"Big Telecom was against Net Neutrality from the Start" brief by Ars Technica

[blankslate]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-net-neutrality-before-it-was-even-a-concept/

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission announced recently he would seek to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service so the government could enforce net neutrality rules, something that President Obama supports. Some telecom executives and Republicans in Congress are calling this an “extreme” and “backwards” proposal, and they’re investigating the President’s role in pushing for it.

But we’ve only reached this pivotal moment in the net neutrality debate because of past efforts by corporate lobbyists and their political allies to weaken the government’s ability to protect the open Internet. Without the telecommunications industry’s massive power to design policies in its favor, the government would most likely already have the authority it needs to ensure net neutrality.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission announced recently he would seek to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service so the government could enforce net neutrality rules, something that President Obama supports. Some telecom executives and Republicans in Congress are calling this an “extreme” and “backwards” proposal, and they’re investigating the President’s role in pushing for it.

But we’ve only reached this pivotal moment in the net neutrality debate because of past efforts by corporate lobbyists and their political allies to weaken the government’s ability to protect the open Internet. Without the telecommunications industry’s massive power to design policies in its favor, the government would most likely already have the authority it needs to ensure net neutrality.

In the early 2000s, back when Gmail was still for Garfield fans only, policymakers were facing important questions about the nature of broadband Internet and how it should be treated by regulators. The last major telecommunications bill was passed by Congress in 1996 and since then the technology had advanced rapidly, with two different services, cable Internet and digital subscriber line (DSL), becoming widely available.

These services both operated on infrastructure that was originally built for other purposes (cable television and landline telephony, respectively), and since the 1996 bill didn’t address Internet service in a substantial way, regulators had simply applied the regulatory treatment traditionally associated with the infrastructures to the new Internet services being offered on them. That meant that cable Internet, carried over lines used to transmit television, was treated like an “information service,” while DSL, carried over copper telephone wires, was treated like a “telecommunications service.”

Seems like the douchebaggery the ISPs engaged in helped foster the situation today. More people familiar with what Net Neutrality is and tech companies pushing against business as usual by ISPs.

Seems like other countries may have learned from policy mistakes in regards to the internet by U.S. lawmakers.



....

 

[Smoblikat]

Im sure this seems like a big deal to a lot of people. But my thoughts are as follows:
If it isnt food, water, or shelter, it doesnt matter.

Who cares if the internet is "unlocked" or not? Do you plan on building your own ISP and giving everyone free internet? If not, I guess its up to whomever put in the time and effort to decide who uses their services, and how much they cost. I dont see the problem with a private company doing whatever it wants with its private resources that it privately sells.

(post not directed at OP, just phrased that way)

 

[Subyman]

Im sure this seems like a big deal to a lot of people. But my thoughts are as follows:
If it isnt food, water, or shelter, it doesnt matter.

Who cares if the internet is "unlocked" or not? Do you plan on building your own ISP and giving everyone free internet? If not, I guess its up to whomever put in the time and effort to decide who uses their services, and how much they cost. I dont see the problem with a private company doing whatever it wants with its private resources that it privately sells.

(post not directed at OP, just phrased that way)

Its not entirely privately funded. Government money was used to create a large part of the infrastructure through tax incentives or straight up grants. A large part of our entire economy relies on the internet. That medium should be open for free commerce and sharing of ideas without corporate overlords.

 

[Smoblikat]

Its not entirely privately funded. Government money was used to create a large part of the infrastructure through tax incentives or straight up grants. A large part of our entire economy relies on the internet. That medium should be open for free commerce and sharing of ideas without corporate overlords.

That sounds great, but the "corporate overlords" are the ones who made internet so ubiquitous that it has become a large part of our economy. It just doesnt seem right to me to use the government to strong arm a private company into providing services it does not wish to render. Seems anti-capitalism to me.

As far as the infrastructure goes, im sure government had a good amount to do with paying for lines and cables, but the ISP's still have to pay to lease/use them. The infrastructure was implemented years ago and has already been paid off, this would have been a reasonable argument many years ago when the lines were first being built.

 

[Subyman]

That sounds great, but the "corporate overlords" are the ones who made internet so ubiquitous that it has become a large part of our economy. It just doesnt seem right to me to use the government to strong arm a private company into providing services it does not wish to render. Seems anti-capitalism to me.

