MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Liberals Are Freaking Out About Net Neutrality Because They Don't Understand Capitalism: Podcast

Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman and Matt Welch discuss sex scandals and net neutrality.

On today's episode of the Reason Podcast, Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Matt Welch discuss the Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) sex scandal, last week's repeal of net neutrality, and Reason's upcoming Webathon. Support our journalism!

Some of the stories referenced in this week's show:

Audio production by Mark McDaniel.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes.

Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Photo Credit: RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    More NN articles? This should be good.

  • Rich||

    Let no one say we're net-neutrality neutral!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    NN neutral good?

  • Entelechy||

    Do memos instructiing staff writers to suck up to rent seeking Peason foundation donors in search of dark advantages on the net arrive initialed FOPT?

    Or does ALEC handle the Valley as well as the Pharma apologetics ?

  • Bra Ket||

    After that headline, there's really nothing left to say. So uh, how is everyone?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Good. I hate my life, but other than that good.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I also hate BUCS's life. Still good.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It brings us all together.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I just sort of dislike it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Why must you tear us apart?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Even a mutual expression of hatred is just too wishy-washy to my individualist sensibilities.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    In an exclusive interview today just hours after announcing his plan to repeal "Net Neutrality" rules governing the actions of Internet-service providers (ISPs) and mobile carriers, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai has an in-your-face prediction for his critics: "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity," he said this afternoon. "Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

    So how come this explosion of "the kinds of connectivity and depth of that connectivity" hasn't already occurred? I mean there were no net neutrality rules prior to 2015?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Probably for the same reason that my tech cohorts were arguing with me back in the 90s that Microsoft would dominate the computing world forever and ever, amen until the federal government stepped in and forced them to make Internet Explorer uninstallable.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Given the marked increase in web browser options since the consent decree, that seems like a bad example for arguing against government intervention.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think most of the current players baring Chrome already had a browser back then.

    Mozilla (not Firefox, they have an older browser and tool set that I think functioned as a web browser), Netscape, and Opera. I also believe Mosaic was still around. Obviously it's difficult to say what the outcome would have been otherwise, but there were as many major options then as now.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You actually believe that Microsoft's current lack of dominance in the operating system market is due to a federal judge being skeptical over Microsoft's argument that they didn't want to disentangle IE 4.0 from the OS?

    We go through this every few years. People I would normally identify as generally intelligent, and may have a certain level of expertise in their area of technology, routinely argue that the federal government needs to put various career bureaucrats in charge of technology, its creation and development, otherwise this or that perceived monopoly will dominate the market forever and ever, amen.

    And of course, because I cannot convincingly articulate exactly WHAT the next revolution in technology will be during the debate, that's used as evidence of the lack of veracity in my case.

    No, I can't tell you what the next revolution in technology will be, but that doesn't mean the federal government needs to get its grubby mitts on the process. Quite the opposite.

  • mtrueman||

    "No, I can't tell you what the next revolution in technology will be, "

    If you are interested, my advice: follow the money. Find out where the government is putting its research dollars and that may prove the best bet. There's an outfit called darpa which stands for something official sounding. They've funded research into such risky ventures as touch screens and gps in the past. What they're doing now could give us a glimpse into the future.

  • Tony||

    Nonsense. You cannot judge a product beneficial without it being put before the learned masses of America. Just wait until they put their corndog down, and they'll get on it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Further, it was Google (a net neutrality supporter) who argued against allowing the feds to involve themselves in the mobile market because:

    They [verizon and google] jointly agreed that open Internet proposals should not apply to the mobile market. Their position was that the wireless field is more competitive and changing more rapidly than the wireline broadband market, and shouldn't be constrained by added regulation.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What's interesting is that the stance they're taking implicitly states that the regulation will slowed down by the regulation.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That graveyard is always getting whistled past.

    And you find that everywhere. I remember Christine Gregoire didn't want to tax and regulate a short term car rental service (car sharing) because she didn't want to slow the innovation and kill off businesses.

  • Greg F||

    Given the marked increase in web browser options since the consent decree ...

