Tea Party Opposes Net Neutrality

Originally posted by sh76
Your Dunkirk example was better. WWII was kind of all about Stalingrad, in some sense. But I digress... 😛

Complete net neutrality is overbroad because it allows the type of federal interference that gave rise to the Comcast case. There are other issues involved in the debate, of course; but the Comcast case suffices to illustrate why net neutrality rules, as currently crafted, are overbroad.

I think Stalingrad was better because it was more critical than Dunkirk. I do hope you are right that this comcast case is more of a dunkirk though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So you would have no problem with comcast shutting down consumerist.com because they routinely criticize comcast's customer service? That isn't political at all.

That is political speech. I'm using "political speech" as a term of art as it's used in First Amendment cases.

By "political speech" I mean speech that is meant to express an idea to the public, as opposed to simply making money.

If an ISP's regulation is viewpoint based, I have no problem regulating it. If an ISP's regulation is based on its notion of the propriety of dividing its own bandwidth among its customers fairly, it should have to right to do as it pleases.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's difficult to enforce such a rule, and what exactly constitutes "political content" is not always clear. It's much easier to simply force ISPs to provide the bandwidth they are selling to their customers.

It's difficult to enforce any rule. The ISP could be asked to justify a particular discrimination to a regulatory panel, like a government rule that infringes on speech. Whatever. I'm sure something could be worked out.

That something is "easier" doesn't make it right. It's easier to ban the automobile than to enforce traffic regulations.

As for what the ISPs "sell," they don't sell unlimited bandwidth. In fact, most ISPs will give you different speeds and different bandwidth allocations based on what you pay for. If I'm not getting what I pay for, my remedy is a civil lawsuit, not a blanket federal regulation.

Originally posted by sh76
It's difficult to enforce any rule. The ISP could be asked to justify a particular discrimination to a regulatory panel, like a government rule that infringes on speech. Whatever. I'm sure something could be worked out.

That something is "easier" doesn't make it right. It's easier to ban the automobile than to enforce traffic regulations.

As for what the ...[text shortened]... etting what I pay for, my remedy is a civil lawsuit, not a blanket federal regulation.

It's much more effective to have a rule in place rather than force people to file lawsuits they cannot pay for and might not win since companies can hire good lawyers. If an ISP cannot provide the bandwidth it promises to all customers because some of the customers use almost all their bandwidth, the problem is the ISP promises more bandwidth than it can provide and is thus defrauding its customers. Forcing ISPs to provide the promised bandwidth for at least, say, 95% of the time, will force ISPs to be transparant about what they can provide to customers. This will improve competition between ISPs, thus leading to lower costs and improved services.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's much more effective to have a rule in place rather than force people to file lawsuits they cannot pay for and might not win since companies can hire good lawyers. If an ISP cannot provide the bandwidth it promises to all customers because some of the customers use almost all their bandwidth, the problem is the ISP promises more bandwidth than it ca ...[text shortened]... This will improve competition between ISPs, thus leading to lower costs and improved services.

If a company consistently violates its agreements with its customers, sooner or later, someone will put together a class action lawsuit against it. If anything, the US civil system is too friendly to plaintiffs, not the other way around.

You can work on transparency regulations, truth in advertising regulations, etc. That's all fine. None of it makes enforcing complete net neutrality necessary or a good idea.

Originally posted by sh76
If a company consistently violates its agreements with its customers, sooner or later, someone will put together a class action lawsuit against it. If anything, the US civil system is too friendly to plaintiffs, not the other way around.

You can work on transparency regulations, truth in advertising regulations, etc. That's all fine. None of it makes enforcing complete net neutrality necessary or a good idea.

Such a lawsuit will do little if providing the promised bandwidth isn't mandatory by law.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Such a lawsuit will do little if providing the promised bandwidth isn't mandatory by law.

It would be a breach of contract lawsuit if they're violating their agreements with the consumers. Not every duty comes from the law. Most come from agreements we make amongst ourselves.

