Net Neutrality

[Shadow Reaper]

I recall our glorious leader posting on this issue some months ago, so I thought I'd drop this vid here and listen for responses.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=284591645479193

View: https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/284591645479193/


One thing I don't like is that the vid glosses over the issue of what can be censored, by whom and how. There is a hand wave that anti-trust laws can cope with thus and such issue, but I did not find that assuring.

What is a bigger issue to me is that Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have no regulations stopping them from forcing-feeding their worldviews to their users through their services. If those services were part of a free market with competition, this would be fine, but they're not. They each bought out their competition long ago, and didn't start censoring their services until they had a monopoly.

I'm a free market guy, but when someone has a monopoly, such as with utilities; seems they need to be regulated. It's pretty rare, but I think Praguer is wrong here.

 

[Bambooza]

It was an interesting video but it really was pushing an agenda heavily and ignoring or glossing over important parts and so i agree with you that they were wrong here.

As for the large online media outlets like facebook and google are starting to play political games with their audience its nothing new as media outlets for generations have been doing the same thing. The answer is not to impose government regulation upon them but to fix the copy right and patent system so that other services can compete with out being litigated into oblivion. As it stands at the moment the only reason a lot of the unhealthy corporations continue to exist and thrive is because of their ability to utilize the court system against smaller players who have a better product but not as much capital to handle a drawn out lawsuit.



I posted the below on their video but feel it could be beneficial to be posted here as well.

We already pay for theirs the content providers as the consumer. So even if the ISP's charged them more all it would achieve is higher cost for the content provided. Thus the sum total paid to the ISP's always falls on the consumer no matter how its initially collected. So the issue is not a matter of who is paying for the bandwidth used but in how that bandwidth is utilized. And here is the heart of the issue. While companies like Google can censor content on YouTube and filter search results they cannot prevent you from going elsewhere to get the information you are looking for. Something ISP's have the power to accomplish and for most their choice of ISP is greatly limited to one or two providers. Some of this is due to limits on physical access (same limitations apply to other services like power and telephone) and some is due to company agreements to not compete with each other in a given market. While the consumer protection agency should protect us from such practices it takes them years if not decades to work its way through the court systems and exhaust the appeal process before change can be enforced. So in the mean time we have ISP's that have full control over the flow of information with limited to no competition. While none have yet taken the final step we have already seen ISP’s like tmobile stream unlimited Netflix without it using your data. Verizon has FreeBee, and AT&T which owns DirectTV now allows unlimited data usage of DirectTV content. So while PragerU complains about YouTube limiting and censoring their content it’s still possible for them to find another service to host their video’s. What happens with Comcast decides that PragerU videos shouldn’t be made available to its customers? How long will it take the lawsuit to get through the courts and even if PragerU wins in 10 years what was the cost? So no the Net Neutrality law especially with all of its riders is not a pretty thing but what is our other option?

 

[Printimus]

To be fair, with as complex a topic as this is, its hard to cover all the bases with only 5 minutes.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

The answer is not to impose government regulation upon them but to fix the copy right and patent system so that other services can compete with out being litigated into oblivion.

Normally I would agree with you, but I think services like Facebook are certainly exceptions to the rule.

For Facebook to work as intended, it needs to have very broad participation. It is because FB had the early acceptance it did that it crowded the similar social networking sites out. Some it bought up, others it just pushed to the wayside. Point is however, that for Facebook to provide the social networking service that it does, it needs to be a monopoly.

We permit monopolies as exceptions to our anti-trust laws based upon very specific qualities. Utilities are monopolies, because it is not reasonable to expect a dozen different utility providers to all run gas, water, and power into every neighborhood. So we permit utilities as monopolies, but regulate them becasue they do not have market competitioon to keep them in check. Facebook is like these other exceptions to the general rule of free market capitalism and regulation, because fot it to provide such borad service, it needs to be a monopoly.

Facebook obviously needs to be regulated and policed, as do Twitter, Google, and some others. The real problem is who is going to police the police? Certainly what we're doing right now is not working.

 

[at-2500]

Normally I would agree with you, but I think services like Facebook are certainly exceptions to the rule.

