-18-2017, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I have stated that if a company was harming the environment or breaking Federal law then government should intervene. I made the faulty assumption that folks reading about Net Neutrality would understand that is not the issue(s) at hand. It is about how I must package my product to the public.

I have seen no logical reasons provided other than faulty analogies or it should be a Public Utility. Nothing on the actual over-reach that Net Neutrality imposed on private companies.

Okay so you're against price gouging (since it is illegal).

So despite the fact that ISPs (Comcast) have already tried price gouging in order to serve their own interests before net neutrality became enforced, you still think there is no logical reason for it?

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2017, 04:48 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Okay so you're against price gouging (since it is illegal).

So despite the fact that ISPs (Comcast) have already tried price gouging in order to serve their own interests before net neutrality became enforced, you still think there is no logical reason for it?

Yes, I am against illegal business practices; I've already stated that.

[Goalpost]

There is a lot of lobbing in this area as well as conflicts of interest. One would think that a network like MSNBC would be pitted against Comcast by their net neutrality stance, yet Comcast owns MSNBC.

[StLucieBengal]

Glad to see this thing dumped.

Say what you like about trump.... he is slashing regulations

[Dill]

(12-18-2017, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I am against illegal business practices; I've already stated that.

One man's Federal prohibition of an illegal business practice is another man's "government overreach."

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2017, 08:06 PM)Dill Wrote: One man's Federal prohibition of an illegal business practice is another man's "government overreach."

What illegal business practice did Net Neutrality prevent? 

[Aquapod770]

If repealing net neutrality puts Twitter behind a paywall it will have been so worth it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-18-2017, 05:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Glad to see this thing dumped.

Say what you like about trump.... he is slashing regulations

Reminds me of Crazy Eddie slashing prices so low they're INSANE!

[StLucieBengal]

(12-18-2017, 08:55 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: If repealing net neutrality puts Twitter behind a paywall it will have been so worth it.

If Twitter is dumb enough to do that then someone else will form a Free version.

[Belsnickel]

(12-18-2017, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: So far as I can tell, Bfine is framing the issue as if government is, or can in principle, be wholly external to his beloved free market, as if the latter could function just fine without government "interference."

I don't disagree, which is why I say his analogy is somewhat accurate. There are issues with it, but it wasn't as far off as many people were seeming to see it.

(12-18-2017, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: If I have correctly understood the critique and defense of net neutrality, the question is whether these ISP providers constitute a club as opposed to a public good. So a claim they are a club good is not a given which can frame the debate for both sides.

Which is a valid discussion, but we must first recognize how we are using the terms. The internet cannot be a true public good in an economic sense. Period. What can happen is that we consider it one for policy and so treat it as we would a public good. I think it is important to use these distinctions when framing the debate because even if we consider something a public good and make it a utility, that doesn't change the club good status economically. Access can still be restricted or cut off.

(12-18-2017, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Right now I don't see any difference between this debate and previous ones which have occurred over common carrier access--like those debates which arose over airlines, railroads, gas pipelines, power plants, radio, television and telephones.  Eventually when technological innovations become necessary elements of economic infrastructure, and the private sector seeks to gouge profit from access, the resulting "market failure" pushes that infrastructure into the realm of public good.

And the profiteers complain about government interference in their "freedom" to gouge.

I definitely do not disagree.

(12-18-2017, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Would you say that I am reading this current debate too much through the lens of past? Access is still a "club good" which has not yet flipped to public? You seem to agree with me in post #64, when you say "The reason I am in favor of the public utility option is because of how reliant we are on the internet today for everything. In the end, this isn't just about entertainment and convenience."

I wouldn't say you're reading it too much through that lens, it's what set the precedent to do what we are talking about. I just think that the net neutrality issue is a separate one from the idea of it being a public utility. If I were someone that was strongly opinionated on such things (stop laughing), the repeal of net neutrality by the FCC would be laying the ground for a stronger argument to be made for it to become a public utility.