A loss for net neutrality

[Bob78164]

According to this story, the D.C. Circuit has ruled that the FCC lacks authority to impose net neutrality rules. --Bob

[Thousandaire]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

[Bob78164]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

[ulysses5019]

I think I'll move to Switzerland. Riiiiicooooola!!!!!!

[wintergreen48]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

But.... the only reason that cable company X has a monopoly is because the local government 'gave' it to them? Is there really any reason why we could not have competing cable providers, as we have competing telephone providers?

It seems to me that 'some people' are advocating that the government get involved (with this 'net neutrality' business) in order to cure a problem that the government created. Get the government out of cable entirely, and maybe you would not need to worry about 'net neutrality'?

[Thousandaire]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

You're no longer bound by a cable. You can get satellite internet (Hughesnet) or use a company like Clear.com (uses cell phone networks). Anyway net neutrality is about much more than that. A sure-fire way to kill innovation is with gov't regulation.

[Bob Juch]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

You're no longer bound by a cable. You can get satellite internet (Hughesnet) or use a company like Clear.com (uses cell phone networks). Anyway net neutrality is about much more than that. A sure-fire way to kill innovation is with gov't regulation.

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

[flockofseagulls104]

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

You're no longer bound by a cable. You can get satellite internet (Hughesnet) or use a company like Clear.com (uses cell phone networks). Anyway net neutrality is about much more than that. A sure-fire way to kill innovation is with gov't regulation.

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

[Bob Juch]

You're no longer bound by a cable. You can get satellite internet (Hughesnet) or use a company like Clear.com (uses cell phone networks). Anyway net neutrality is about much more than that. A sure-fire way to kill innovation is with gov't regulation.

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

I trust the government -- who we elect -- much more than businesses who are controlled by people we don't elect (unless we buy stock in all of them and even then there are non-public cos.).

[earendel]

You're no longer bound by a cable. You can get satellite internet (Hughesnet) or use a company like Clear.com (uses cell phone networks). Anyway net neutrality is about much more than that. A sure-fire way to kill innovation is with gov't regulation.

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

Not that I want to get into a long debate over government, but I can't let this comment pass. The method that we are using to communicate to each other (this Bored) is the result of a government innovation - the Internet.

[Bob Juch]

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

Not that I want to get into a long debate over government, but I can't let this comment pass. The method that we are using to communicate to each other (this Bored) is the result of a government innovation - the Internet.

Well sort of. The government (ARPA) wanted a network to interconnect the various networks their contractors (companies and universities) were using. They contracted with BBN to build it. The result was a network that connected to a minicomputer at each site. The minicomputer converted from the packet-switched protocol BBN used to whatever protocol the contractors used. Years later, TCP/IP replaced the original protocol and the verious networks used by the contractors slowly were replaced by TCP/IP as well.

You can say the government kick-started the Internet, but it took a long time to evolve to what it is today. I credit the various universities with the innovations more than the businesses.

[earendel]

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

Not that I want to get into a long debate over government, but I can't let this comment pass. The method that we are using to communicate to each other (this Bored) is the result of a government innovation - the Internet.

Well sort of. The government (ARPA) wanted a network to interconnect the various networks their contractors (companies and universities) were using. They contracted with BBN to build it. The result was a network that connected to a minicomputer at each site. The minicomputer converted from the packet-switched protocol BBN used to whatever protocol the contractors used. Years later, TCP/IP replaced the original protocol and the verious networks used by the contractors slowly were replaced by TCP/IP as well.

You can say the government kick-started the Internet, but it took a long time to evolve to what it is today. I credit the various universities with the innovations more than the businesses.

But without government involvement, the development of the Internet would have been slower and we might have had competing systems (a la VHS vs. Beta) for a while.

And government innovation was responsible for the atomic bomb - not that that's much to brag about. Likewise the space program. Government does have a role to play in innovation.

[Bob Juch]

Not that I want to get into a long debate over government, but I can't let this comment pass. The method that we are using to communicate to each other (this Bored) is the result of a government innovation - the Internet.