For Facebook to work as intended, it needs to have very broad participation. It is because FB had the early acceptance it did that it crowded the similar social networking sites out. Some it bought up, others it just pushed to the wayside. Point is however, that for Facebook to provide the social networking servbice that it does, it needs to be a monopoly.

We permit monopolies as exceptions to our anti-trust laws based upon very specific qualities. Utilities are monopolies, becasue it is not reaosnable to expect a dozen different utility provioders to all run gas, water, and power into every neighborhood. So we permit utulities as monopolies, but regulate them becasue they do not have market competitioon to keep them in check. Fcebook is like these other exceptions to the general rule of free market capitalism and regulation.

Facebook obviously needs to be regulated and policed, as do Twitter, Google, and some others. the ral problem is who is going to police the police? Certainly what we're doing right now is not working.

I strongly disagree with that! There is no reason why a social network needs to be a monopoly in order to work; that is like saying google mail needs to be a monopoly in order to work. Federation works and should be enforced where it doesn't evolve naturally.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Well, when I need to look for someone, I'll look on Facebook or Linked In, but I haven't checked Myspace for many years because Facebook does indeed have a monopoly. For it to offer the service it does, it needs a monopoly-like utility. Otherwise we're all stuck with dozens of identical social networking sites, and that is never going to provide the service that Facebook does.

Sometimes monopolies make sense. Your water, gas, and electric SHOULD all be cheaper than they would be if there were a dozen companies building their own infrastructure to each neighborhood. If you understand why we permit any monopolies such as utilities, you also understand why we have to regulate them. That is what the whole discussion of Net Neutrality concerns.

 

[Bambooza]

Normally I would agree with you, but I think services like Facebook are certainly exceptions to the rule.

For Facebook to work as intended, it needs to have very broad participation. It is because FB had the early acceptance it did that it crowded the similar social networking sites out. Some it bought up, others it just pushed to the wayside. Point is however, that for Facebook to provide the social networking service that it does, it needs to be a monopoly.

We permit monopolies as exceptions to our anti-trust laws based upon very specific qualities. Utilities are monopolies, because it is not reasonable to expect a dozen different utility providers to all run gas, water, and power into every neighborhood. So we permit utilities as monopolies, but regulate them becasue they do not have market competitioon to keep them in check. Facebook is like these other exceptions to the general rule of free market capitalism and regulation, because fot it to provide such borad service, it needs to be a monopoly.

Facebook obviously needs to be regulated and policed, as do Twitter, Google, and some others. The real problem is who is going to police the police? Certainly what we're doing right now is not working.

Facebook is simply the latest evolution of the online groups, before it was Myspace and Geocities. Both quickly got replaced when they lost what people wanted or were looking for. Facebook has already back tracked significantly when the majority were not happy about decisions they made about filtering specific content.

Same goes for YouTube while they are currently king they could easily loose that crown if they alienate their content creators.

Look at Yahoo which at one time was the go to search engine but lost that crown to Google who did a far better job of cataloging far more of the internet. If peoples trust in Google begins to waver then someone else will come along and snatch up the crown. And while services like Twitter, Google and Facebook have played around with censoring content they feel is harmful to their platform they know a misstep will cause an exodus they will never be able to recover from.

But on the flip side for competition to keep these large companies in check there needs to be a way that small innovative companies can survive with out being lawyered to death.

 

[Bambooza]

Well, when I need to look for someone, I'll look on Facebook or Linked In, but I haven't checked Myspace for many years because Facebook does indeed have a monopoly. For it to offer the service it does, it needs a monopoly-like utility. Otherwise we're all stuck with dozens of identical social networking sites, and that is never going to provide the service that Facebook does.

Sometimes monopolies make sense. Your water, gas, and electric SHOULD all be cheaper than they would be if there were a dozen companies building their own infrastructure to each neighborhood. If you understand why we permit any monopolies such as utilities, you also understand why we have to regulate them. That is what the whole discussion of Net Neutrality concerns.

