Obama speaks out in favor of Net Neutrality; Ted Cruz likens it to "Obamacare"

When it comes to net neutrality, I'm all for it in principal, but I'd be worried that the government would just be using the net neutrality issue as a Trojan horse in order to get their hands on the internet. I feel like as soon as there is precedent to treat the internet like a utility it would be open season on all kinds of government regulations and censorship.

 

This is from commlawblog.com:

http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/10/...-utility-wont-yield-an-open-internet-unless-/

The author details how regulating the internet like a utility isn't enough:

And proposes a solution- a solution we had not too long ago:

The rest of the developed world operates under principles identical or similar to Title II and Computer III. This is why I will soon re-up my contract with Unitymedia here in Germany for rock-solid reliable 100megabit internet for 30 euros per month. A choice I can make among many competitors. How much does 100mb bandwidth cost for you in the states? How many competitors are you choosing from?

 

Re-posting from The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/...tives-should-defy-republicans-and-support-net

6 reasons real conservatives should defy Republicans and support net neutrality
An open internet is in everyone's interest

A tidal wave of partisan politics is about to hit the FCC as it weighs its options for net neutrality regulation. Today, President Obama abandoned his hands-off approach by strongly urging the agency to adopt the most rigorous provisions of the Telecommunications Act, which would regulate internet providers more like the public utilities they actually are. That involvement will come at a cost; Obama's closeness to the issue has already prompted rebuttals from Republican leaders who thrive on painting anything Obama does as nothing short of a total government takeover.

One of those Republicans is prominent Tea Party member and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who quickly responded to the president's statement this morning by saying "'net neutrality' is Obamacare for the internet." This statement is utterly meaningless to people who understand both the Affordable Care Act and net neutrality policy, and it makes Ted Cruz look like an idiot. But Ted Cruz isn't an idiot; equating net neutrality with Obamacare is a thick brush stroke in the art of political manipulation.

If you don't believe me, take a look at this email I received from a reader, shortly after I criticized Cruz's comments this morning:

Or this one:

Neither of these missives indicate a basic grasp of the principles of net neutrality or facts about the internet marketplace. They are raw, emotional responses to something Republicans hate (government takeovers!) and the leader who will crush us under the weight of liberal bureaucracy (Obama!). All you need to do to win an election in some parts of the United States is to compare something or someone to Obamacare.

But Republicans should be wary of that kind of cynical heresthetic. Lumping net neutrality in with big government is not only internally inconsistent, it doesn't represent authentic conservative values. Opposition to net neutrality from GOP leadership (and also from some Democrats) has so far reflected the interests of the powerful telecommunications lobby.

Conservative voters actually have compelling reasons to break from the Republican party's rhetoric and should support net neutrality and reclassification of ISPs as public utilities. Here are some of them.

1. Regulating the internet like a utility makes sense because ISPs don't actually compete

Free markets are great in theory because they allow people to decide for themselves the kind of products and services they want, and the consequence is that businesses will compete for their attention by making the best possible stuff at the lowest possible price. So it makes sense that Republicans would want broadband internet to be sold with as little interference as possible from the government.

There's just one huge, glaring problem: there's actually no meaningful competition in the broadband market. "None. Zero. Nothing. It is a wasteland." The market is fundamentally broken; people can't make real choices about who to buy internet from. In a lot of places, your only option is Comcast. Regulating broadband like a utility will provide more options for consumers and make the broadband market more like the ideal kind of market conservatives value.

2. There is no evidence net neutrality will kill jobs

Republican leaders have given dire warnings this year that net neutrality regulations will stifle innovation and kill jobs. Incidentally, this is a key talking point from major ISPs. But so far there's been no evidence that net neutrality will create net job losses.

ISPs, they argue, will have less incentive to make network investments that improve broadband service. But this point is actually completely counter-intuitive — unless the broadband market is completely broken. (It is.) In a competitive market, businesses invest money to make service better and cheaper because they have to if they want to survive. Nobody was talking about gigabit internet until Google Fiber lit a fire under their ass.

