Neat Net Neutrality News

[Syt]

Everyone should watch that show.

[The Brain]

There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad."

I remember when every TV news story about a small Swedish town featured the Twin Peaks music. No matter how inappropriate.

[Grey Fox]

The FCC is about the save the internet once again. Will this 3rd time be the last time?

[Siege]

I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.

[Grey Fox]

That's always the threat. I say it's bullshit but I am willing to take the chance.

[11B4V]

There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad."

Should I watch that show?

BB is an awesome show.

[DontSayBanana]

I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.

Because it might cut their profit margin from 97% (real number, calculated, based on public P&L statement) to something like maybe 93% (number pulled from my ass).

It's not exactly asking ISPs to bend over and take it.

[Admiral Yi]

I am skeptical of that profit margin number.

[grumbler]

My main objection is to increasing regulations to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  One can argue that the problem will inevitably arise if the regulations are not imposed, but then one has the burden to demonstrate that this is, indeed, true.  Regulations have costs (including unforeseen consequences) and should be avoided except where necessary.

[Valmy]

Anyway the FCC just voted for Net Neutrality.  So freedom!

[viper37]

I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.

We've heard that in Canada when we deregulated the long distance call market.  I'm still waiting for doomsday, it's been 25 years now, and I'm paying 3,5cents/min instead of 35cents/min.

[grumbler]

I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.

We've heard that in Canada when we deregulated the long distance call market.  I'm still waiting for doomsday, it's been 25 years now, and I'm paying 3,5cents/min instead of 35cents/min.

yeah.  That's why it is peculiar that people are calling for more regulation on the internet, when deregulation worked so well on the rest of telecoms.  Maybe they liked the regulated regime for non-cost reasons?

[Martinus]

Then again, there is also an argument that addressing a problem before it has a chance to become entrenched, distort the market and lead to serious consequences for its actors (both content providers and consumers) is better.

It's not like monopolisation patterns are something that cannot be predicted by the economic theory - they work pretty much the same way in every "access to network" monopoly/oligopoly.

[frunk]

If you take a longer view the paths of the internet and telephony are pretty similar.  When telephones were first created a mess of different systems were created, until gradually increasing popularity (and desire of easy interconnection) forced standardization and integration.    The phone system went further into over-regulation/monopoly problems.  The internet isn't even close to that situation yet, but then it is a hundred years younger.

[grumbler]

Then again, there is also an argument that addressing a problem before it has a chance to become entrenched, distort the market and lead to serious consequences for its actors (both content providers and consumers) is better.

Yes, that's the argument I mentioned in my post.

It's not like monopolisation patterns are something that cannot be predicted by the economic theory - they work pretty much the same way in every "access to network" monopoly/oligopoly.

That would be a valid point if we were seeing increasing monopolization versus decreasing.  There are more options for consumers now than ever before, and options will only increase as technology matures.  Regulating dinosaur speed is only going to make them less competitive with the mammals.

I guess my point is that regulation shouldn't be undertaken just because it can be.  Sure, it may be necessary, but the default assumption should be against government interference unless it can be shown to be necessary, rather than in favor of it unless it can be shown to be unnecessary.