The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Forbes: Silk Road and Libertarians

NN regulations are new, and still under court challenge and this hasnt happened yet. Assuming it would happen in the near term without NN is an assumption without much merit.

While it is a valid *worry*, cant assume it will happen. There are many reasons outside of NN regulation that still prevent this.

First, there are actually other laws that could come into play.

Second, it would be extremely unpopular and could lead to other legal or regulatory changes addressing this - the worst (from telco view) being the govt taking steps to ensure competition is possible like I outline.

Third, in the meantime it would open them to retribution. What if TWC then dropped the liberal channels and only carried FOX?

Of course this leads us back to #1 and #2, because at this point the entire country realizes something is drastically wrong with the system.

People often paint a picture of doomsday catastrophe looming in absence of NN, yet even without we are probably not close to doomsday. Many areas of the country actually still have decent competition as well.

I still don't understand how you could rationalize opposing NN when you know direct consequences of not having it. Holding off for perfect solution that might never come is such a weak rationalization and you should know better than that.

Let us simplify this - you hate big telecoms. They are against Net Neutrality. Enemy of my enemy?



This isn't hypothetical doomsday, it is highly likely outcome. You are willing to risk Internet turning into walled garden in pursuit of some pie-in-the-sky free market solution. How impractically libertarian of you. Likely outcome of years of paying through the nose (think pre-VOIP international and long distance calling) will ensure... all while outcome you desire is no more likely to happen. Not unlike pouring gasoline on your house fire is not more likely to increase chances of fire department putting out the fire.

Consider this - having Net Neutrality does not make outcome you are seeking any less likely to happen.

I guess you dont get it, what about my solution is pie in the sky or impractical?

Its like there a hole in the dyke, and I suggest plugging it - and you suggest building a new system of dykes within the the old system.

I ask you why you want to focus on building a whole new system of dykes, that would actually cede lots of ground to the ocean and cause a lot more problems... and your response is that simply plugging the hole is pie in the sky and impractical.

It doesnt follow.

What doesn't flow is your libertarian-utopian notion of free and efficient market solving any and all problems. Meanwhile, you are all too willing to slash and burn old system to the ground. Without first having alternative working.

We jumping out of the plane, and now you are declaring that parachute we have is not the optimal kind. Guess what, it sorta works and before we have better parachute in our hands it might not be a good idea to throw old one away.

Lets say Net Neutrality, how things work today, gets severely undermined. We _know_ things will turn to shit, your argument that they already shitty-ish does not change the fact that they will get worse without NN.

Meanwhile, your free market solution might never realize itself. It might be that duopolies are 'natural' and actually require government intervention to get competition going. It might be that there isn't much money to be made serving some rural markets, so without government distortions dialup is all these markets will ever get. There are just so many scenarios where it doesn't work out.

Erm, lawl? I am the opposite of utopian. Your line of attack just is not credible. If you think I am about slashing and burning the old system.... you either dont comprehend what I have said, or you do not comprehend the system as it currently stands and thus cannot fit my words to proper context.

That you bring up rural markets reinforces this point. I even came out in favor of some publicly funded infrastructure. But publicly funded infrastructure, and govt micromanaging traffic and content are totally different things.

What I have advocated is simply eliminating govt favoritism and leveling the playing field.

We have already established that NN certainly will fail in the long run - possibly even the short run. It is just a regulatory whack-a-mole that will become co-opted and/or less effective over time.

It takes an extremely illogical mind to advocate for a solution that is both not immediately needed, and known to be ineffective over the long run when effective solutions are available. We would all be better off, if people calculated the downside instead of just going all knee-jerk and advocating for any "solution" presented for any "problem".

No we have not established that Net Neutrality will fail in the long or short term, other than being undermined with the support of misguided positions like yours. There are two outcomes to Net Neutrality - ether status quo going to get preserved by getting codified in law or it will get unofficially repealed by thousand cuts of precedences and exploitative practices. This whole fight started when in 2005 AT&T CEO started complaining that Google, that already pays for bandwidth, should be also paying for access to AT&T subscribers, who already pay for bandwidth. This further escalated in 2007 when Comcast (also cable TV operator) got slammed by FCC with fines for throttling traffic to competition. Instead of complying Comcast decided to lawyer it up and challenge FCC's authority to enforce status quo.

Net Neutrality is immediately needed, it is how things have worked as agreed-on rule (Internet Policy Statement) for the past 20+ years and it is how we got where we are today. If it wasn't the case, we would have 1-2 different AOLs selling something that would resemble cable channel subscriptions.