In fact, there are several companies and municipalities that have tried to make investments in high-speed broadband but were rebuffed or intimidated by incumbent ISPs. AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable have all used the state to curb competitors.

3. Net neutrality is the only way to protect the free market of the internet from monopolists like Comcast and Verizon

Monopolies are as much of a threat to free markets as meddlesome governments, but monopolies can't really exist without the government's help; ironically, killing net neutrality will do more damage to the free market by preserving a status quo that already transfers massive amounts of wealth and power from the government to just a few companies. So far these companies have been reined in slightly by net neutrality rules, which prevent them from completely manipulating who gets to use the internet and how they use it.

Mobile internet, for example, relies on doling out precious bands of the electromagnetic spectrum to companies that build and operate networks. Spectrum is a finite resource managed by the government, and ISPs like Verizon and AT&T have dominated the market by cornering spectrum sales and wielding huge influence over how their networks can be used. Consumers can't make useful decisions that will have real impacts on ISPs if the providers are powerful enough to ignore their preferences. In the case of wireless networks like Verizon and AT&T, many upstart competitors are literally locked out because of the laws of physics.

4. Net neutrality will expand liberty and free expression

The great irony of net neutrality becoming a partisan issue is that it is, by its very definition, about creating a level playing field that doesn't discriminate against types of expression. Net neutrality is just that: neutral.

Net neutrality is nothing like, as one of those emails I received had insinuated, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" — an FCC policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present competing views on issues of public importance. Republicans have rightly blasted recent efforts to revive this kind of policy for being a heavy-handed form of governmental interference in the marketplace of ideas.

Net neutrality is actually the opposite of something like the Fairness Doctrine. The fundamental principle of net neutrality is equality: the idea that all information being carried on the network should be treated the same. It means that data coming from Senator Ted Cruz's website should be treated exactly the same as data coming from President Obama's website, and that companies like Verizon and Comcast shouldn't manipulate how that data is delivered.

5. Net neutrality represents the opposite of a government takeover of the internet

The only companies that will face a squeeze from utility-style regulation are monopolistic ISPs. So far, these companies have used government bodies at the state and federal level to expand their holdings, maximize profits, and stifle competitors.

By establishing some ground rules and making ISPs subject to common carrier regulations, these companies won't be able to manipulate vague statutes for competitive advantage. For instance, Verizon has played the FCC and its customers by arguing against Title II regulation as "ancient" and unwieldy while at the same time claiming it is a utility in order to receive government benefits.

6. Classical small-government liberalism supports the idea that government should provide public utilities, like roads and internet service

Even Adam Smith favored government expense on public works that facilitated commerce. The internet has been compared to the Interstate Highway System for great reasons: it's a system of communication and transportation that has created enormous wealth and opportunity. There's an enormous public interest in government-provided internet service, and some municipalities are trying to make it a reality, even though huge ISPs are trying to stop them.

But net neutrality isn't even a government-provided service like the highway system. It's just a set of rules that allows private companies to profit from providing essential services while protecting consumers and the vast majority of businesses from manipulative, anti-competitive behavior.

ISPs argue that they provide all of the innovation and investment in the internet, but they're not what makes the internet special. Businesses large and small, from Facebook to Airbnb, make the internet what it is. Net neutrality has allowed them to start, to compete, and to prosper — all because consumers can largely make decisions based on cost and merit rather than what Comcast or AT&T prefer.

 

Clutch Debate & Discussion: Making the World a Better Place Through Education

 

Let me ask you something. Which would you rather have?

A. Would you rather use the next like you do now?

B. Or would you rather use it like you do cable where you buy packages of content. For example, you could get Clutchfans for $.99 a month. Or have it bundled with any site.

How fast Clutchfans would load or even be available might also depend on what they are paying to your ISP. So you might not have access to all sites, just the ones your ISP deem worthy. If a site is seen as a competitor, they might get throttled so you won't be able to access them easily.

