Slippery slope arguments are almost never persuasive.
Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship. The world doesn't exist on a 1-dimensional plane between zero FCC power and ultimate FCC power. There's other stuff going on.
What else is going on? Currently there are lots of entrenched lobbyists who influence FCC policy. This is why things like nipple slips or use of the word "ass" on prime time TV are a big deal.
Do you think those lobbyists wouldn't immediately start lobbying for internet "decency" regulations the minute the FCC gained additional power to regulate the internet?
Such restrictions will start in obvious ways on largely uncontroversial subjects -- perhaps a law that appears at first to target only pedophiles or hard core pornography viewing by minors -- then more and more ambiguity creeps in until you have horrible censorship going on.
Have you read quotes by recent FCC chairmen? They generally consider themselves to be stewards of good taste. This is scary stuff.
Although the entire premise is a little absurd (either A or B), I'd much rather have the FCC making stupid decisions than a private company (Comcast/Time Warner) block chunks of the internet that are not in their best interest to show. Public entities have at least some measure of accountability (yes, I know about corruption and influence and lobbying) -- but companies have absolutely no accountability until they start to flagrantly violate the law (which again, they often influence a great deal in any case).
If we had a real market in the US for choosing different service providers, the equation would change quite a bit, but right now with effectively monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) in the majority of regions in the US, losing Net Neutrality is a very frightening prospect.
Grandolf, assuming the FCC doesn't fall down that slope, do you support forced net neutrality?
Remember in the case that censorship does become an issue you can fight that, but there's nothing about net neutrality that gives the FCC that power. I want net neutrality and I'll be quite specific about what the FCC can do about that. Plus if the FCC is already headed towards the censorship department, blocking net neutrality isn't going to stop that.
We have net neutrality today in fact, just not in law.
This battle is about big firms duking it out in the court of public opinion by using FUD about a non-free internet.
Business is important too, and if someone can start a business delivering 100MB fiber to my door for $20 per month but Bing handles all search traffic... so be it. I might very possibly want to buy that service.
Without the freedom to have firms make such deals and offer such services, we're giving up a lot of potential innovation (in services and in pricing bundles).
I don't think there is anything inherently bad about the sorts of contractual restrictions that may arise on the internet vs the rest of the universe.
Good point. But also consider the same thing can happen on the other extreme.
For example say that internet service provider gains a monopoly through its cheap service. Now it can unfairly suppress new search engines by only allowing Bing.
The thing about the net neutrality law would be that it is equally applied across the board. As long as it doesn't unfairly benefit a specific group, it's fair. And it benefits people in general because it prevents companies from leveraging power from short term tactics which have long term negative repercussions on society.
"Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship."
Exactly.
It's similar to how the government now has the power to enforce the First Amendment. While one can argue with how well they do that, I don't think anyone wants that power removed.
to nitpick: the government doesn't 'enforce' the first amendment. The first amendment prohibits congress from creating laws which would abridge the free speech rights of the people (which they possess inherently, independent of government)
Comments
Slippery slope arguments are almost never persuasive.
Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship. The world doesn't exist on a 1-dimensional plane between zero FCC power and ultimate FCC power. There's other stuff going on.
What else is going on? Currently there are lots of entrenched lobbyists who influence FCC policy. This is why things like nipple slips or use of the word "ass" on prime time TV are a big deal.
Do you think those lobbyists wouldn't immediately start lobbying for internet "decency" regulations the minute the FCC gained additional power to regulate the internet?
Such restrictions will start in obvious ways on largely uncontroversial subjects -- perhaps a law that appears at first to target only pedophiles or hard core pornography viewing by minors -- then more and more ambiguity creeps in until you have horrible censorship going on.
Have you read quotes by recent FCC chairmen? They generally consider themselves to be stewards of good taste. This is scary stuff.
Although the entire premise is a little absurd (either A or B), I'd much rather have the FCC making stupid decisions than a private company (Comcast/Time Warner) block chunks of the internet that are not in their best interest to show. Public entities have at least some measure of accountability (yes, I know about corruption and influence and lobbying) -- but companies have absolutely no accountability until they start to flagrantly violate the law (which again, they often influence a great deal in any case).
If we had a real market in the US for choosing different service providers, the equation would change quite a bit, but right now with effectively monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) in the majority of regions in the US, losing Net Neutrality is a very frightening prospect.
Grandolf, assuming the FCC doesn't fall down that slope, do you support forced net neutrality?
Remember in the case that censorship does become an issue you can fight that, but there's nothing about net neutrality that gives the FCC that power. I want net neutrality and I'll be quite specific about what the FCC can do about that. Plus if the FCC is already headed towards the censorship department, blocking net neutrality isn't going to stop that.
We have net neutrality today in fact, just not in law.
This battle is about big firms duking it out in the court of public opinion by using FUD about a non-free internet.
Business is important too, and if someone can start a business delivering 100MB fiber to my door for $20 per month but Bing handles all search traffic... so be it. I might very possibly want to buy that service.
Without the freedom to have firms make such deals and offer such services, we're giving up a lot of potential innovation (in services and in pricing bundles).
I don't think there is anything inherently bad about the sorts of contractual restrictions that may arise on the internet vs the rest of the universe.
Good point. But also consider the same thing can happen on the other extreme.
For example say that internet service provider gains a monopoly through its cheap service. Now it can unfairly suppress new search engines by only allowing Bing.
The thing about the net neutrality law would be that it is equally applied across the board. As long as it doesn't unfairly benefit a specific group, it's fair. And it benefits people in general because it prevents companies from leveraging power from short term tactics which have long term negative repercussions on society.
"Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship."
Exactly.
It's similar to how the government now has the power to enforce the First Amendment. While one can argue with how well they do that, I don't think anyone wants that power removed.
to nitpick: the government doesn't 'enforce' the first amendment. The first amendment prohibits congress from creating laws which would abridge the free speech rights of the people (which they possess inherently, independent of government)