Why are we so eager to regulate the Internet?

[SEVERUSMAX]

You don't want to leave this to state or local governments. The industry is one where there are advantages to consumers that can be provided by big national or multi-national firms, like google, for example. You don't want to create a balkanized regulatory environment with a patchwork of conflicting or duplicative regulations. The Federalist Papers made the case for this perfectly and nothing has changed.

Plus, it's too easy to buy legislatures and local governments. An example is the cable industry, which is in bed with local governments because the locals get 5 percent of cable revenue as phony "franchise fees," ostensibly to cover the cost incurred by the cities from the cable companies running wires all over their towns. Everyone knows it's a sham and just a cash cow for the cities. It raises consumer cable bills and provides them no benefits. Yet now the locals are working overtime in state legislatures hand-n-glove with cable companies trying to stop the phone company from busting their monopoly. They're both cryng crocodile tears, claiming the phone company will "cherry pick" and leave low income neighborhoods behind. It's all bogus, and all about money. So no, you don't want to leave these things to the local or state level.

Valid arguments, actually. Enough to convince me of your point. I'm open-minded enough for that. However, there is still the matter of what to do with local monopolies.

 

[rgraham666]

And on the flip side, do we want businesses to regulate Net content? Which is what lack of Net neutrality will amount to.

Can you imagine any of your ISPs allowing something that criticizes them to be seen by you? What if what you regard as important news sources are something your ISP or telecommunications company is relegated to 'I'll get around to it, eventually' status?

And Roxanne, please stop jumping to conclusions. I've been reading about this for a couple of months now. Even started a thread. Please don't assume difference of opinion is the same as ignorance.

 

[neonlyte]

The following is from an editorial that I thought raised some good points about the "Net Neutrality" debate. I'm no expert so I can’t debate the specifics, but I do have a general warning, a prediction, and a recommendation:

Warning: Beware billion-dollar companies that affect to support "populist" policy preferences. That is, don't trust them for a heartbeat.

Prediction: Given what this piece says about the likely litigation environment under "net neutrality" regulations, should they become law the event will be remembered in the future as the moment when the explosive-growth phase of the Internet ended and was replaced by much more modest expansion. Related to this, it will be the beginning of the end for small ISPs, because only giants will be able to absorb the litigation expense and risk.

Recommendation: Things are very fluid in the information transmission business right now. Big phone and cable companies are butting heads, data-through power lines may be near, Wi-Max may be coming, and who knows what else. This is no time to cool things down with a raft of new federal regulations, and a potential lawyers' feeding frenzy. Better to let it all shake out for a few years, see where we're at, and if needed, with as light a touch as possible, make changes to correct real abuses, not imagined or "potential" ones.

I tried to steer clear of this.

The reason NN is up for grabs is very simple. VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) is gaining ground rapidly. Telecoms companies, who largely control www routing to the end user are losing telecoms business and project losing huge tranches of business in medium term future.

Controlling 'feed' ie: streaming to end users gives them the opportunity to re-capture market. Likely it will only be VoIP users who will be charged the extra. To give you an example, i can spend a couple of hours a day talking VoIP with the SO - cost is effectively free as I pay a flat band fee for ADSL, Same cost using Telecom lines would be circa 400 Euros per month. Most of the time VoIP is clearer than the phone.

The NN regulations if enacted would give the ability to stream other content, eg. porn which most governments would love to find a way to tax.

Data over powerlines is not new, dates back to the early 1970's, the problem is control. Powerlines supply consumer grids, essentially everyone on the same grid shares the same data. When they crack the logistics, bang goes the telecoms industry to a degree. The reason powerline data transmission is not widespread is, for it to work, it essentially needs to use the same patented systems employed by telecoms companies and web hubs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And on the flip side, do we want businesses to regulate Net content? Which is what lack of Net neutrality will amount to.

Can you imagine any of your ISPs allowing something that criticizes them to be seen by you? What if what you regard as important news sources are something your ISP or telecommunications company is relegated to 'I'll get around to it, eventually' status?

And Roxanne, please stop jumping to conclusions. I've been reading about this for a couple of months now. Even started a thread. Please don't assume difference of opinion is the same as ignorance.

I will if you address the concerns raised in the original post, which are the hugely detrimental unintended consequences of this particular regulation. Don't just say "regulation is better than evil X" without balancing that against the "evil Y" that comes with this particular form of regulation. I have offered an alternative - anti-trust laws - that addresses your concern about "evil X" and does not create "evil Y." I have explained how it is certain that there are or soon will be two independent platforms providing broadband, and possibly four, and how this environment lends itself to antitrust law as an effective tool to prevent the potential evil you fear. There has been no plausible argument presented showing why the competing platform market environment I describe is not likely. Vague suspicions that the players will try to combine somehow prevent competition are not plausible arguments, and in any event that is the purpose of anti-trust laws, to stop that.

In short, no case has been made for an intrusive new regulatory regime that creates very detrimental unintended consequences and accomplishes nothing that the existing tools cannot do, and do without the unintended consuences.

I apologize for my heat. It's 'bizness, not personal.'