Monopolies are never a good thing for the consumer. While yes water, gas and electric tend to be monopolies this is do more to a shared understanding that there is a finite space available in public easements for the physical conduits to push these products to your house. It does not lead to the most cost effective means to create and delivery these goods, and instead creates added layers of bureaucracy and redundancy along with a work force that is inefficient due to miss management and no incentive to the bottom line.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I think you think there is a competition going on. The competition is over. FB is not in a position to be replaced, nor is Google. That's all settled stuff. Dogpile is gone, Yahoo and AOL missed the boat. There is no coming back. AOL was situated to beat Yahoo, FB, Myspace, Google and a host of others to death and died for lack of vision. What's done is done.

Who is competing with Amazon? If Bezos were trying to give different prices to people based upon political leanings, don't you think Amazon would need to be regulated?

We don't even speak of searching stuff. We "Google" it. The contest is over. What we're left with are monopolies.

Most industries will go this route sooner or later, even when they don't provide unique services. In the 50's the US had dozens of commercial and military aircraft manufacturers, which merged, and merged and now we have just a small handful. Left alone this is what businesses do, which is why we have anti-trust laws, because the impulse to efficiency is to merge and remove competition.

"Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

The cyber revolution is over. If someone finds a new niche then we may be late comers, but we're not going to see them replace FB and Google. Even the late comers like Twitter and Instagram seem to have settled things, and Air B&B has a clone rival but really no rival at all. Uber has Lyft, but there won't be any other late comers to that industry. When the competiton dies a natural death through competition, just as Dogpile did (which was a superior engine to Google), you have to regulate any monopolies that arise. There's no choice. Try and think what would have happened had not USG broke up Bell and Standard Oil.

 

[Xist]

That video is clearly on the payroll of the ISPs. His logic is completely flawed.

The one thing he says that makes sense is "if you use more, you pay more." But he's trying to charge THE WRONG PEOPLE.

The CONSUMERS are the ones who should pay based on what they use, not the companies they are buying from.

If I want to watch 100 TB of video every month, it shouldn't matter if I'm downloading from Google or from NewStartupCo. I AM THE ONE using the bandwidth, not Google and not NewStartupCo.

With Net Neutrality dead, the ISPs CONTROL the fate of NewStartupCo because IT CAN NEVER COMPETE for your business. Only Google will ever be able to pay for the "fast lane."

Flawed logic is flawed. Don't believe this ISP shill doing his best to make his lobbying look like it's legitimate.

 

[Han Burgundy]

"Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

A future we all can aspire to...

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Monopolies are never a good thing for the consumer. While yes water, gas and electric tend to be monopolies this is do more to a shared understanding that there is a finite space available in public easements for the physical conduits to push these products to your house. It does not lead to the most cost effective means to create and delivery these goods, and instead creates added layers of bureaucracy and redundancy along with a work force that is inefficient due to miss management and no incentive to the bottom line.

Yes, but you understand, the marketplace has already determined that Myspace will fail, because we all know we don't want to use FB to stay in touch with some friends and Myspace for others. There is a natural market force turning FB into a monopoly, and the public good is not served by using antitrust laws to stop this, so it needs to be regulated.

I am generally against regulation for the same reasons you are, but there are instances where it is necessary. The FDA exists because without their regulations, we'd have hundreds of thousands of people sick every year from food poisoning and bogus drugs. If you don't believe this, look at countries that don't regulate sanitation requirements and what the death rates are in Somalia, for example. It's all well and fine to say the market will work it out, but if in order to do so huge masses of people need to die of food poisoning, you need another solution.

Same with the EPA regulations. No chemical industry corp was policing their waste until the Clean Water Act forced them to do so through regulation. That regulation is what makes us able to drink the water across the country. That doesn't justify when people weaponize the EPA and through their regulation, punish people for poltiical purposes, but the Clean Water Act was one of the greatest achievements of early environmentalism. People will generally not clean up after themselves unless you force them to, so somoene has to parent them through regulation. Sucks, but is true.

 

[Radegast74]

Facebook obviously needs to be regulated and policed, as do Twitter, Google, and some others. The real problem is who is going to police the police? Certainly what we're doing right now is not working.

Yeah, because more government regulation solves everything!