    Something about correlation does not equal causation. When Microsoft was including IE explorer they were basically giving away for free what Netscape was trying to sell. The result of which is nobody buys Internet browsers.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Stormy Dragon,

    So how come this explosion of "the kinds of connectivity and depth of that connectivity" hasn't already occurred?


    Were you born yesterday? I am serious: Weren't you alive during the 80s when the baud rates were like 300 and then 1200 bauds? Or during the 90s when the Internet meant chat rooms in university computer rooms? Because I was alive back then and I can tell you that what we have today is by orders of magnitude an EXPLOSION compared to just 20 years ago─let alone 30 years ago, so go and have sex with yourself.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If someone had told me, in 1997 that 85% of my internet use in terms of time would be via a high resolution, touch screen device in my pocket, while my metal-box PC sat in my basement, largely unused-- and the remaining portion of my internet was from my TV watching HD (what's HD?) movies, I'd have thought you were barking at the moon. And in 1997, I was very much a technology optimist.

    And further, if you'd have told me that 100% of this internet usage didn't involve a single Microsoft product, I'd have thought you were high, and I was completely against the federal government's and the EU's intervention into MS's business practices.

  • mtrueman||

    "If someone had told me, in 1997 that 85% of my internet use in terms of time would be via a high resolution, touch screen device in my pocket,"

    That device in your pocket is actually a computer. If you had told me 20 years ago that attempting get root access to your computer could render it useless, I'd have thought you were crazy too.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The US also lags significantly behind the rest of the developed word in terms of broadband access. Surely the decades of unregulated internet should have us far ahead of the rest of the world, right?

    But no, let's hear another bullshit lie about how everything will be rainbows and unicorns if we just let corporations fuck us over a little bit more.

  • Red Tony||

    That's more a function of the US having older technology (for one) and being really freaking huge (for two). The fact that it was unregulated helped it be built here first, but that means that the hardware is outdated.

  • mtrueman||

    "that means that the hardware is outdated."

    Upgrading infrastructure can be expensive. It's much easier to squeeze the customers.

  • Red Tony||

    Question: where exactly do you think they get the money to upgrade the hardware?

    Or do you think they have infinite money because they're corporations?

  • mtrueman||

    "Question: where exactly do you think they get the money to upgrade the hardware?"

    In places where the emphasis is on fast, reliable extensive, and relatively inexpensive service like Japan or Korea, the money comes from the public mostly. In America, less is placed on those priorities like modern infrastructure and instead the emphasis is on squeezing the customers by gaming the regulatory system. Cronies gotta crony.

  • Cloudbuster||

    What is the difference between "the public" and "customers?" "Customers" have a choice and get value for the money they voluntarily spend. "The public" has the money taken by force, whether they perceive value or not

  • Tom Bombadil||

    'Evil' corporations. You cannot leave out the word 'evil'.
    Jeeze dude, get with the program.

  • mtrueman||

    News for you monkey boy, evil corporations in Japan and Korea are perfectly capable of providing fast, reliable and cheapish internet service.

  • Greg F||

    News for you monkey boy, evil corporations in Japan and Korea are perfectly capable of providing fast, reliable and cheapish internet service.

    Population density per square mile:
    US 85
    Japan 873
    South Korea 1,261

    It's a hell of a lot cheaper when your population density is high.

  • MarkLastname||

    Well, our population would be denser if the It were t for the corporations and their land hoarding!

  • mtrueman||

    If you dare not aspire to the quality of Korea or Japan, you can settle for Canada, which still has fairly decent internet service with about half the population density of United States.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Rural Canada has the same broadband issues as rural U.S.

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/bu.....-1.3792786

  • DarrenM||

    Much like cell phones. Some places have cell phones only with no land lines because they never had any land lines to begin with and they could just leapfrog over that step.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    The last shall be first.

  • mtrueman||

    "they could just leapfrog over that step"

    Oh, it's all so damned unfair!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Idiot. Corporations can only fuck us over with the government's permission. or maybe you're one of those idiots who thinks governments protect us from monopolies?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But no, let's hear another bullshit lie about how everything will be rainbows and unicorns if we just let corporations fuck us over a little bit more.

    But if we hand over the power of network design and packet flow to a federal agency, everything will be rainbows and unicorns.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Yes. Instead everything will be rainbows and unicorns if we just give the government a little more power....