Well sort of. The government (ARPA) wanted a network to interconnect the various networks their contractors (companies and universities) were using. They contracted with BBN to build it. The result was a network that connected to a minicomputer at each site. The minicomputer converted from the packet-switched protocol BBN used to whatever protocol the contractors used. Years later, TCP/IP replaced the original protocol and the verious networks used by the contractors slowly were replaced by TCP/IP as well.

You can say the government kick-started the Internet, but it took a long time to evolve to what it is today. I credit the various universities with the innovations more than the businesses.

But without government involvement, the development of the Internet would have been slower and we might have had competing systems (a la VHS vs. Beta) for a while.

And government innovation was responsible for the atomic bomb - not that that's much to brag about. Likewise the space program. Government does have a role to play in innovation.

There were many competing networks even after TCP/IP became the Internet protocol, e.g. AOL and CompuServe. It was the opening up of the Internet to the public that killed the other private networks. That was done by the governments who controlled the Internet at that time.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just setting the record straight.

Yes, the government's involvement has triggered much innovation and development.

[Al Gore]

No, it's to make sure the cable companies don't kill innovation.

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

Not that I want to get into a long debate over government, but I can't let this comment pass. The method that we are using to communicate to each other (this Bored) is the result of a government innovation - the Internet.

You're welcome!

[ShamelessWeasel]

No, Bob. I am not commenting on this specific issue, because I haven't really looked into it. I am commenting on your last comment about it., In general, private enterprise is the only engine for innovation. Government control can only stifle innovation. The Government creates NOTHING. I believe the appropriate role of government is to regulate in a way that ensures equal opportunity for everyone, not to ensure equal results. We are giving government way too much control (actually we are letting them give themselves way too much power), and that is extremely dangerous. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

Yeah. No innovation came out of NASA, or the EPA, or the NIH.

[Jeemie]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

But.... the only reason that cable company X has a monopoly is because the local government 'gave' it to them? Is there really any reason why we could not have competing cable providers, as we have competing telephone providers?

It seems to me that 'some people' are advocating that the government get involved (with this 'net neutrality' business) in order to cure a problem that the government created. Get the government out of cable entirely, and maybe you would not need to worry about 'net neutrality'?

Bumping this because I agree with it.

Why are we asking for MORE regulation to solve a problem that was created by EARLIER government regulation?

[Bob Juch]

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

But.... the only reason that cable company X has a monopoly is because the local government 'gave' it to them? Is there really any reason why we could not have competing cable providers, as we have competing telephone providers?

It seems to me that 'some people' are advocating that the government get involved (with this 'net neutrality' business) in order to cure a problem that the government created. Get the government out of cable entirely, and maybe you would not need to worry about 'net neutrality'?

Bumping this because I agree with it.

Why are we asking for MORE regulation to solve a problem that was created by EARLIER government regulation?

Actually the problem was caused by the federal government not regulating cable companies in the first place. Exclusive franchises were granted by local governments to the first cable companies. Due to acquisitions over the years we've wound up with the cable companies we now have. The cable companies are now effectively monopolies, despite the phone companies -- AT&T and Verizon -- getting into the "cable" act.

I don't see a problem with the federal government stopping the cable companies from restricting competition.

[wintergreen48]

I don't see a problem with the federal government stopping the cable companies from restricting competition.

But it is not the cable companies who are restricting competition-- they can't restrict anything. It is government that is restricting competition, by giving the local cable franchise to one company, and prohibiting any oher company from entering the market.

Historically, I don't believe that anyone has ever had a monopoly, at least, not for mroe than a few days, without 'the government' helping them get it. Without government intervention ('granting' franchises; setting up artificial barriers to entry, such as licensing requirements that go well beyond any legitimate consumer protection matters; etc.), the market will not permit a monopoly: if Joe Blow were to acquire one, somehow, someone else would move in, simply because there would be money to be made, and Joe Blow's monopoly would vanish.

[Bob Juch]

I don't see a problem with the federal government stopping the cable companies from restricting competition.

But it is not the cable companies who are restricting competition-- they can't restrict anything. It is government that is restricting competition, by giving the local cable franchise to one company, and prohibiting any oher company from entering the market.