 

I wonder if Texas conservatives have a problem with the way Electric Utilities are de-regulated here and don't see that as a model for internet service?

The physical infrastructure doesn't have to be duplicated by all the competitors, it would be wildly impractical and probably physically impossible. The infrastructure companies are regulated to produce a modest and predictable rate of return. The generation companies that use that infrastructure to deliver electricity are free to compete on price and services anyway they can.

Infrastructure is a vital public interest, it should be a open venue for market competition.

silly example - An expanding town needs new roads but can't speculate as to where or what type of roads to build. Comcart comes to the city and says we will build roads if you give us use of the the public right-of-way to do it and tax abatements on our future income from them. Then years later after the roads are built Comcart says "Costco and Sam's you want to build a store in this town, whichever one of you pays us a million dollars a year can have access to our road, if you don't pay you have to access your parking lot through a cow pasture'. Does this serve the people of the town who made the deal to get the roads built?

 

Amusingly, when Congress inevitably bows down to the entities they actually represent (i.e., corporations) and kills net neutrality, I will probably have far better internet here in the land of sand with a VPN then a good majority of the US. Hell, I probably have that now, honestly.

 

Most PEOPLE regardless of party don't understand what deregulation in Texas even means, don't understand how the wires work, etc. and they CERTAINLY don't understand how internet access works. If you have two people in a debate on net neutrality, the anti one obviously has the upper hand. All he has to talk about is government intrusion into "free markets" while the pro guy has to actually explain how data is transmitted, what net neutrality means, use examples like highways, electricity, etc.

It's a hard argument to win.

 

You see, that's the crazy perception that many people above have that just stumps me. The people that say they "trust" smart business people and "distrust" ambitious politicians. The government is US protecting US. The incentive is clearly for business, driven by the imperative to make profits, to exploit people. Free Markets don't work without real information, real choices, and legal enforcement. When companies can create their version of reality, with deception and bought off regulators, it's not a free market.

And, it's going to get more Orwellian since news reporting is now dependent on commercial revenues. Truth and governance depend on the good intentions of people, real, applied ethics . Commercial success can come from the subversion of truth and the market can't tell the difference.

Is Elizabeth Warren more trustworthy than Comcast? Just follow the money.

 

That's a false dichotomy and there's really no need for it because I'm not actually arguing against net neutrality, I'm just saying that once the government starts in on regulating the internet, we don't know where they'll stop. You can bet that one thing they'll do is force ISP's to block piracy sites like the pirate bay, but what other sites will they decide to force them to block? I see this as a no-win scenario and ultimately the internet is about to change one way or the other for Americans and it almost certainly won't be for the better.

 

It's not only a hard argument to win, it also doesn't matter too much if the public as a whole supports net-neutrality because voters don't assign that much weight to the issue and would gladly sacrifice net-neutrality at the altar of other issues like guns, sexual rights, religion, environmentalism, and immigration.

Net neutrality is one of those issues that implicates the Public Choice theory of government:

 

So you are fine with a monopoly definitely controlling your access to legal content because of your suspicion the government might limit your access to illegal content? Even though you aren't really sure how they even could do it or whether it would stand first amendment challenges.

 

Ding ding ding! This, ladies and gentlemen.

Now watch as the conservatives in our govt fight tooth and nail to prevent a regulation that creates a free market.

 

You do realize that before the FDA, lots of people did die from food-related illnesses, WHICH IS A HUGE PART OF THE REASON THE FDA WAS CREATED!

Please get back to us when you have a grasp on history.

 

Slippery slope fallacy.

How do you feel about the electric service to your home? Your water? Those are regulated as utilities under Title II. If the govt really wanted to **** with us, it could do it a lot more effectively through power and water.

The appointees to the FCC will slowly cycle from liberal to conservative and back, as always. Just twenty years ago at the birth of commercial internet, we already had the regulations we need in place, then during the Bush administration they were eliminated.

