[AltoLXI]

Has this got to do with the Russian interference like in U.S. elections? This article mentions bots commented in favour of anti net-neutrality. Or is it just a excuse to put blame on another country?

The FCC received more than 22 million comments. An independent analysis has found most of these were against net neutrality and were submitted by fake accounts.

Also

An analysis of the millions of comments conducted by the data company Gravwell in October found that just 17.4 percent of the comments to the FCC on the net neutrality rules came from real people.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Has this got to do with the Russian interference like in U.S. elections? This article.. mentions bots commented in favour of anti net-neutrality. Or is it just a excuse to put blame on another country?
Also

I don't think that it was bots, they must have counted the prepared submissions like that link John Oliver shared on his show as bots.

Russian interference is a hysteria cooked up by sore hillary supporters, foreign money has played a role in US elections for a long time, only when Democrats lose, it's a problem.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

America prospered under a free market economy and we know what happened to USSR and Cuba. Even the democratic presidents shied away from the left, but the leftist Obama ruined the country for 8 years.

USSR/Cuba are victims of communism, not sure why they are dragged in here. As an history/economics buff, I am quite familiar with the economic history of USA. USA had unfettered free market for the first 150 years after independence. That led to creation of Robber Barons and ended with great depression. Then FDR's new deal in 1933 brought in strict regulations that paved the way for creation of middle class for the first time. Social security, free college, labour unions shifted the power/wealth from the rich class to middle class. Then Reagan administration started reversing this in the 80s, and same was continued by the following administrations, both democrats and republicans. As a result middle class is again becoming poor and soon will vanish.

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Has this got to do with the Russian interference like in U.S. elections? This article mentions bots commented in favour of anti net-neutrality. Or is it just a excuse to put blame on another country?

They are trying to muddle the issue by claiming foreign hand. Internet is now a public infrastructure like roads. Letting private companies decide who uses the road will be a disaster.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Then Reagan administration started reversing this in the 80s, and same was continued by the following administrations, both democrats and republicans. As a result middle class is again becoming poor and soon will vanish.

Give Reagan some credit. Regan's predecessor Jimmy Carter wrecked the US economy. Reagan trounced incumbent Carter in a landslide (489 - 49 electoral votes). It was under the Regan era that the American economy revived.

ps: Gone OT, so I stop here.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Give Reagan some credit. Regan's predecessor Jimmy Carter wrecked the US economy. Reagan trounced incumbent Carter in a landslide (489 - 49 electoral votes). It was under the Regan era that the American economy revived.

I guess there is no point in arguing with alternative facts.

Coming back to the topic, Ajit Pai was a lawyer for Verizon who want to squeeze more money from the Internet infrastructure. Now that their lawyer has become the FCC czar, they are getting their wish.

[DigitalOne]

The fundamental problem of the so-called "Net-neutrality" is that it is anti-choice and anti-freedom.

As per Net-neutrality advocates, if an ISP offers me a limited version of the internet, and I as a fully-aware, conscious, adult consumer want to take that choice (completely aware of what I am getting and not getting), the government should not allow it. This is what irks me. That a government dictates what agreements consumers and providers get into. This is between two private parties. As long it is not a illegal service/goods, the government should have no business in it (only collect necessary taxes on the transaction).

I am simply amazed that the same advocates who rightly claim that government should not involve into people's private lives (like in the issue of homosexuality, or inter-religion marriages) , advocate on "Net-neutrality". Internet access is a private contract between two parties.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

The fundamental problem of the so-called "Net-neutrality" is that it is anti-choice and anti-freedom.

As per Net-neutrality advocates, if an ISP offers me a limited version of the internet, and I as a fully-aware, conscious, adult consumer want to take that choice (completely aware of what I am getting and not getting), the government should not allow it. This is what irks me. That a government dictates what agreements consumers and providers get into. This is between two private parties. As long it is not a illegal service/goods, the government should have no business in it (only collect necessary taxes on the transaction).