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you playing devils advocate? Because you literally call out just below this that the ISPs are under government enforced monopoly. You can't have it both ways.

  • mtrueman||

    "You can't have it both ways."

    Of course not. That's a special privilege we reserve for the ISPs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    ???

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah Stormy, if only our good government were here to save us from those Big Corporations. Nothing works better than when some bureaucrat decides how things will be.

  • rudehost||

    "Surely the decades of unregulated internet should have us far ahead of the rest of the world, right?"

    The right compare and contrast is phone service in the US vs internet in the US. Under this same regulatory scheme there was roughly zero innovation in phone service for decades while it mostly remained prohibitively expensive for anything other than local calling and occasional long distance use. So why exactly should we let a federal bureaucracy step in and fuck us over by instituting a policy that if it were in place 20 years ago would have us using 2400 baud dial up today?

    Is it because reasons or because feels?

  • Mickey Rat||

    How are net neutrality regulations going to upgrade infrastructure?

  • Mark22||

    Stormy Dragon has told us how: "rainbows and unicorns".

  • Mark22||

    The US also lags significantly behind the rest of the developed word in terms of broadband access. Surely the decades of unregulated internet should have us far ahead of the rest of the world, right?

    You're making the incorrect assumption that the rest of the world is more regulated than the US. Europe achieved massive improvements in telecoms through aggressive deregulation.

    But no, let's hear another bullshit lie about how everything will be rainbows and unicorns if we just let corporations fuck us over a little bit more.

    "Lettting corporations fuck us over a little bit more" is what you're advocating, because the way corporations fuck us over is via regulatory capture and rent seeking.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    So how come this explosion of "the kinds of connectivity and depth of that connectivity" hasn't already occurred?

    I know, right? If only there had been developments in connectivity since the 2400 baud modem was invented. Maybe if people could, I dunno, access the internet on some sort of small handheld device, perhaps while sitting in a McDonald's, connected to the web without the need for a telephone or network cable stretching directly from the bulky beige box strapped to their backs to whatever local network they were using.

    Man, if only...

  • ||

    Clark Howard doesn't like the new scheme,just because Ajit worked for Verizon. That doesn't mean this is wrong.If Reason is for it-count me in.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, and they're freaking out about NN because they don't understand networking.

  • ||

    Or plumbing, basic electricity, or simple supply chains or any of the other dozen apt market-based analogies.

    They all agree about climate change though.

  • Bra Ket||

    Thy understand appeals to authority, and how to determine if someone is the right authority or not by carefully examining their political leanings.

  • fafalone||

    Considering the extreme lack of networking knowledge displayed by the anti-NN folks on this site, I'd say neither liberals nor libertarians really understand the situation. But it's the anti- side that seems fundamentally incapable of making an argument that's not based on ignorance or outright lying. Like we couldn't even get past the headline in this article without such an error; ISPs are a monopoly situation, capitalist free market competition isn't the situation.

  • Harun||

    Where do you live?

    I had 11 isp in 2014.

    Show me you're a monopoly and then work to fix that...or move

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "; ISPs are a monopoly situation, capitalist free market competition isn't the situation."

    No they're not, and you just admitted it by referring to them in the plural.

  • Mark22||

    Like we couldn't even get past the headline in this article without such an error; ISPs are a monopoly situation

    The only reason there are so few ISPs is because government regulations make it difficult to start new ones. FCC net neutrality regulations make that worse. But most markets are still far from a monopoly for ISPs.

    capitalist free market competition isn't the situation

    Actually, free market competition can exist even in markets in which there is only a single vendor.

    Furthermore, a private monopoly is still preferable to a government regulated or imposed monopoly.

  • Nuwanda||

    "Furthermore, a private monopoly is still preferable to a government regulated or imposed monopoly"

    But a private monopoly is not a monopoly at all. The terms are mutually exclusive, even if you're using the accepted but confusing term, "natural" monopoly.

    We've got to stop using monopoly in contexts where it doesn't apply since all it does is give ammunition to interventionists

  • MarkLastname||

    Even if ISPs had a monopoly, net neutrality would just lead them to raise prices on all customers to cancel out the cost of having to provide improved service to some. IOW, non-Netflix users see their prices go up to subsidize Netflix users.

