Tea Party Opposes Net Neutrality

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's good to know you know what I think.

If you think the government ought to allow corporation to freely deceive, misinform and mislead consumers then you are clearly an opponent of capitalism. The free market depends on transparency and easily accessible information to efficiently function. If consumers have to wade through 50 pages of small print ...[text shortened]... buying, competition is severely distorted and the free market will not function optimally.

Which is all a far cry from saying that "most people are morons."

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Which is all a far cry from saying that "most people are morons."

I'm sorry if my hyperbole offended you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sorry if my hyperbole offended you.

Offend? Not quite.

Don't be discouraged. Perhaps I've just come to believe that your hyperbole is just your true colors.

Shining through...

YouTube

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Offend? Not quite.

Don't be discouraged. Perhaps I've just come to believe that your hyperbole is just your true colors.

Shining through...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8

Well, I think I am smarter than most people. Don't you?

By the way, I cannot watch your video in this country.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By the way, I cannot watch your video in this country.

That's probably for the best. It might not be good for you.

Originally posted by sh76
It's difficult to enforce any rule. The ISP could be asked to justify a particular discrimination to a regulatory panel, like a government rule that infringes on speech. Whatever. I'm sure something could be worked out.

That something is "easier" doesn't make it right. It's easier to ban the automobile than to enforce traffic regulations.

As for what the ...[text shortened]... etting what I pay for, my remedy is a civil lawsuit, not a blanket federal regulation.

Do you seriously believe that the best way to deal with discrimination in bandwidth allocation by ISPs is for individual consumers to file lawsuits?

Originally posted by richjohnson
Do you seriously believe that the best way to deal with discrimination in bandwidth allocation by ISPs is for individual consumers to file lawsuits?

There must be a reason for that!

I remember going to court for my brother's divorce (to testify residency) and walking out my brother said to his lawyer (family friend since childhood,) "It should cost 500 dollars to get married and 50 cents to get divorced." The lawyer said "Hey, if they did that I'd have to go into the marriage business!"

Anything less than complete enforcement of bandwidth equality on the system our tax dollars built is theft!

Originally posted by TerrierJack
There must be a reason for that!

I remember going to court for my brother's divorce (to testify residency) and walking out my brother said to his lawyer (family friend since childhood,) "It should cost 500 dollars to get married and 50 cents to get divorced." The lawyer said "Hey, if they did that I'd have to go into the marriage business!"

Anythi ...[text shortened]... n complete enforcement of bandwidth equality on the system our tax dollars built is theft!

If you're suggesting that lawyers have a financial incentive to oppose regulation of the net, then I think you're wrong. Any federal regulation of ISPs is likely to create easily enough work for lawyers to offset any loss in business from upset telcom customers.

Anyway, what do you mean by "complete enforcement of bandwidth equality"? (I have to admit I'm not familiar with the net neutrality debate in the US.)

Originally posted by richjohnson
Do you seriously believe that the best way to deal with discrimination in bandwidth allocation by ISPs is for individual consumers to file lawsuits?

You missed my point. Let me try to lay it out a bit more clearly:

1) some discrimination in bandwidth allocation is justified, smart and should be allowed (e.g., to prevent P2P services from hogging all the bandwidth)
2) some types of discrimination in bandwidth allocation is not smart and should not be allowed (e.g., discrimination based on political contact)
3) government regulations may and should prohibit and prevent #2
4) government regulations should not prohibit or prevent # 1
5) To the extent that ISPs are violating their agreements with consumers by promising X bandwidth and then not delivering it, the remedy is a civil lawsuit; probably a class action

Any questions?

Originally posted by sh76
You missed my point. Let me try to lay it out a bit more clearly:

1) some discrimination in bandwidth allocation is justified, smart and should be allowed (e.g., to prevent P2P services from hogging all the bandwidth)
2) some types of discrimination in bandwidth allocation is not smart and should not be allowed (e.g., discrimination based on political cont ...[text shortened]... then not delivering it, the remedy is a civil lawsuit; probably a class action

Any questions?

OK thanks, that is much clearer. That seems reasonable, provided that by "the remedy" you don't mean the only remedy.

Two questions:

1. In your view, should government regulations prevent discrimination to obtain a commercial advantage? (e.g., an ISP which offers both internet and phone service artificially limiting VOIP traffic offered through competing services)

2. How much do you think it would cost to see a civil lawsuit against a major telecommunications company through to an appellate level decision?

Originally posted by sh76
You missed my point. Let me try to lay it out a bit more clearly:

1) some discrimination in bandwidth allocation is justified, smart and should be allowed (e.g., to prevent P2P services from hogging all the bandwidth)
2) some types of discrimination in bandwidth allocation is not smart and should not be allowed (e.g., discrimination based on political cont ...[text shortened]... then not delivering it, the remedy is a civil lawsuit; probably a class action

Any questions?

I have no problem with 1) if and only if it only applies to new contracts and it's very clear in the contract which types of connections will be limited. Otherwise it's a blatant breach of contract, even if a judge might not agree. Still, a much simpler solution is to have ISPs supply the bandwidth they promise.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I have no problem with 1) [b]if and only if it only applies to new contracts and it's very clear in the contract which types of connections will be limited. Otherwise it's a blatant breach of contract, even if a judge might not agree. Still, a much simpler solution is to have ISPs supply the bandwidth they promise.[/b]

If a judge might not agree, then the breach is probably not that blatant.

How would you enforce a regulation requiring that ISPs supply the bandwidth they promise? That doesn't sound very simple.

Originally posted by richjohnson
If a judge might not agree, then the breach is probably not that blatant.

How would you enforce a regulation requiring that ISPs supply the bandwidth they promise? That doesn't sound very simple.

Like I said, simply test the bandwidth periodically.

Originally posted by sh76
You missed my point. Let me try to lay it out a bit more clearly:

1) some discrimination in bandwidth allocation is justified, smart and should be allowed (e.g., to prevent P2P services from hogging all the bandwidth)
2) some types of discrimination in bandwidth allocation is not smart and should not be allowed (e.g., discrimination based on political cont ...[text shortened]... then not delivering it, the remedy is a civil lawsuit; probably a class action

Any questions?

So, you oppose the Tea Party position. Just more evidence that you are not a conservative.

Originally posted by richjohnson
OK thanks, that is much clearer. That seems reasonable, provided that by "the remedy" you don't mean the [b]only remedy.

Two questions:

1. In your view, should government regulations prevent discrimination to obtain a commercial advantage? (e.g., an ISP which offers both internet and phone service artificially limiting VOIP traffic offered thr ...[text shortened]... il lawsuit against a major telecommunications company through to an appellate level decision?[/b]

1. In your view, should government regulations prevent discrimination to obtain a commercial advantage? (e.g., an ISP which offers both internet and phone service artificially limiting VOIP traffic offered through competing services)

That's a good question. Assuming sufficient competition among ISPs, I don't see why the free market can't handle that potential problem. So, I guess I'd start with the position that the government should not regulate it; but I'd be open to the possibility of doing so in the future if it becomes apparent that this is a major problem.

2. How much do you think it would cost to see a civil lawsuit against a major telecommunications company through to an appellate level decision?

If there's a case to be made, class action lawyers will do it on contingency. It shouldn't cost the plaintiffs a dime.