Net Neutrality and Comcast/Netflix agreement

[Shjade]

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

Wondering that myself. My best guess is someone misinterpreting his reference to the Escapist as saying they are exercising corporate control etc. etc. when he was just making a point that corporate doesn't inherently mean "bad?" *shrugs* If it's not that I haven't got a clue.

Edit: actually, I suppose it's also possible that it was less about that specific post and more of an "okay, that's enough of that" cumulative effect-type mod intervention. That post in particular isn't quite as hostile as some of the ones preceding it.

 

[dyre]

Yeah, I read about it yesterday on Ars. I'm sure it doesn't come as much of a surprise considering that three ISPs own pretty much the entire market in this country. Verizon is pursuing a similar deal with Netflix right now.

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

Yeah, it's pretty weird. Some of his ideas are pretty wonky but he generally does a good job of being aggressive without being offensive (to a banworthy degree, anyway). Maybe a mod took offense to some of the guy's other beliefs and felt like taking a stab at him.

 

[gargantual]

Fox business trolls aside. Good to see the common opinion of net neutrality hasn't given way to a meh'.
Yeah. These guys are TELECOM service providers. That's the name of their industry. The only 'information' they directly provide is usually over the phone customer service, annoying updates to terms of service or messages when they're about to cut your connection.

 

[IceForce]

Maybe a mod took offense to some of the guy's other beliefs and felt like taking a stab at him.

Which should never happen.

The mods should never enforce their opinions on others, and silence opinions they personally find 'undesirable'.
(I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened in this case, just saying that it should never happen.)

 

[Kevlar Eater]

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

Because the stuff he was spouting out made too much sense. Minus the corporate/government trust thing (since at this point, they're in bed with each other and we're the ones getting fucked), I agree with Big_Willie_Styles.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Of course it's fucking atrocious, but the problem is no-one has authority over the internet. But that's also a good thing, because we only want cool people who support net neutrality to have that authority, and that wouldn't happen with a regulatory body because corporations would have their people on the board or make deals or some shit (I'm not a conspiracy theorist, they just do it with a lot of other businesses). So in the end, fuck Comcast, but nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Zontar]

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

He's conservative, and the Powers that Be around here are willing to cut leftists a lot more slack than conservatives when it comes to brushing up against the rules.

As a fellow conservative I have to call bull on that, Big_Willie_Styles was definitely not representing the conservative side of the argument, or if he was he wasn't doing so well.

Of course it's fucking atrocious, but the problem is no-one has authority over the internet. But that's also a good thing, because we only want cool people who support net neutrality to have that authority, and that wouldn't happen with a regulatory body because corporations would have their people on the board or make deals or some shit (I'm not a conspiracy theorist, they just do it with a lot of other businesses). So in the end, fuck Comcast, but nothing anyone can do about it.

The FCC's official position on the internet is neutrality, with the only action to be taken when federal offenses of already existing laws are violated (ex: child pornography, death threats, that sort of thing). And as for weather or not anyone has the authority to regulate the internet, so long as the backbone of internet infrastructure is government owned super servers that put Google's to shame, then that creates the question "what DOES the government have the right to regulate?". At the end of the day the FCC's stance on the internet is in the best interest of the consumers, and this agreement is just the type of thing that is against everything net neutrality stands for.

 

[Zontar]

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

Because the stuff he was spouting out made too much sense. Minus the corporate/government trust thing (since at this point, they're in bed with each other and we're the ones getting fucked), I agree with Big_Willie_Styles.

There's a problem with that logic, first and foremost being weather this agreement is against Net Neutrality (which it is), but another is that the FCC's stance on the issue of net neutrality is that they want it to say that way. (that's right, the governing body responsible for censorship is the only one who wants net neutrality).

Another is that BWS' whole argument makes the assumption that net neutrality and corporate monopoly are the same thing, capable of coexisting and one will be a by-product of the other, all of which are demonstrably false (this deal being first and foremost) and are not even possible in theory.

 

[Zontar]

There's a problem with that logic, first and foremost being weather this agreement is against Net Neutrality (which it is), but another is that the FCC's stance on the issue of net neutrality is that they want it to say that way. (that's right, the governing body responsible for censorship is the only one who wants net neutrality).

Another is that BWS' whole argument makes the assumption that net neutrality and corporate monopoly are the same thing, capable of coexisting and one will be a by-product of the other, all of which are demonstrably false (this deal being first and foremost) and are not even possible in theory.

*Ahem.* Let me speak for myself. You misunderstand my argument almost completely. (I'm back, baby.)

The FCC, and why I have to keep bringing this up, has no statutory authority over the Internet. They can only be given this authority by Congress which has refused to give it to them. Civics, people, civics.

No, I never said that. Corporate monopoly can't really happen without certain economic realities (for instance, far too expensive to invest in the infrastructure for a small market) in a free market, which we don't really have in America. In our market, corporate monopolies are far more likely to happen at the behest of government, which lets it happen and keeps people from suing the companies over it. Collusion. Just ask PhRMA how profitable that is for them. Fucking assholes, those PhRMA people. And the fucking politicians who listened to them and keep letting them fuck over all Americans.

He's conservative, and the Powers that Be around here are willing to cut leftists a lot more slack than conservatives when it comes to brushing up against the rules.

As a fellow conservative I have to call bull on that, Big_Willie_Styles was definitely not representing the conservative side of the argument, or if he was he wasn't doing so well.

