I would think with your decades of relevant experience, you would understand that ISPs are not the Internet, Blake.
I never said they were however regulating ISPs is regulating the internet. If it isn't why do you think net neutrality would save the internet? After all, ISPs are not the internet...
But, as we note in our comment, over the past couple decades things have changed. We've seen less and less competition
You had it right the first time. I complained when Techdirt and the EFF both flipped positions for what seems like public pressure rather than on principle. You were once skeptical about bureaucrats dictating what is and isn't legal on the internet.
Competition has overall increased during this time (Google Fiber, FioS, AT&T Fiber and more have all expanded to areas introducing more competition), it's just very slow since everyone is focusing on net neutrality rather than putting the focus on the need to increase of competition. Net neutrality literally does absolutely nothing about competition.
History has shown that this type of legislation leads to regulatory capture that benefits the legacy companies strengthening their monopoly. It's government getting involved that got us into this, them getting involved more while not removing their previous involvement will lead to even less competition. Any new ISPs needs to follow the previous rules and also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition.
Here is a quote from the head of Google Fiber about net neutrality.
"No consumers are seeing higher speeds than before the order was passed; no consumers are paying less for their Internet services than what they were paying for; no consumers are seeing higher volume caps that they had before; and no consumers have additional choice of providers than they had before,"
The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society. I wouldn't in a million years think that most people online would be fighting for this terrible and corrupt organization to regulate the internet.
Now I will wait for the replies from armchair economists, IT professionals, and policy analysis telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about.
"Cable's growing monopoly over the last mile means less competition. Less competition means more attempts to creatively abuse this lack of competition, which is what net neutrality infractions are."
This is exactly my point, it's treating the symptoms of the monopoly but they still have a monopoly. The local governments still have special deals with the legacy ISPs and those will not change. Their powerful market position and connections in the FCC and with those in government writing the regulations will not change.
"Says who? I've written about this industry for 20 years and see nothing to support that. "
I can think of many examples. If a new ISP wants to offer some service to use AI to prioritize legitimate traffic over spam. If an ISP wants to frontload your web content for faster browsing on slow connections. Offering free or discount services is also perfectly legitimate and has happened in all sectors of tech for decades. Regulatory capture is real. If a law will hurt ISPs they have the connections to make sure it will hurt smaller ISPs that aren't as well connected or lack the funds to comply even more. It happens with nearly every regulation so how is Net Neutrality somehow the exception?
"The rules don't restrict upstart ISPs in the slightest."
You telling me upstart ISPs aren't bound by Net Neutrality rules? I've never seen such an exception for smaller or newer ISPs.
"And as we note about three times a week, the idea that Title II stifled investment is an unsupported canard."
Nice strawman, this was never part of my argument. I was talking about Net Neutrality and our current IPS monopolies and how it does nothing to address that very real issue.
I have a legitimate question. What does Net Neutrality have to do with the cable monopolies? Those are driven by local governments and deals between cable companies, none of this will change. It seems to be the case that Title II creates more monopolies by making it harder for new ISPs to compete with established ISPs who already have the market locked down. Since they all must offer the exact same service under Net Neutrality where is the competition besides speed/price? Legacy ISPs have already invested in infrastructure long before Net Neutrality so their monopolies are well established. New ISPs will not have this luxury and must develop their infrastructure under far more strict rules.
If people were able to go to the doctor across the street or down the hall and get a better price it would be closer to a free market. This doesn't happen due to more paper work than time with patients because of regulations and fear of litigation and the American Medical Association putting a limit on MDs that drastically lowers the number of doctors. There are also limits on competition across state lines, this is a direct block on free trade.
Over half of the healthcare industry is government funded and this gives an incentive for higher prices. The government has lots of money, people want healthcare, and politicians want to be the ones to give it to them at any cost. Notice how the exact same thing is happening with college prices as government pays more of the bills and gets more involved, this is no coincidence.
This doesn't happen with a reputable Vet or Dentist. I had a full jaw x-ray and was put under for oral surgery to have a deep wisdom tooth cut out and then needed stitches. I paid just over $1000 and this included many check-ups afterward, a plastic squirt tube and keep it clean, and a zip-lock bag full of gauze pads. This is still not a fully free market but it's much better because it doesn't have many of the same market manipulations.