  • Greg F||

    Considering the extreme lack of networking knowledge displayed by the anti-NN folks on this site ...

    There ... fixed it for you.

    You want to discuss networking ... go for it.

  • Rich||

    "Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

    "That is, they too will be subject to ransomware extortion."

  • Juice||

    Amazon would be able to keep $1.32 billion of the personal income taxes paid by its workers annually

    What in the actual fuck?

    One of the more aggressive bids comes from Chicago, Illinois — a city that is prepared to let Amazon keep $1.32 billion of the personal income taxes paid by its workers annually. According to The Chicago Reader, employees would still pay the full taxes; but instead of Illinois receiving the money to use for civic infrastructure, Amazon would get to pocket it.
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's almost as if these municipalities only care about the jobs created by companies locating there.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Chicago is such a shit city. Jesus Christ.

  • Finrod||

    Heh. Local measured telephone service is illegal in Indiana because they saw what it did to Chicago.

  • Red Tony||

    ...the cock is this shit?

    Why not just let Amazon pay them less and do it tax-free?

    This is...

    I feel like I'm having an aneurism just by LOOKING at this story!

  • Rich||

    Facebook to expand artificial intelligence to help prevent suicide

    "Once you open the door, you might wonder what other kinds of things we would be looking for," Calo said. Rosen declined to say if Facebook was considering pattern recognition software in other areas, such as non-sex crimes.

    Sheesh, why do we need the FBI and NSA?

  • Arizona_Guy||

    It took me 5 minutes of looking to find info on Google and Netflix creating 50% of evening data use.

    So after seeing what colossal bandwidth hogs they are, it's ridiculous on its face that they're acting in the "public interest" by pushing for NN. Their self interest here is obvious.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you're skeptical of NN, you're a shill for comcast. If you're for NN, you have love and goodness in your heart.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Damn those consumers expecting to receive the services they paid for!

  • Mark22||

    Obviously, you don't understand either networking or economics.

  • MarkLastname||

    If they're not receiving what they pay for, why do they keep paying for it and using it?

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Arizona_Guy,

    So after seeing what colossal bandwidth hogs they are, it's ridiculous on its face that they're acting in the "public interest" by pushing NN


    That's the thing. Politicians know jack-shit about technology, the internet, and pretty much everything else. Which is why regulations are written by (people would say "suggested by") major industry lobbyists and lawyers. Case in point: Google, Netflix, etc. are pushing for NN.

  • mtrueman||

    " colossal bandwidth hogs they are"

    Now we're stigmatizing internet usage. Every other country in the world is promoting more internet usage while Libertarians would prefer less.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I didn't 'stigmatize' anything. I (correctly) pointed out that internet data is disproportionately 2 main sources.

    Nice straw-man though.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So? The ISPs are selling the customers a certain amount of bandwidth (or claiming to, anyways). If the customers want to use all the bandwidth they paid for to watch Netflix why does that matter.

    The fact you seem to think that customers are pulling one over on the ISP by actually expecting to use what they paid for shows how screwed up "libertarians" have become.

  • mtrueman||

    "I didn't 'stigmatize' anything. "

    hog = pig

    See if you can learn what a straw man is if you can spare the time.

  • Mark22||

    What libertarians object to is the population at large being forced to support bandwidth hogs, which is what net neutrality achieves.

    Other countries actually have less regulation of telecoms and they generally don't push the kind of stupidity on users that you're advocating.

  • mtrueman||

    "What libertarians object to is the population at large being forced to support bandwidth hogs,"

    Libertarians are not being forced to own or operate computers, or connect them to the Internet.

  • commentator||

    > being forced to support bandwidth hogs, which is what net neutrality achieves

    You keep saying this and it still reads like a non sequitur with no explanation how A leads to be, or what 'forced to support' means. Consumers pay the ISP for access to the internet. Consumers choose which services to use, whether Netflix or Google or Reason. Carrying those extra-popular "hogs" bandwidth is literally what they're paid to do.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Liberals Are Freaking Out About Net Neutrality Because They Don't Understand Capitalism: Podcast

    Government enforced local monopolies are capitalism, now?