I am simply amazed that the same advocates who rightly claim that government should not involve into people's private lives (like in the issue of homosexuality, or inter-religion marriages) , advocate on "Net-neutrality". Internet access is a private contract between two parties.

Internet access is not a completely private contract between two parties. From the satellite and associated bandwidth infrastructure to the air you transmit the waves is everybody's. Internet is everybody's and the access cannot be determined by anything other than a democracy. Anti Net neutrality is just like private roads where access to vehicles is determined by the maintainer's discretion, all the while building it on public land.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

The fundamental problem of the so-called "Net-neutrality" is that it is anti-choice and anti-freedom.

.. Internet access is a private contract between two parties.

The free market doesn't exist when you have one provider, so anti choice is doesn't apply. You have the freedom to get the most expensive plan, but the companies shouldn't have a right to discriminate what traffic they carry, it's a public utility not a private contract. The reason is that the government paid for the infrastructure, whatever
their former lawyer says.

Quite simply, it's the equivalent of the power company reducing the voltage because you didn't buy their preferred oven. Pai is a real slimy character, no wonder the carriers got him the job.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

I am simply amazed that the same advocates who rightly claim that government should not involve into people's private lives (like in the issue of homosexuality, or inter-religion marriages) , advocate on "Net-neutrality". Internet access is a private contract between two parties.

You are amazed because you haven't understood net-neutrality. This topic was discussed to death last year, so I don't want to repeat it.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Let's say a Real estate company develops a 10 acre land into a locality. They divide it into numerous sites, build roads to access every site, and they run water pipes and sewage pipes on every roads to provide for every site. Then the company sells the sites to the buyers. All good so far.

Now, who owns the roads? According to you RE company should own it. After all, they never sold the roads or the water/sewage pipes to anybody. After everybody built their homes and start living here, company may decide to impose tolls on the roads they own. They can impose extra frees to use the water/sewage pipes. Hey, they owns the roads and the pipes, so it is their wish. Why should the government interfere?

Thanks for the example. Just to extend this : suppose you are a new buyer into this private layout. The RE company says they give you the house free, but you are restricted to buy groceries and food from specified sellers only. Only those specified sellers can use the road to deliver food to you. You as an informed buyer still want to take the deal because you get a rent free house. Why should a government bother? Please remember that the land on which the roads are built is owned by the RE company. If you don't like the deal, you need not take it. That is the free choice.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

I am simply amazed that the same advocates who rightly claim that government should not involve into people's private lives (like in the issue of homosexuality, or inter-religion marriages) , advocate on "Net-neutrality". Internet access is a private contract between two parties.

Morality is negotiable based on whether you stand to benefit or not. So people who tend to support liberty when it benefits them, also abhors liberty when it benefits (only) others.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

suppose you are a new buyer into this private layout.

The problem with analogies is that we, at some level, are equating internet to real estate, which isn't right. Every commodity or service is unique in its own way which cannot be explained using an analogy. It is adequate to approach the issue on the basis of freedom, consent and contract. So your original argument was good enough, and hence need not fall into analogy trap.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

....If you don't like the deal, you need not take it......

Though it's difficult to draw a perfect apples to apples comparison between internet and groceries or anything else, that bit in quotes is the flaw in the argument.

You're assuming you'll always have choices and can take or leave whatever you want, but in reality, it has and will le(a)d to situations where you really have literally no choice except a take-it-or-leave-it one.

Captive markets exist in all sorts of domains (plenty of reading material available with a simple online search, ironically), and information cannot be one of them because it is the basis of rational decision making. In your example, you would be forced to consume whatever brand and quality of groceries get supplied to you at whatever price, because you signed away your right to use something else as long as you live in that house.

All information needs to be available to all users, and the free choice should rest with the end users what they do/don't want to consume (same as your argument). The filter of availability cannot, should not and must not rest with anyone else, esp. not with service providers.

