Net Neutrality?

[philip964]

Reddit is exploding with posts on net neutrality and the big upcoming vote by the FCC.

My son has tried to explain it to me, but I am still clueless.

Apparently ending this Obama era regulation will be the end of the internet. The cable companies will run the world, is sort of how he's explained it. A fee to use Facebook or Netflix. A fee to use this forum too.

However, if it's an Obama era regulation, how did we survive before it. And besides it's an Obama era regulation, sounds bad right there.

Sounds important as if Trump raises my taxes and then ruins the internet, can Democratic control and gun bans be far behind.

Anyone know? Really know?

[spectre]

Where does the US Constitution give the government any power to regulate communication?

[Syntyr]

In principle net neutrality is a good thing. What it was supposed to do is require carriers to treat all data equally. So if you sat in your chair and streamed 5 gig og movies they could not slow up your connection in order to make sure business email could get through. Unfortunately as with all governmental regulation it morphed into a big power grab that allowed the feds to set prices, speeds and other factors.

Less regs is bettee. We will live!

[OlBill]

Net neutrality is basically a monopoly bust.

It means a byte is a byte. The ISP doesn't get to charge us more or throttle the speed down because of the origin of the content.

For example: Let's say Comcast owns Hulu. They don't own Netflix. They want to slow down Netflix speeds to get you to use their product instead. Or they charge you like a cable company for premium channels. In that case they are double dipping. They are charging you for access to the internet and access to some things on the internet because they don't own it.

Net neutrality is good for us, the users. Everything is at the same speed.

What's wrong is how they did it. An edict from a regulatory agency.

It needs to be a law passed by Congress.

[OlBill]

In principle net neutrality is a good thing. What it was supposed to do is require carriers to treat all data equally. So if you sat in your chair and streamed 5 gig og movies they could not slow up your connection in order to make sure business email could get through. Unfortunately as with all governmental regulation it morphed into a big power grab that allowed the feds to set prices, speeds and other factors.

Less regs is bettee. We will live!

Exactly. But I don't think we will be happy with the change.

[OlBill]

Where does the US Constitution give the government any power to regulate communication?

Probably Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The commerce clause.

The FCC was created by statute: 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154

[Maxwell]

Yeah, keep Net Neutrality. If it goes away the big providers will run the internet and we'll see a lot of web sites get preferential treatment, and a lot more get throttled back or even denied because they go against someone's agenda. That agenda can be business like the Netflix v.s Hulu example above, religious, liberal or conservative bias, or flat out discrimination in any and all of it's forms. One thing we will definitely see is a loss of the ability to use the web the way we the people want to in our own home and business.

[bblhd672]

Where does the US Constitution give the government any power to regulate communication?

Probably Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The commerce clause.

The FCC was created by statute: 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154

The government's excuse to do anything to the people they desire.

[srothstein]

The problem with the debate, as with many issues, is the framing of it. The rule the FCC passed under Obama was promoted as being net neutrality but it really wasn't. The rule that is being repealed really was a decision to treat the Internet like a utility, giving the government the authority to regulate it heavily. The repeal of the rule does not say any more about net neutrality than the passing of it did.

Net neutrality is a concept that may or may not have merit and may or may not be feasible. There are two aspects to net neutrality: freedom of speech and access to broadband. The freedom of speech issue is whether or not the web site host is responsible for what people post, under libel and slander type laws along with false advertising and such. This gets reflected in what you can post, and an example of it that applies most to this forum is if advertising guns on the internet should be allowed or not (not to mention what constitutes advertising). Along these lines, this gets into if you can be held liable for stating that Glocks are lousy for home defense when compared to a 1911 (or vice versa). Both political parties want to do something about the posting of "fake news" on the internet though they differ a little on what should be done. A second side of the net neutral free speech issue is if we need to go back to the fairness doctrine in all media. This is what required TV stations to provide opposing political viewpoints with air time at the same cost as the side they supported.

The second half of net neutrality is the access to band width. Some rumors have flown about companies who want to charge different Internet access rates to some companies based on their usage or content. So, for example, Spectrum could say I have to pay an extra $2 per month to get Netflix at full speed because it is so much data that it bogs the lines down too much. This is technically feasible but may not be market feasible. We do see this on cell phone internet connections in a way. I can get so much data at a higher speed before my connection gets throttled down to lower speeds. I also can get Netflix and some other video services free because I have that feature on my cell plan. The net neutrality argument is that all users should get the data at the same speed and same cost no matter what.

Note that while the FCC got the power to enforce Net Neutrality when they adopted the utility rule, they never did anything about it. Part of the reason is that the market is making this work instead, and a free market will do so. I would change Internet services if they tried to charge me extra for some data. They already charge me extra if I want some faster speeds overall, and I choose to stay at the base broadband speed. I get my cell phone video data free because it is a benefit offered as part of the marketing between the companies, and I see others now moving towards it to stay competitive (and I note T-Mobile is even offering to pay for the Netflix subscription now to stay competitive).