It wasn't sent by Apple
The DMCA Notice was fake. It was sent by a troll and not Apple. This article needs to be updated.
Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Techdirt and the EFF were right before
You had it right the first time. I complained when Techdirt and the EFF both flipped positions for what seems like public pressure rather than on principle. You were once skeptical about bureaucrats dictating what is and isn't legal on the internet.
Competition has overall increased during this time (Google Fiber, FioS, AT&T Fiber and more have all expanded to areas introducing more competition), it's just very slow since everyone is focusing on net neutrality rather than putting the focus on the need to increase of competition. Net neutrality literally does absolutely nothing about competition.
History has shown that this type of legislation leads to regulatory capture that benefits the legacy companies strengthening their monopoly. It's government getting involved that got us into this, them getting involved more while not removing their previous involvement will lead to even less competition. Any new ISPs needs to follow the previous rules and also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition.
Here is a quote from the head of Google Fiber about net neutrality.
The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society. I wouldn't in a million years think that most people online would be fighting for this terrible and corrupt organization to regulate the internet.
Now I will wait for the replies from armchair economists, IT professionals, and policy analysis telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Re: Re: What monopolies?
"Cable's growing monopoly over the last mile means less competition. Less competition means more attempts to creatively abuse this lack of competition, which is what net neutrality infractions are."
This is exactly my point, it's treating the symptoms of the monopoly but they still have a monopoly. The local governments still have special deals with the legacy ISPs and those will not change. Their powerful market position and connections in the FCC and with those in government writing the regulations will not change.
"Says who? I've written about this industry for 20 years and see nothing to support that. "
I can think of many examples. If a new ISP wants to offer some service to use AI to prioritize legitimate traffic over spam. If an ISP wants to frontload your web content for faster browsing on slow connections. Offering free or discount services is also perfectly legitimate and has happened in all sectors of tech for decades. Regulatory capture is real. If a law will hurt ISPs they have the connections to make sure it will hurt smaller ISPs that aren't as well connected or lack the funds to comply even more. It happens with nearly every regulation so how is Net Neutrality somehow the exception?
"The rules don't restrict upstart ISPs in the slightest."
You telling me upstart ISPs aren't bound by Net Neutrality rules? I've never seen such an exception for smaller or newer ISPs.
"And as we note about three times a week, the idea that Title II stifled investment is an unsupported canard."
Nice strawman, this was never part of my argument. I was talking about Net Neutrality and our current IPS monopolies and how it does nothing to address that very real issue.
What monopolies?
I have a legitimate question. What does Net Neutrality have to do with the cable monopolies? Those are driven by local governments and deals between cable companies, none of this will change. It seems to be the case that Title II creates more monopolies by making it harder for new ISPs to compete with established ISPs who already have the market locked down. Since they all must offer the exact same service under Net Neutrality where is the competition besides speed/price? Legacy ISPs have already invested in infrastructure long before Net Neutrality so their monopolies are well established. New ISPs will not have this luxury and must develop their infrastructure under far more strict rules.
Re:
If by "free market" you mean a highly regulated market with government granted monopolies and subsidies.
Speaking for an article with a misleading title
There are more than two parties running for president.
Not only that, Clinton is Luddite. She has a fear of video games, Uber, and encryption and works to actively limit them.
It's mostly a non-free market
If people were able to go to the doctor across the street or down the hall and get a better price it would be closer to a free market. This doesn't happen due to more paper work than time with patients because of regulations and fear of litigation and the American Medical Association putting a limit on MDs that drastically lowers the number of doctors. There are also limits on competition across state lines, this is a direct block on free trade.
Over half of the healthcare industry is government funded and this gives an incentive for higher prices. The government has lots of money, people want healthcare, and politicians want to be the ones to give it to them at any cost. Notice how the exact same thing is happening with college prices as government pays more of the bills and gets more involved, this is no coincidence.
This doesn't happen with a reputable Vet or Dentist. I had a full jaw x-ray and was put under for oral surgery to have a deep wisdom tooth cut out and then needed stitches. I paid just over $1000 and this included many check-ups afterward, a plastic squirt tube and keep it clean, and a zip-lock bag full of gauze pads. This is still not a fully free market but it's much better because it doesn't have many of the same market manipulations.
Does the 0.000057% statistical chance of this measurement being wrong take into account a loose cable as well?