 

Again, I never said I was against net neutrality....I've said so 3 times now.

That's actually not slippery slope fallacy because I'm not saying what will certainly happen, only suggesting that this step could lead to further regulation. That statement isn't fallacious because it's not suggesting that the further regulation is inevitable. It's a matter of "could" vs "will". Also, on top of that I think it's important to note that not all statements about logical consequence are examples of the slippery slope fallacy so even if I was saying that further regulation was inevitable, in this case it still probably wouldn't be an example of slippery slope fallacy. I would argue that all i was doing was quantifying relevant probabilities since we've seen government regulation of airwaves lead to censorship in the past.

Furthermore, for now the 4th time, I explicitly said that I'm not against net neutrality, I just expressed caution about what could happen as a result of the government starting down that path. What I would be against is censorship, which i think would neuter the internet. As evidenced in other areas, the government loves to censor. If we can manage to get the good from regulating net neutrality without that leading to letting government censors loose on the internet, it'll be great.

 

For clarification, it should be noted that Net Neutrality is a totally different issue from the regulation which allows multiple competitors to use one infrastructure.

Net neutrality prevents ISPs from giving preferential treatment to data traffic. This does not necessarily increase competition, but it prevents some of the most obvious abuses that a large monopoly would use to extort money from their customers and other companies. Title II is the easiest and most elegant way to do this. Post-Bush, the FCC has tried any way other than Title II to get behavior that resembles net neutrality, but without Title II they don't have the regulatory power, and Verizon has challenged their watered-down attempts in court and won.

The other issue is allowing one common infrastructure to be used by multiple companies. In this case, the infrastructure is mostly copper and fiber pulled through the city by a private company, and in most cases it was pulled a long time ago at great expense by companies such as Comcast or whoever Comcast bought. In exchange for this investment, the government helped to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and granted the companies a monopoly on that infrastructure for that city/area. The result is the present day crapfest of monopolies such as Comcast giving as poor service as they possibly can, as expensively as they possibly can because you have no alternative, or one alternative which is about the same level of crappy.

The solution is forcing the owners of the infrastructure to re-sell usage at wholesale or close to wholesale. Then other companies enter the market and compete! Yay capitalism! Service, speed, and customer satisfaction go up, prices go down. Yay capitalism!

Now, you may ask, why does the government have to step in and force a company to share their property with competitors? Ideally, it would be best if every competitor could build their own infrastructure in every city, but that's just not physically plausible. A series of different private companies placing their own electric, water, or communications networks within a city would mean tearing up most streets and highways in that city. Every new entrant would tear up the whole city again. It would be an impossible mess. It is far more efficient to have one infrastructure and various competitors use it to reach customers.

Texans, how do you feel about your electric service? Because this is the model it follows, as already mentioned by Dubious. There is one infrastructure of 'delivery', the wires that go through the city and into your home. However, various providers can compete on price to have electricity delivered to your home. So far, Karl Marx has not risen from the grave to enslave our children through our communist electric delivery system, but you never know.

What president Obama has proposed only concerns the first issue, net neutrality by way of title II regulation. Although the FCC chair is an Obama appointee, and majority of the committee is democrat, it will still be a major fight to pass title II because the ISPs will fight it tooth and nail.

The second issue probably may never even make it to the point of being recommended. The ISPs would go nuclear before submitting themselves to the ravages of capitalism.

 

Ok, I hear you, I understood from the beginning that you aren't necessarily against NN.

Here's one of the points from The Verge article I posted earlier:

If censorship is your main concern, you should be a big net neutrality fan. Obama's recommendation has made it clear that as long as it's legal, it must be accessible by the customer. Now, we may worry about how that 'legal' term might be changed, but IMO opinion that's more likely to happen in congress than the FCC. In any case NN is not the issue to fight against if you worry about censorship.

Censorship is a lot more likely to come from Congress IMO.

 

Under Title II, is there a way Congress, FCC, or other government agencies to deem what data is "legal" or other means to control data?