You are mistaken in your assumption that NN is something new, and not a fundamental principle and part of the design that is getting codified in the law. You are contradicted by facts in your speculation that without NN things won't immediately turn for worse (more expensive and/or more limited). You are also mistaken when attributing separate, completely independent problems to NN.

In closing - you don't understand what Net Neutrality is, in your opposition you chose to ignore or discount adverse effects of undermining it, and you base your opposition to Net Neutrality on a) political ideology b) wrongly attributing effects of other issues to NN.

Your position is not unlike opposing use of chemotherapy to treat cancer on the basis that it causes male pattern baldness.

"No we have not established that Net Neutrality will fail in the long or short term"

Um, yeah we have. You get to have your own opinions, but not your own facts - that is a favorite saying of yours is it not?

I fully understand what NN is, and the long term ramifications.

You just do not seem to be comfortable with any solution that does not involve a small group of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats gaining power to regulate how, who, and what can be communicated over the internet.

If you think NN is not something new, it shows your lack of understanding. Giving govt authority to regulate content via fait accompli is a new and dangerous precedent.

You talk about understanding, but you have never even put forth any evidence that the doom and gloom scenario you are so worried about is imminent. You have ASSERTED it is, but really, theres not much to say doom and gloom was on the way outside a few wild eyed blog posts by various random people.

Even worse is NN tries to pre-empt a non-existing problem. If you want govt regulation via fiat... could always just implement it when it actually was necessary.

Its kind of ironic, that with NN.. the only *REAL* issues have been with cellular wireless. And... NN basically exempts wireless networks. So it does not even target the segment of the market where the real problem exists.

Your position is not logically consistent in number of aspects.

You claim that Net Neutrality will shortly fall on its own (it hasn't since 1980s, or even 1860s if I chose to be coy with telegraph regulations) , you also claim that it is something completely new (and ignore status quo of 20+ years and end-to-end principle), yet you support corporate interests that through the court system (violence of armed men, dur dur) attempt to change this. So does it have to be changed or will it fail on its own?

You present this argument as "giving govt authority to regulate content" when this exactly opposite - it establishing rights of internet users and prevents carriers from engaging in "regulation" of content.

You claim it to be unprecedented, when many comparable "no discrimination of X based on Y" laws and regulations exist, Constitution being one of them.

You chose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, just in the post above yours I said:



to get



and call it non-existing problem.

About the only part I agree with you - exclusion of wireless was a mistake.

"You claim that Net Neutrality will shortly fall on its own (it hasn't since 1980s, or even 1860s if I chose to be coy with telegraph regulations) , you also claim that it is something completely new (and ignore status quo of 20+ years and end-to-end principle), yet you support corporate interests that through the court system (violence of armed men, dur dur) attempt to change this. So does it have to be changed or will it fail on its own?
"

You are seriously trying to assert that the NN as currently written, encompasses and embodies all the factors that allowed the Internet to be what it is? Seriously?

As for corporate interests, the only reason NN became a talking point is because mega corporate interests wanted to serve more content and pay less for peering.

As for AT&T and Comcast, note that the issues have been addressed outside of "NN". There are, and have been, other avenues of recourse available in the cases of outright douchebaggery.

In the end though, it comes down to implementing a proper plan and implementing a patchwork plan.

The solution is really pretty simple as I have said - enact controls, and open-access regulations that effect all taxpayer subsidized infrastructure - localities can also be influenced by this if they receive state or federal funds towards their infrastructure, which most do.

Make it so govt is compelled to allow anyone to access the taxpayer funded trunks, or drop in additional fiber on the existing cable lines and have local pole access. Worst case then, Comcast has local monopoly and acts like douches - see how fast someone raises a couple hundred thousand , lights fiber to a backbone node, drops in a couple cabinets and takes all their customers.

Govt could do a lot to make the process easier, eliminate red tape and make sure that public infrastructure was available to anyone.

At the end of the day, the only thing that keep megacorps in check is competition.

Its not that I disregard anything, you just dont like to think things through. If it "sounds good" , then its good enough for you.

I think its also worth noting, that regardless of NN or not - internet in areas that lack competition still typically sucks ass in general.

Even besides the NN issues... the only way people get decent internet period, is where competition is viable. Do you think even an angelic and competent FCC is going to be able to make Comcast / AT&T / Anyone not suck balls in areas where there is no competitive pressure?

There are and have been viable public-private co-op nonprofits in the past, I have worked with some.

Besides, if you are in favor of Keynesian ditch digging - why not dig ditches and bury fiber?