The FCC's official position on the internet is neutrality, with the only action to be taken when federal offenses of already existing laws are violated (ex: child pornography, death threats, that sort of thing). And as for weather or not anyone has the authority to regulate the internet, so long as the backbone of internet infrastructure is government owned super servers that put Google's to shame, then that creates the question "what DOES the government have the right to regulate?". At the end of the day the FCC's stance on the internet is in the best interest of the consumers, and this agreement is just the type of thing that is against everything net neutrality stands for.

Oh, the knives come out when people don't think I'm listening, eh?

I don't advance the "conservative" argument, as there isn't one unified "conservative" argument. We're a big tent of ideologies, unlike most of liberalism (seriously, groupthink is their biggest problem.) I advance my argument.

And Doublegee is pretty spot on about that. If he wasn't, I'd think one of The Escapist talent would be openly conservative/libertarian instead of all the openly political people being liberal. Jim, Yahtzee, and Bob are openly hostile to conservatives/sympathetic to liberal causes. Doesn't take much digging to realize that.

The FCC's position is "Let's regulate that" when it lacks the statutory authority to do so. Congress has not given them the authority, so the FCC cannot regulate the Internet. That's why the FCC lost the case. Happens all the time, bureaucracies love going beyond their purview.

The FCC's mandate is over all nationwide telecommunications, so this falls under laws from the past (in this case around 80 years old) being out of date with current technology. If you actually read what is under the FCCs jurisdiction, it completely falls under personal opinion since the wording is open to interpretation. Just because a federal judge felt that in their opinion it did not, does not mean that it is the case (in fact, this is both the reason why appeals courts and the supreme court exist at all and why the ruling is being appealed as we speak).

Now you mention monopolies created due to economic realities, but here's the thing, that is exactly the case when it comes to providing access to the internet. Do you realize just how expensive it is to set up the infrastructure? The only way a company that isn't already a multibillion dollar corporation could get into the market is either through massive public subsidization or out right being a state run corporation. As long as the majority of Americans have only 1 service provider to chose from based on where they live (which is currently the case) there is a monopoly on the service, and the only ways a monopoly can work if it is a natural monopoly is either throw higher then normal levels of regulations (such as with utilities) or if the monopoly is run by a state corporation. It's a simple reality of economics.

 

[Zontar]

snip

In short, because the judge didn't agree with you, he's wrong. Congress must give the FCC statutory authority over the Internet. They refuse so the FCC cannot regulate the Internet. QED.

America has a population density problem when it comes to Internet access. We're too spread out in many places. That's the problem. As Internet infrastructure over a specified surface area is not cost effective if not enough people live in said surface area. Major and minor metropolitan areas (NYC versus, say, Allentown) have wonderful Internet access. Rural areas or places in the middle of damn nowhere have shitty Internet access. Also, new suburban neighborhoods (i.e. just built on non-previously developed land like fields and forests) have terrible Internet access because the infrastructure hasn't quite been extended for everything.

That's economic reality.

Wait, now I'm confused, I don't see how that is anything other then the argument already in place but with the opposite conclusion as to weather or not this is a good situation.

 

[Zontar]

Wait, now I'm confused, I don't see how that is anything other then the argument already in place but with the opposite conclusion as to weather or not this is a good situation.

There's very little about the current situation we can affect through legislation or regulation. Just leave it alone. The libertarian mantra. It'll get better eventually or, sometimes, it's beyond changing for the better.

Libertarians tend to accept this fact while liberals and sometimes conservatives refuse to see the writing on the wall and just live with it.

Given the state of internet regulation and infrastructure in other nations on par with the US in terms of economy, the only writing on the wall is that regulations on prices and net neutrality work, and that the argument is only made more valid when the population is decentralized. This isn't a left and center right vs further right argument, it's just an observation of reality in practice.

 

[Zontar]

Given the state of internet regulation and infrastructure in other nations on par with the US in terms of economy, the only writing on the wall is that regulations on prices and net neutrality work, and that the argument is only made more valid when the population is decentralized. This isn't a left and center right vs further right argument, it's just an observation of reality in practice.

Population density. Why is high speed rail and public transportation more popular and economically feasible in Europe? Population density! Why do price ceilings work in Europe? A lot of reasons, economies of scale and all that, but also population density!

Also, our economies, our cultures, and our overall size and dispersal of country are wildly different than in Europe and other first world countries.

But not Canada, which has a much worst level of population density, yet manages to provide the same services as the US for on average half the price. Population density is an issue, not a deal breaker.

 

[Zontar]

But not Canada, which has a much worst level of population density, yet manages to provide the same services as the US for on average half the price. Population density is an issue, not a deal breaker.

Well, trade groups like PhRMA don't have a sweet ass deal with the Canadian government, now do they?

And price ceilings are completely against any idea of a free market, just like price floors are (which the agriculture industry fights for every year and wins.)

This isn't about pharmaceutical or agricultural companies who fight to have artificially increased prices or to keep competition down, it's about companies like Comcast and Verizon having a de facto monopoly on broadband for the majority of Americans and there being no regulations in place to keep them from abusing their positions with costumers and other businesses. The problem here isn't weather or not the government should on principle be regulating or having industry lobby for them, the issue is the fact that right now there are no regulations as to the conduct of major corporations when it comes to access to the internet and that is harmful to both customers and the wider economy. The only ones who win from this arrangement are broadband service providers, no one else. It's not exactly a surprise that when faced with an unregulated monopoly, people are upset, especially when there are already laws on the books explicitly stating that this is a case which demands government intervention, either through forcing greater competition or prevention of corporations abusing their positions (laws which date back to the late 1800s and for the most part have remained unchanged, and as they are laws which are universal to business within the US that makes this fall under it).