As far as the infrastructure goes, im sure government had a good amount to do with paying for lines and cables, but the ISP's still have to pay to lease/use them. The infrastructure was implemented years ago and has already been paid off, this would have been a reasonable argument many years ago when the lines were first being built.

How much should they profit from it though? To the detriment of every US citizen? It is the government's job to regulate services to promote a healthy economy. Having communication companies attempt to extract the maximum amount of money out of each citizen unchecked is not good for the US. The internet is undeniable extremely important to today's economy. It must be regulated and not owned (anymore than it is now) by corporate interests.

My main contention is that we should not be going backwards from where we are now. While the cost of the internet is going down in other countries, it keeps going up in the US. In what other technological area are costs increasing for the same performance?

Comcast makes $2B a quarter in profit and their stocks have performed wonderfully year over year. They are thriving even with regulation.

 

[Smoblikat]

How much should they profit from it though? To the detriment of every US citizen? It is the government's job to regulate services to promote a healthy economy. Having communication companies attempt to extract the maximum amount of money out of each citizen unchecked is not good for the US. The internet is undeniable extremely important to today's economy. It must be regulated and not owned (anymore than it is now) by corporate interests.

My main contention is that we should not be going backwards from where we are now. While the cost of the internet is going down in other countries, it keeps going up in the US. In what other technological area are costs increasing for the same performance?

Comcast makes $2B a quarter in profit and their stocks have performed wonderfully year over year. They are thriving even with regulation.

I understand and agree with what you said. But, considering noone needs internet to live, I do not think the government should step in and force companies to their will. If people were so displeased with the internet, they dont have to pay for it. As far as it being good for the economy, I doubt business class internet will be affected much. Companies should be allowed to profit as much as they can from their products, if the American people were genuinely displeased with their ISP's they are free to choose a new one/noone. I havent had internet in my house for 10 of the past 12 months for this exact reason.

 

[Subyman]

I understand and agree with what you said. But, considering noone needs internet to live, I do not think the government should step in and force companies to their will. If people were so displeased with the internet, they dont have to pay for it. As far as it being good for the economy, I doubt business class internet will be affected much. Companies should be allowed to profit as much as they can from their products, if the American people were genuinely displeased with their ISP's they are free to choose a new one/noone. I havent had internet in my house for 10 of the past 12 months for this exact reason.

I don't understand why you are taking your position. You said it yourself, people would have to choose to forgo the internet, like you have, because of high prices or blocked sites. The government should work for the people and they are, they are trying to help you with this regulation yet you'd take the side of Comcast. You, yourself are arguing to pay a corporation more and lose some of the open service you have now. Why is that? Isn't capitalism about self interest? Why have you lost that for yourself?

 

[Smoblikat]

I don't understand why you are taking your position. You said it yourself, people would have to choose to forgo the internet, like you have, because of high prices or blocked sites. The government should work for the people and they are, they are trying to help you with this regulation yet you'd take the side of Comcast. You, yourself are arguing to pay a corporation more and lose some of the open service you have now. Why is that? Isn't capitalism about self interest? Why have you lost that for yourself?

The government should work for the people, all of them, not just the ones who want free stuff. I take my stance because the internet is not a requirement for life, and the government has no need to meddle with the affairs of capitalism. If they make the internet a required resource, they might as well make drivers licenses a modern requirement also. If I want open and cheap internet bad enough, I can go out and make my own. Otherwise its just a bunch of people who want something, but dont want to work for it, and need the government to step in and take it from others.

 

[Subyman]

The government should work for the people, all of them, not just the ones who want free stuff. I take my stance because the internet is not a requirement for life, and the government has no need to meddle with the affairs of capitalism. If they make the internet a required resource, they might as well make drivers licenses a modern requirement also. If I want open and cheap internet bad enough, I can go out and make my own. Otherwise its just a bunch of people who want something, but dont want to work for it, and need the government to step in and take it from others.

Seriously?

No one is asking for free internet. Strawman.

 

[Sonikku]

If the government didn't make the internet and didn't have any investment in the subsidizing of any of the infrastructure then they don't have the right to tell the private telecom companies what information they can and can't treat equally.

 

[sandorski]

We all used to laugh at AOL. Now some actively want to bring it back.