Comments on: Net Neutrality is About Corporate Interests, Spokesmodel Sez http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 22:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Harper: Confirmed Correct by Jon Stewart — Technology Liberation Front http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63205 Harper: Confirmed Correct by Jon Stewart — Technology Liberation Front Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:40:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63205 <p>[...] was the beginning of a segment I appeared in on Fox! See it, the first of the two clips, here. (”Well, Senator John McCain wants the government to keep its hands off the [...]</p> [...] was the beginning of a segment I appeared in on Fox! See it, the first of the two clips, here. (”Well, Senator John McCain wants the government to keep its hands off the [...]

]]> By: Jim_Lakely http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-65014 Jim_Lakely Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:34:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-65014 <p>zeroshade,<br><br>I've long asked those who want the government to impose blanket net neutrality principles by force of law to answer this simple question: Where is the demonstrable harm to consumers that justifies such broad government regulation? I've yet to hear a compelling answer, and yours is also lame.<br><br>Comcast was "CAUGHT censoring traffic"? You might want to try using more precise language. Comcast censored nothing, but slowed down a tiny, tiny percentage of bitTorrent users who were hogging bandwidth and threatening the quality of service of the vast, vast majority of Comcast's customers. That's not "censoring." That's managing a privately owned network. Even Genachowski doesn't think that should be disallowed, if his "reasonable management practices" statement is legit. And that's the trouble here.<br><br>The definition of "reasonable" will be a nebulous thing continually redefined by the FCC on a "case-by-=case basis," in Genachowski's words. In essence, the FCC is poised to regulate the Internet not on any reliable standard by which the industry can predict, but the way the Supreme Court famously defined pornography: "We'll know it when we see it." If you think the kind of investment and business planning that has created the wonders on the Internet we all now take for granted will continue at the same pace under such a regime, you are quite naive.<br><br>Jim Harper did a great job in the limited time he has to talk about this issue in just a few minutes of air time. This is not about empowering people, but empowering government — and then letting the lobbyists for the big companies spend gobs of money (that should go to innovation) trying to continually rig the game in their favor. It's better to simply let the markets work, especially since the justification for additional regulation is placed on such a thin reed. Internet companies should be more concerned about pleasing their customers, and attracting more, than gaining the favor of bureaucrats.</p> zeroshade,

I've long asked those who want the government to impose blanket net neutrality principles by force of law to answer this simple question: Where is the demonstrable harm to consumers that justifies such broad government regulation? I've yet to hear a compelling answer, and yours is also lame.

Comcast was “CAUGHT censoring traffic”? You might want to try using more precise language. Comcast censored nothing, but slowed down a tiny, tiny percentage of bitTorrent users who were hogging bandwidth and threatening the quality of service of the vast, vast majority of Comcast's customers. That's not “censoring.” That's managing a privately owned network. Even Genachowski doesn't think that should be disallowed, if his “reasonable management practices” statement is legit. And that's the trouble here.

The definition of “reasonable” will be a nebulous thing continually redefined by the FCC on a “case-by-=case basis,” in Genachowski's words. In essence, the FCC is poised to regulate the Internet not on any reliable standard by which the industry can predict, but the way the Supreme Court famously defined pornography: “We'll know it when we see it.” If you think the kind of investment and business planning that has created the wonders on the Internet we all now take for granted will continue at the same pace under such a regime, you are quite naive.

Jim Harper did a great job in the limited time he has to talk about this issue in just a few minutes of air time. This is not about empowering people, but empowering government — and then letting the lobbyists for the big companies spend gobs of money (that should go to innovation) trying to continually rig the game in their favor. It's better to simply let the markets work, especially since the justification for additional regulation is placed on such a thin reed. Internet companies should be more concerned about pleasing their customers, and attracting more, than gaining the favor of bureaucrats.

]]> By: Jim_Lakely http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63183 Jim_Lakely Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:34:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63183 <p>zeroshade,<br><br>I've long asked those who want the government to impose blanket net neutrality principles by force of law to answer this simple question: Where is the demonstrable harm to consumers that justifies such broad government regulation? I've yet to hear a compelling answer, and yours is also lame.<br><br>Comcast was "CAUGHT censoring traffic"? You might want to try using more precise language. Comcast censored nothing, but slowed down a tiny, tiny percentage of bitTorrent users who were hogging bandwidth and threatening the quality of service of the vast, vast majority of Comcast's customers. That's not "censoring." That's managing a privately owned network. Even Genachowski doesn't think that should be disallowed, if his "reasonable management practices" statement is legit. And that's the trouble here.<br><br>The definition of "reasonable" will be a nebulous thing continually redefined by the FCC on a "case-by-=case basis," in Genachowski's words. In essence, the FCC is poised to regulate the Internet not on any reliable standard by which the industry can predict, but the way the Supreme Court famously defined pornography: "We'll know it when we see it." If you think the kind of investment and business planning that has created the wonders on the Internet we all now take for granted will continue at the same pace under such a regime, you are quite naive.<br><br>Jim Harper did a great job in the limited time he has to talk about this issue in just a few minutes of air time. This is not about empowering people, but empowering government — and then letting the lobbyists for the big companies spend gobs of money (that should go to innovation) trying to continually rig the game in their favor. It's better to simply let the markets work, especially since the justification for additional regulation is placed on such a thin reed. Internet companies should be more concerned about pleasing their customers, and attracting more, than gaining the favor of bureaucrats.</p> zeroshade,

I've long asked those who want the government to impose blanket net neutrality principles by force of law to answer this simple question: Where is the demonstrable harm to consumers that justifies such broad government regulation? I've yet to hear a compelling answer, and yours is also lame.