Originally posted by sh76
It would be a breach of contract lawsuit if they're violating their agreements with the consumers. Not every duty comes from the law. Most come from agreements we make amongst ourselves.

And I'm sure the agreements state that ISPs have quite a bit of freedom when it comes to delivering the promised bandwidth.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And I'm sure the agreements state that ISPs have quite a bit of freedom when it comes to delivering the promised bandwidth.

Then the consumer goes into the contract with his eyes open. There's plenty of competition, at least where I live. Whether your movie takes 18 minutes or 24 minutes to download is something we can let the free market handle. The government doesn't have to run everything about everything.

Originally posted by sh76
Then the consumer goes into the contract with his eyes open. There's plenty of competition, at least where I live. Whether your movie takes 18 minutes or 24 minutes to download is something we can let the free market handle. The government doesn't have to run everything about everything.

What is the purpose of allowing ISPs to mislead their customers when such misleading can be easily avoided? Most people are morons who are easily tricked; when there is no reason to allow companies to exploit this, we shouldn't. Not everyone reads the small print.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What is the purpose of allowing ISPs to mislead their customers when such misleading can be easily avoided? Most people are morons who are easily tricked; when there is no reason to allow companies to exploit this, we shouldn't. Not everyone reads the small print.

How, exactly, are the customers being mislead if the ISP acts in accordance with the agreement?

Make them disclose the conditions in big print. Fine. All that is minutiae. The point is that forcing net neutrality down the throats of the ISPs is not necessary.

Originally posted by sh76
How, exactly, are the customers being mislead if the ISP acts in accordance with the agreement?

Make them disclose the conditions in big print. Fine. All that is minutiae. The point is that forcing net neutrality down the throats of the ISPs is not necessary.

Allowing ISPs to violate net neutrality is not "necessary", either.

The "free market" works best when the best way to make money is to provide quality products at a reasonable price, not when corporations are allowed to exploit the stupidity or laziness of the average Joe to provide inferior products at a higher price.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Allowing ISPs to violate net neutrality is not "necessary", either.

The "free market" works best when the best way to make money is to provide quality products at a reasonable price, not when corporations are allowed to exploit the stupidity or laziness of the average Joe to provide inferior products at a higher price.

You vastly underrate the savviness of the consumer.

Where I live, the 2 biggest ISPs (Optimum and Verizon FIOS) fall all over each other to produce better service at better prices than the other, because they've been killing each other with competition. I get phone, HDTV (with hundreds of channels) and blazing internet (20-25 mbps down and about 5 mbps up) all for under $120/mo (including taxes, fees, etc.) not because of government interference, but because of good ol' fashioned free market capitalism.

You can keep the bureaucracy. I'll take the free market.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
["History shows us again and again that whenever the power to decide "what is fair" is given to Government officials and/or appointed bureaucrats, there is far more propensity and opportunity for abuse of this power.

You mean like paying "your fair share" of the tax burden?

Originally posted by sh76
You vastly underrate the savviness of the consumer.

Where I live, the 2 biggest ISPs (Optimum and Verizon FIOS) fall all over each other to produce better service at better prices than the other, because they've been killing each other with competition. I get phone, HDTV (with hundreds of channels) and blazing internet (20-25 mbps down and about 5 mbps up) a ...[text shortened]... fashioned free market capitalism.

You can keep the bureaucracy. I'll take the free market.

Exactly how much "bureaucracy" does forcing ISPs to offer what they are selling cause? All it takes is a handful of people around the country who test the bandwidth and see if ISPs meet their promises. In return the market will be more transparent, which will reduce costs and improve services. By the way, "free market capitalism" implies government interference.

A couple of years back I had an optic fibre connection, with phone and TV (about 50 channels) included. 40 mbps down and up. $65/mo. I guess these connection are a bit faster now. In Finland I had 80 mbps up and down (also optic fibre), though it was included in the rent so I don't know how expensive it was. Right now I'm on a 10/3 mbps connection, $13/mo.