I see the media controversy over this as much more of a biased partisan plan to support big government than due to any real neutrality arguments. It is also helping to distract people from other more important issues (like the federal budget and the tax plans). Being a libertarian at heart, I support letting the free market determine how to respond to the net neutrality issue and getting the government out of the regulations where I can.

[srothstein]

Where does the US Constitution give the government any power to regulate communication?

Probably Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The commerce clause.

The FCC was created by statute: 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154

The government's excuse to do anything to the people they desire.

Well, technically the clause is very limited. Blame FDR and SCOTUS for the interpretation of it to allow the regulation of anything that MIGHT affect interstate commerce instead of the way the clause reads (regulate commerce between the states). For more information read up on Wickard v. Fillburn and then try growing your own wheat without a federal permit.

[deplorable]

If you think the internet was broken before the FCC power grab under Obama, then you should oppose repealing the rule. You should also probably oppose rolling back BATF power grabs to be consistent.

[MaduroBU]

I think net neutrality is good, but we need to vote for it with dollars.

[treadlightly]

Net neutrality, to me, is reasonable, common sense network regulation. Please read between the lines.

Imagine yourself an ISP. Do you want to cede control over what you carry on the circuits you’re paying for?

Do you want the other guy forced by law to provide service as good as you offer, or would you be a lot happier taking the other guy's customers under your wing because you offer something better?

Greed is ugly, when not the Rand ideal of rational self interest.

On the other hand, the view is different from the other side of the Internet connection.

[OlBill]

Where does the US Constitution give the government any power to regulate communication?

Probably Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The commerce clause.

The FCC was created by statute: 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154

The government's excuse to do anything to the people they desire.

True, but in this case...

They have declared ISPs common carriers I believe.

I believe net neutrality is right, but it needs to be legislated, not mandated.

[OlBill]

The problem with the debate, as with many issues, is the framing of it. The rule the FCC passed under Obama was promoted as being net neutrality but it really wasn't. The rule that is being repealed really was a decision to treat the Internet like a utility, giving the government the authority to regulate it heavily. The repeal of the rule does not say any more about net neutrality than the passing of it did.

Net neutrality is a concept that may or may not have merit and may or may not be feasible. There are two aspects to net neutrality: freedom of speech and access to broadband. The freedom of speech issue is whether or not the web site host is responsible for what people post, under libel and slander type laws along with false advertising and such. This gets reflected in what you can post, and an example of it that applies most to this forum is if advertising guns on the internet should be allowed or not (not to mention what constitutes advertising). Along these lines, this gets into if you can be held liable for stating that Glocks are lousy for home defense when compared to a 1911 (or vice versa). Both political parties want to do something about the posting of "fake news" on the internet though they differ a little on what should be done. A second side of the net neutral free speech issue is if we need to go back to the fairness doctrine in all media. This is what required TV stations to provide opposing political viewpoints with air time at the same cost as the side they supported.

The second half of net neutrality is the access to band width. Some rumors have flown about companies who want to charge different Internet access rates to some companies based on their usage or content. So, for example, Spectrum could say I have to pay an extra $2 per month to get Netflix at full speed because it is so much data that it bogs the lines down too much. This is technically feasible but may not be market feasible. We do see this on cell phone internet connections in a way. I can get so much data at a higher speed before my connection gets throttled down to lower speeds. I also can get Netflix and some other video services free because I have that feature on my cell plan. The net neutrality argument is that all users should get the data at the same speed and same cost no matter what.

Note that while the FCC got the power to enforce Net Neutrality when they adopted the utility rule, they never did anything about it. Part of the reason is that the market is making this work instead, and a free market will do so. I would change Internet services if they tried to charge me extra for some data. They already charge me extra if I want some faster speeds overall, and I choose to stay at the base broadband speed. I get my cell phone video data free because it is a benefit offered as part of the marketing between the companies, and I see others now moving towards it to stay competitive (and I note T-Mobile is even offering to pay for the Netflix subscription now to stay competitive).

I see the media controversy over this as much more of a biased partisan plan to support big government than due to any real neutrality arguments. It is also helping to distract people from other more important issues (like the federal budget and the tax plans). Being a libertarian at heart, I support letting the free market determine how to respond to the net neutrality issue and getting the government out of the regulations where I can.

That is not my understanding of it. Net neutrality as debated today has nothing to do with content. It admittedly could later on.

And the FCC ruling was in response to accusations of Comcast throttling.

We don't have a free market. Net neutrality is a control on monopolies.

This is not one of those cases where government can be removed.