Do you buy the best your money can buy? How do you make that informed decision? What if you were insulated from the information required to make those decisions because it's not in the best interests of those serving the captured market you're a part of? What happens when the only source of information you have access to is controlled by the same entity that doesn't want you to know/have any better?

I always find it amusing when people advocate for captive markets while making a free choice/market argument. A free choice with options limited by anything except by consumers' free will and capacity to pay, is not a free choice.

P.S. Another major bit of flawed argument (not necessarily yours) is the role of govt. in all this. Net neutrality is NOT about the govt. controlling anything. It's about making laws (yes the legislature is needed here, even that can be changed by amending the constitution which vests that authority) that stop anyone (including the govt. itself) from controlling access to information over the internet, whether by outright censure or by subtler methods.

P.P.S. Minimal, efficient government is a good idea, but zero regulation has hardly ever led to long-term consumer benefit. I'd be glad to see examples if you have any to quote.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

The problem with analogies is that we, at some level, are equating internet to real estate, which isn't right. Every commodity or service is unique in its own way which cannot be explained using an analogy. It is adequate to approach the issue on the basis of freedom, consent and contract. So your original argument was good enough, and hence need not fall into analogy trap.

True, I completely agree. Analogies are useful only to some extent. Just wanted to add a bit to the original post

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

you would be forced to consume whatever brand and quality of groceries get supplied to you at whatever price, because you signed away your right to use something else as long as you live in that house.

All information needs to be available to all users, and the free choice should rest with the end users what they do/don't want to consume (same as your argument). The filter of availability cannot, should not and must not rest with anyone else, esp. not with service providers.


P.S. Another major bit of flawed argument (not necessarily yours) is the role of govt. in all this. Net neutrality is NOT about the govt. controlling anything. It's about making laws (yes the legislature is needed here, even that can be changed by amending the constitution which vests that authority) that stop anyone (including the govt. itself) from controlling access to information over the internet, whether by outright censure or by subtler methods.

I agree. There is an information asymmetry that needs to be tackled. Else consumers would be taken for a ride. But that should be tackled by stringent disclosure norms. To take an example from a different context - Insurance agents used to sell ULIP plans in India, with whatever exaggerated return projections. IRDA put it's foot down and now return projections can only be 6% or 10%. They also put regulations in place to force companies to show the charges more transparently. That is disclosure and making the consumer aware. Of course, it is not perfect and more needs to be done.

There is definitely a role for the government - in making disclosure norms stricter, in making consumer/contract laws stricter and faster resolutions, and make the entire internet access (especially wired broadband) portable.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Quite simply, it's the equivalent of the power company reducing the voltage because you didn't buy their preferred oven.

What if the power company makes it clear *before* you sign a contract with them? Cheaper power if you buy preferred oven? Wouldn't I love that if my only use of power is the oven? The choice is of the consumer.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

What if the power company makes it clear *before* you sign a contract with them? Cheaper power if you buy preferred oven? Wouldn't I love that if my only use of power is the oven? The choice is of the consumer.

The choice is like saying "or else", the power company is in the business of supplying power, not what is done with it, baking or ironing. Before or after the deal doesn't matter, understand the concept of a utility first. The internet connection is treated like a utility which means you don't get to decide what goes on it, period. The consumer is already shafted without competition, the market obviously doesn't regulate itself, thats why the government which paid for the infra has every right to set the rules of the game, unfortunately it sold out to the industry, the fox guarding the henhouse, doesn't usually work.

The consumer has zero choice with 1 ISP

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The choice is like saying "or else", the power company is in the business of supplying power, not what is done with it, baking or ironing. Before or after the deal doesn't matter, understand the concept of a utility first.

The consumer has zero choice with 1 ISP

You are talking about 1 ISP because in India the power distribution is done by govt owned monopolies. Understand that for ISPs (or for power supply also) it need not be so. Please read my post carefully above. The govt has to set technical standards so that portability is possible. The government has just to ensure competition.