Access to your pr0n is safe, for now

[Cyrano]

As a bunch of you know, I do gummint for a living and have been thinking about our (gummint's) role in this business for a long time.

In the end, what you think about mirth's post above is pretty much where you ought to come down.  If you think the Internet a right, or something to which the government should guarantee not merely access but dimension (speed most notably but also, potentially, price), then this was necessary.  If, however, you think it a service to either have or not and for which end users must be responsible to create the market conditions that regulate these things, then this is a pretty grievous intrusion.

The bureaucratic impulse is a very strong one and will thrive in the present environment in which the executive and the legislative branches find themselves in a death-grip.

What I wait for:

1:  The courts.  The lawsuits will likely not come from the big telcomms.  The notion that they're really opposed to this as much as some suggest is a false flag.  They can afford regulatory compliance.  It's the smaller competitors who will now be unable to.  As an aside, those who equate liking something on Facebook with activism that are patting themselves on the back and convincing themselves that they did this, are as mad as I've always thought them.  The money of content providers had far more to do with this than they ever did.

2:  Internet taxation.  State and local governments sincerely believe we've all been getting a free ride, particularly as it concerns sales taxes.  This makes them far more likely.

3:  Calls for international regulation.  This will enhance those who claim that the U.S. wields inordinate control over the web.  When it was a free-fire zone (it never, of course, was quite, but, much more than is likely now), our case against this was better.

I guess, in the end, I find myself agin' it, but I understand those who drove us to this point.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[mirth]

I am not for price controls.  I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content.  They are in direct competition with other content creators,  but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.

We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.

[Steelgrave]

I am not for price controls.  I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content.  They are in direct competition with other content creators,  but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.

We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.

Well put, Mirth.

[mirth]

Thanks. I have my lucid moments.

Oh look! A squirrel!

[Cyrano]

To make this argument -- and it is made by many (including my own wife) -- is nonetheless to choose a worldview.  It assumes that the Internet has joined electricity, water, natural gas, &c., in the pantheon of utilities which the government must regulate.  I only observe that there's a legitimate argument on the other side whose failure in this debate will have enduring and presently unforeseen consequences.  The behavior of the telcoms reminds one of the dictum that the greatest enemy of socialism is socialism and the greatest enemy of capitalism is capitalists.

One of the easily foreseeable consequences, however, is price regulation.  The notion that that is not now all but inevitable is to misunderstand the impulses of government.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[mirth]

I do think that the internet has joined the pantheon of public utilities. Living in Maine, there are plenty of days I might wish for price controls on the cost of oil, gasoline, and electricity, but I don't support, or advocate for, them.

[mirth]

I, however, don't think that taking a position on Net Neutrality means adopting a particular worldview
Unless that worldview is applying common sense to questions as they are presented.

[Cyrano]

I fear I have antagonized and that was never my intention...plenty of that to go around; this is the Internet after all...

The government, at least in our system, has to justify its intrusions into the market.  That's the theory anyway.  In this instance, this intrusion cannot be explained or justified without a worldview that equates the internet with a utility.  That's a way of looking at the world that's fundamentally different from that held by many other well-intended people.  And this is a generational choice as sure as that choosing to regulate radio and television, or, I suppose, radio which gave us our television regulations.

My only point...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[mirth]

No antagonism at all. Sorry if it seemed that way. I appreciate the honest and informed discourse.

[Boggit]

I am not for price controls.  I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content.  They are in direct competition with other content creators,  but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.

We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.

I agree.

The other issue with the large providers is the potential for abuses of a dominant position in the market, cartel agreements and the like that just exploit the consumer (and without reciprocal benefits for them). I think the US terminology is "anti-trust", but you get the idea.

[Bison]

Well all I will say is when one political party is for something completely; there's something hidden in the text of the regulation or law and it isn't about protecting individual rights.  It's usually about providing another lever of centralized control.  Net neutrality is a misnomer when used by the left or right.  It isn't about access.  It's about restriction.  Additionally when a text of a law or regulation is hidden from the public even after it's been voted on and passed something is foul in Denmark.

[Bison]

I'm also on the side of the fence that not everything is a right.  Access to the same speed internet as your neighbor or even having internet isn't a right.

[mirth]

I'm also on the side of the fence that not everything is a right.  Access to the same speed internet as your neighbor or even having internet isn't a right.

Sure, but is some level of telephone service a right? I may not need call waiting or caller ID, but should everyone be able to have access to a phone line?

We're not talking about what people are willing to pay for in regards to service. The ISPs want it to be okay for content providers to pay for preferntial dleivery. So, if Netflix gives a kickback to Comcast or whoever, then there service is delivered on the "fast lane".

I'm all for paying for faster service, but if I am shelling out for FIOS, don't tell me that my ISP is going to throttle Netflix because Netflix hasn't given them the necessary kickback. If I'm paying for a certain level of service, what is coming down the pipe should be irrelevant.

[Bison]

Is it really a right?  Or is it a highly valued service that people want and because they want it; they equate want with right?

I just don't think the text of the regulation will do what you are proposing.  And since no one is allowed to see it.  We have no idea what the regulation text says.  And it goes back to a fundamental problem that regulatory agencies have usurped our representative government as to who has the greatest impact on our lives.   

And no I don't think 1930's regulatons for telephone lines equate very well to internet services.

[mirth]

For sure it's an old argument, big business vs. big government.

Do you really think we're going to apply 1930s regulations to the internet? Or are you completely anti-regulation?

Internet acesss has moved past just being a nice to have service. As a member of 21st century society, do you seriously disagree with that? Could you and your family easily go a week without internet access? It's more likely you could go without the phone access that government regulation stipulates you have access to. Times change, regulations need to change with them.