Comcast was “CAUGHT censoring traffic”? You might want to try using more precise language. Comcast censored nothing, but slowed down a tiny, tiny percentage of bitTorrent users who were hogging bandwidth and threatening the quality of service of the vast, vast majority of Comcast's customers. That's not “censoring.” That's managing a privately owned network. Even Genachowski doesn't think that should be disallowed, if his “reasonable management practices” statement is legit. And that's the trouble here.

The definition of “reasonable” will be a nebulous thing continually redefined by the FCC on a “case-by-=case basis,” in Genachowski's words. In essence, the FCC is poised to regulate the Internet not on any reliable standard by which the industry can predict, but the way the Supreme Court famously defined pornography: “We'll know it when we see it.” If you think the kind of investment and business planning that has created the wonders on the Internet we all now take for granted will continue at the same pace under such a regime, you are quite naive.

Jim Harper did a great job in the limited time he has to talk about this issue in just a few minutes of air time. This is not about empowering people, but empowering government — and then letting the lobbyists for the big companies spend gobs of money (that should go to innovation) trying to continually rig the game in their favor. It's better to simply let the markets work, especially since the justification for additional regulation is placed on such a thin reed. Internet companies should be more concerned about pleasing their customers, and attracting more, than gaining the favor of bureaucrats.

]]> By: Net Neutrality: Battle of the Corporate Titans « Daniel Joseph Smith http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63177 Net Neutrality: Battle of the Corporate Titans « Daniel Joseph Smith Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:41:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63177 <p>[...] Cato’s Jim Harper says: [...]</p> [...] Cato’s Jim Harper says: [...]

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63174 Jim Harper Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:20:47 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63174 <p>@zeroshade I appreciate the comment, but I disagree with your take.</p> <p>What actually happened in the Comcast Kerfuffle is well documented many places, including on this blog. It is true that Comcast ham-handedly degraded BitTorrrent for a period of time---something my colleagues and I here criticized, from which you can infer that we don't treat it as hypothetical---but it's also true that consumer outrage stopped them and brought them to a compromise with BitTorrent about how to handle BT traffic on cable infrastructure <em>before</em> the FCC got involved.</p> <p>Your stated preference is for government to protect consumers, which is wonderful in theory. But the actual result would be for government to supplant consumers. I'm more leery of government control of communications infrastructure than corporate control because there is a big difference between ownership and control on networks, a point of Tim Lee's paper, which I'll recommend again that you read.</p> <p>When you address the points in it, points I've made in this post, or points I've made elsewhere, I'll be less inclined to turn the advice about "doing your research" back on you.</p> @zeroshade I appreciate the comment, but I disagree with your take.

What actually happened in the Comcast Kerfuffle is well documented many places, including on this blog. It is true that Comcast ham-handedly degraded BitTorrrent for a period of time—something my colleagues and I here criticized, from which you can infer that we don’t treat it as hypothetical—but it’s also true that consumer outrage stopped them and brought them to a compromise with BitTorrent about how to handle BT traffic on cable infrastructure before the FCC got involved.

Your stated preference is for government to protect consumers, which is wonderful in theory. But the actual result would be for government to supplant consumers. I’m more leery of government control of communications infrastructure than corporate control because there is a big difference between ownership and control on networks, a point of Tim Lee’s paper, which I’ll recommend again that you read.

When you address the points in it, points I’ve made in this post, or points I’ve made elsewhere, I’ll be less inclined to turn the advice about “doing your research” back on you.

]]> By: zeroshade http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63167 zeroshade Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:40:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63167 <p>All this article does is prove that people don't actually understand what Net Neutrality is and as a result spread false information inciting fear. <br><br>Net Neutrality would PREVENT the ISP's from giving preferential treatment based on content. It will give MORE power to the consumers because the big telecom companies would not be able to decide for the consumers what content is allowed on their networks. It keeps the Internet open and ensures the ability to continue to grow. <br><br>As for those against it who insist that this is all hypothetical situations used to manipulate people into believing Net Neutrality, an example can be made of Comcast who was CAUGHT censoring traffic. They chose which applications went through the network faster than others. So that is proof right there that this isn't "fixing a non-existent problem" the problem has been brewing and only now is finally showing it's head that it definitely is happening. How can anyone be against prohibiting the companies from locking down the internet for us? Don't be against Net Neutrality simply because it's "government regulation" actually do your research and see what it is about. Make your own decision. Do you want your ISP to decide what you can see and do on the internet? or do you like being able to choose for yourself?</p> All this article does is prove that people don't actually understand what Net Neutrality is and as a result spread false information inciting fear.

Net Neutrality would PREVENT the ISP's from giving preferential treatment based on content. It will give MORE power to the consumers because the big telecom companies would not be able to decide for the consumers what content is allowed on their networks. It keeps the Internet open and ensures the ability to continue to grow.

As for those against it who insist that this is all hypothetical situations used to manipulate people into believing Net Neutrality, an example can be made of Comcast who was CAUGHT censoring traffic. They chose which applications went through the network faster than others. So that is proof right there that this isn't “fixing a non-existent problem” the problem has been brewing and only now is finally showing it's head that it definitely is happening. How can anyone be against prohibiting the companies from locking down the internet for us? Don't be against Net Neutrality simply because it's “government regulation” actually do your research and see what it is about. Make your own decision. Do you want your ISP to decide what you can see and do on the internet? or do you like being able to choose for yourself?

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63165 Tim Lee Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:30:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63165 <p>Go Jim Harper from Cato University!</p> Go Jim Harper from Cato University!

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-is-about-corporate-interests-sez-spokesmodel/comment-page-1/#comment-63161 Adam Thierer Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:40:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22949#comment-63161 <p>You are a media superstar! An Oprah appearance can't be far behind.</p> You are a media superstar! An Oprah appearance can't be far behind.

]]>