 

[Bambooza]

You seem to forget that when Facebook came onto the scene MySpace was the dominate space used by millions of people and many thumbed their nose at Facebook because it didn't have the numbers to justify their transferring to it along with the limits on how they crafted their pages (perhaps no blinking gif's) . Google did try their own with Google+ which still exists even if its mostly a ghost town. The same can quickly happen to Facebook if they to strongly push filtering or get usurped by a new idea that they do not adjust to quick enough. Which is why tech stocks are so volatile. Of course we still have companies like EA that continue to push horrible consumer practices and manage to turn a profit year after year, so perhaps the masses are uniformed and are far more easily manipulated by marketing then we give credit to.

Same with the EPA regulations. No chemical industry corp was policing their waste until the Clean Water Act forced them to do so through regulation. That regulation is what makes us able to drink the water across the country. That doesn't justify when people weaponize the EPA and through their regulation, punish people for poltiical purposes, but the Clean Water Act was one of the greatest achievements of early environmentalism. People will generally not clean up after themselves unless you force them to, so somoene has to parent them through regulation. Sucks, but is true.

I think this is a great example. It really shows both sides of the issue while the purpose of the EPA was grand initially it has been turned into a weapon used for political/power (corporations have also successfully leveraged it to take down competition through dirty politics) and no longer limited to its initial scope. Nor has it been successful in preventing things like Flint.

And I do agree with you that people don't always act in their own best interest or the best interest for their community and the future and often times need to be forced to (retirement funds anyone). For me the question is how to be lite on regulation to allow for market corrective behavior, new successful ideas to quickly take effect and badly ran companies to fail instead of survive on litigation and stagnant innovation. While making sure everyone plays fair by the same set of rules.

 

[Xist]

The question is not "should there be regulation or not."

Anyone who thinks that regulation is bad just because it's bureaucracy is a moron.

Anyone who things that regulation is good because the government is somehow competent in fixing all things is also a moron.

Thus the 2 extremes are full of people who don't know anything and simply regurgitate the nonsense they have been told by other morons. Do not be swayed by them.

The real answer is that there is sometimes a time and place for regulation, and Net Neutrality is one of those places. If the ISPs need people to pay more to have high quality internet, then THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT should be the ones paying (the CUSTOMERS).

The ISP's entire argument is a sham. They want to be able to force you to pay for cable by jacking the prices up on YouTube and Netflix. THAT is why they want to charge YouTube - BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO VIEW YOUTUBE INSTEAD OF PAYING YOUR CABLE COMPANY to watch their crap.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Yes, but you understand, the marketplace has already determined that Myspace will fail, because we all know we don't want to use FB to stay in touch with some friends and Myspace for others. There is a natural market force turning FB into a monopoly, and the public good is not served by using antitrust laws to stop this, so it needs to be regulated.

I'm not sure it's entrirely Marketplace... Facebook has bought competitors and new and upcoming social networks and social communication tools - Instagram and Whatsapp are both their property and they reportedly attempted to buy Snap-Chat for $3 billion in 2013. There is more than one way to make a monopoly and I think that, really, is why regulation is required... The free market can't stop the company with all the money from buying all the smaller companies with the users the bigger one can't reach partially because they are the bigger company.

EDIT - Actually, I don't think I know what i'm talking about.

 

[Bambooza]

The question is not "should there be regulation or not."

Anyone who thinks that regulation is bad just because it's bureaucracy is a moron.

Anyone who things that regulation is good because the government is somehow competent in fixing all things is also a moron.

Swoon :)

 

[Montoya]

The real answer is that there is sometimes a time and place for regulation

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

 

[Bambooza]

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

Everyone wants it their way. But they tend to forget the sword they craft against their enemies is the same sword that beheads them when the power shifts.

 

[Radegast74]

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

If you want "delicious irony" how about this? The FCC chair before Ajit Pai, was Tom Wheeler, who was a top cable industry lobbyist *before* he became the head of the FCC. When he was appointed, everyone was concerned that he was going to just be a pro-industry/anti-consumer shill. Things turned out differently...as he stated in an interview:
“My history has always been working with the insurgent, not the incumbent,” Wheeler told Ars in an interview at his Washington, DC, office. “I have always been the guy coming up the side of the hill, rather than the guy on the top of the hill pushing boulders down to stop them.”

See the full interview: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyist-became-the-broadband-industrys-worst-nightmare/