You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Net Neutrality in the US - Why it's in danger and how Steemians can help
So, making something a heavily regulated utility is going to increase innovation, competition, growth, and jobs?? No, that's not how it works. The internet grew immensely and quickly and created tons of innovation because it was not regulated and not taxed.
As to comcast or others, whether they are made into a utility or not a utility, why on earth would they care what website we look at? They don't. They just want to get paid for the massive infrastructure they built out and are constantly trying to upgrade. They WANT your traffic. They just want you to pay for what you use.
Valid point about the regulation. I agree that too much regulation can stifle the benefits it is trying to protect. It's definitely a slippery slope that can potentially harm both consumers and providers.
However, I don't think this issue is about providers wanting to get paid. It's about providers trying to get paid more by manipulating Internet usage through paywalls. If they can make an extra buck out of it, they will very much care about what websites we look at. That's why I don't blame Comcast or others for trying to rollback these regulations. It just makes too much business sense.
But I do believe it is (just like overregulation) a real potential danger for consumer rights. That's why I think we need certain regulations that prevent ISPs from having control over what consumers can and cannot do in their private spheres with a product they already paid for.
fair enough. I guess I just don't see where they will care what we look at as long as we are creating and paying for traffic.
Count me much more afraid of the government in every single case. Anything that increases the power of the government is 99.94572953202880999% bad. Government is the thing I most want out of my life.
I would add, I look at whether something is aiming for a freer market or less free market. I think that the government would be better off solving this "problem" by doing whatever it could to increase competition instead of trying to squash companies. How about helping new innovations? Is there a block of bandwidth the government is hoarding that can be released for a different internet delivery technology? Is there a way for the government to help me have a third choice internet provider? Trust me, there is always something the goobers in DC can do that would HELP competition. Usually though, that means relinquishing some power on their side, which is the main problem. They never want to do that.
I worked for an electric and gas utility. Trust me, contrary to the outside impression, there are smart people in utilities. There are people who are trying to be proactive (not all) and innovative but mostly as a whole people get squashed because the utility is so worried about the regulators. Utilities have to make decisions about massive investments and proceed with the hope they can recover the investment and a bit of profit but this can after the fact be flushed down the toilet by an overzealous regulator who thinks he's saving the world or some shit. So, innovation? Progress? These things mostly get cancelled by management because they worry about it being a huge loss. It's quite easy for some dimwit government twerp to screw over utilities pretty much on a whim and there is no recourse.
It's not because the utility (or the cable provider here) is trying to screw over their customer. The government is the problem.
I agree that the lack of competition is probably a big underlying reason why these regulations need to be enforced. The reason why the market isn't functioning in an optimal way is probably more complicated than just the government interfering though.
Either way, by reading your comment I just figured out a bias in my thinking. When issues like these come up, I instinctively put corporations on the 'wrong' side and consumers on the 'right' side (and in this case the government with them). This is obviously not a constructive way of looking at things (just as the reverse would be equally wrong).
So although we probably won't agree on the role or ideology of government (and I don't feel like debating this deeply at the moment, because I feel I need to research this topic more thoroughly), I'd like to thank you for that insight.
Sometimes I wish these things could get tested by having people with similar viewpoints have a space of their own where they can do whatever they want. For instance have a place where police and education and courts of law are privatized, so we could really test capitalism (or anarcho-capitalism?)
I'm not being facetious btw.
Ironically, that's how the USA was originally envisioned and set up. As a loose republic of semi-autonomous states with a weak federal government and weaker president. Occasionally, a random state ends up producing an experiment but for the most part we have turned into a suffocating national government that mostly tries to impose everything from above.
I think we are getting close to an actual civil war and many of the states will break away. Many weaker countries would be better anyway, I would think. I guess it remains a risk some of those new countries, like California, would be a completely authoritarian state - but we are pretty much there already anyway.
Don't know much about politics, to be frank, but I do admire most of the founding fathers (they were like Renaissance men!) and their political work.
Well that's a bit alarmist! Do you actually believe that?
with the left wanting states to secede, rioting everyday over the slightest imagined issue, and believing it is ok to shoot congressman; yeah, we're getting there.
A fiscal collapse of the US could certainly be the final catalyst.
I get a lot of bad things are happening, but we're not there yet I think.
And also, as a European, I get the states that want to secede. I mean, how on earth does a win by popular vote not equal a proper win! That's the definition of a democracy! I understand why the system wants all states to have equal weight - that's I guess the reason the States agreed to become Unified in the first place - but I also understand the frustration of the vast majority of Americans who can't seem to be able to control a country whose majority they constitute.