Historically, I don't believe that anyone has ever had a monopoly, at least, not for mroe than a few days, without 'the government' helping them get it. Without government intervention ('granting' franchises; setting up artificial barriers to entry, such as licensing requirements that go well beyond any legitimate consumer protection matters; etc.), the market will not permit a monopoly: if Joe Blow were to acquire one, somehow, someone else would move in, simply because there would be money to be made, and Joe Blow's monopoly would vanish.

The cable companies are restricting competition by blocking or slowing down things that compete with them. That's what the case was about. Now they may feel they can do things like blocking Skype or Vonage.

The rationale used to have local governments grant exclusive franchises is that they didn't want everyone digging up their streets to install cables.

[Bob78164]

Without government intervention ('granting' franchises; setting up artificial barriers to entry, such as licensing requirements that go well beyond any legitimate consumer protection matters; etc.), the market will not permit a monopoly: if Joe Blow were to acquire one, somehow, someone else would move in, simply because there would be money to be made, and Joe Blow's monopoly would vanish.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. There are certainly some fields in which barriers to entry (often, but not always, economic) are sufficiently high that a monopoly, once acquired, becomes extremely difficult to break. --Bob

[Thousandaire]

Actually the problem was caused by the federal government not regulating cable companies in the first place. Exclusive franchises were granted by local governments to the first cable companies. Due to acquisitions over the years we've wound up with the cable companies we now have. The cable companies are now effectively monopolies, despite the phone companies -- AT&T and Verizon -- getting into the "cable" act.

I don't see a problem with the federal government stopping the cable companies from restricting competition.

The cable companies are no longer calling the shots. There are alternative ways to connect to the internet (satellite, cell phone networks). In fact the cable companies will probably be out of the ISP business (via their cables) soon.

[earendel]

Actually the problem was caused by the federal government not regulating cable companies in the first place. Exclusive franchises were granted by local governments to the first cable companies. Due to acquisitions over the years we've wound up with the cable companies we now have. The cable companies are now effectively monopolies, despite the phone companies -- AT&T and Verizon -- getting into the "cable" act.

I don't see a problem with the federal government stopping the cable companies from restricting competition.

The cable companies are no longer calling the shots. There are alternative ways to connect to the internet (satellite, cell phone networks). In fact the cable companies will probably be out of the ISP business (via their cables) soon.

I doubt it - the speed and reliability of cable puts it ahead of either of the other alternatives.

[TheConfessor]

But it is not the cable companies who are restricting competition-- they can't restrict anything. It is government that is restricting competition, by giving the local cable franchise to one company, and prohibiting any oher company from entering the market.

You seem to be referring to federal and municipal regulations as the same "government." On a national basis, this growing cable company may provide a good alternative:
http://www.kabletown.com/

[Bob Juch]

Then there's the National Broadband Plan:

http://www.broadband.gov/issues/economi ... unity.html

[Bob78164]

Good! Keep the net free of gov't interference.

That only works when customers have a realistic choice to make among Internet providers. I know that I don't -- if I want cable access at home, I have to go through Time Warner, because that's the only cable in town. Otherwise I have to settle for much slower access. (I suppose I could pay to set up a dedicated line, but that's economically impractical.)

In my view, Internet access providers have the monopoly power of utilities, and should be regulated for the same reasons. In this case, I think net neutrality is a good idea and I hope Congress acts. --Bob

But.... the only reason that cable company X has a monopoly is because the local government 'gave' it to them? Is there really any reason why we could not have competing cable providers, as we have competing telephone providers?

It seems to me that 'some people' are advocating that the government get involved (with this 'net neutrality' business) in order to cure a problem that the government created. Get the government out of cable entirely, and maybe you would not need to worry about 'net neutrality'?

Apparently, until the Bush Administration, the FCC treated Internet access services as common carriers and regulated them accordingly. Just as bus companies or phone companies, say, need to take all comers, so too did Internet access providers. Then the Bush Administration tried deregulation, and suddenly they wanted to start charging more to disfavored Web sites.

In the article I've linked above, Professor Crawford advocates redesignating Internet access providers as telecommunications services. That makes sense to me. --Bob