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Stormy Dragon,

    What in carnations are you talking about? What "government-enforced local monopolies"? What the FUCK is that?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Franchise Agreements

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    What the FUCK does that have to do with "Government-Enforced Local Monopolies"?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Most local governments have a franchise agreement that grants a particular cable company a monopoly on providing service to the municipality in exchange for a percentage of their revenues.

    This allows said provider to charge monopoly rates to all the consumers in the township because no competitor is allowed to have access to the public right of ways.

    What anti-NN is really about is all those incumbent providers wanting to leverage their monopolies to charge the content providers exorbitant rates too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hmm, governments huh?

  • Morbo||

    So your solution to government interfering with the free market is...even more government interfering with the free market?

  • Rockit1||

    "Most local governments have a franchise agreement that grants a particular cable company a monopoly on providing service to the municipality in exchange for a percentage of their revenues"

    No, they don't. Exclusive franchises are prohibited by the 1992 Cable Act. Cable companies and others pay a franchise fee because the city wants one.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Exclusive franchises are prohibited by the 1992 Cable Act.

    New York City has concealed carry permits too. Good luck getting one.

  • Rockit1||

    Exclusive franchises are prohibited by the 1992 Cable Act.

    New York City has concealed carry permits too. Good luck getting

    Don't let the facts slow you down.

  • Mark22||

    What anti-NN is really about is all those incumbent providers wanting to leverage their monopolies to charge the content providers exorbitant rates too

    Your answer is to add more regulations that effectively create even more monopolies and rent seeking. That's completely and utterly idiotic.

    The solution to government-created ISP monopolies is to get rid of the government mandates that created the monopolies in the first place.

    If you want to discuss regulations, let's discuss a federal mandate prohibiting local governments from creating monopolies.

  • Bra Ket||

    They limit cable. They don't prevent different technologies from competing.

  • Tony||

    When they say pure capitalism they mean the status quo. They'd have to be some kind of idiots to constantly talking about some fantasy world of absolute purity.

    You can't fix anything. That's regulation, which is bad.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The intelligentzia here equivocated liberal with communofascist socialist. So why not set mercantilism equal to the name Marx groupies coined as its n-word pejorative and synonym? Seems the lesser of two weevils.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Liberals Are Freaking Out About Net Neutrality Because They Don't Understand Capitalism Anything


    There. More accurate.

  • Brian Whittle||

    The problem is in many communities behemoth cable companies have virtual monopolies in broadband delivery. Sure competition makes things better but for many, their only option is bend over and take it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What's up with the link on your name? Is that your address or something?

  • Red Tony||

    STEVE SMITH WILL INVESTIGATE.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Creating scary new government powers is no way to resolve another government power intended for good that went bad.

  • Morbo||

    Seems like the solution is obvious. Destroy the government enforced local monopolies.

    Instead, you're spending your time advocating for *even more* government intervention, which is what caused the problem in the first place.

  • Mark22||

    Don't worry, after they are through installing Google, YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook as permanent monopolies, they can then regulate those monopolies in the public interest. First up is regulating political speech on those media. It's what fascists always wanted: the entire economy and the media under government control.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The way they act on faux-Net Neutrality, you'd think it authorized Korporate Amerika to send kiddie porn down every tube unless extortionate fees were paid.

    When in reality, all that will happen is a restoration of 2014 rules.

    This kind of exaggeration is so typical of statists. I've seen it a milliongajillion times.

  • mtrueman||

    "When in reality, all that will happen is a restoration of 2014 rules."

    What's so precious about these 2014 rules?

  • Red Tony||

    What's so precious about these 2015 rules?

    Because, ya know, that's essentially what all the bitching is about: that we're going back to 2014 rules rather than sticking with 2015 rules. So what's so precious about these 2015 rules?

  • mtrueman||

    What's with Libertarians getting so attached to rules of any year? I thought they opposed crony capitalism and regulations on principle.

  • Red Tony||

    So let's get rid of the regulations that were added on in 2015, eh? That'd be a step towards things not sucking. And the best part is, it looks like that's gonna happen! Ain't it great?

  • mtrueman||

    "That'd be a step towards things not sucking. "

    The internet has sucked so badly since 2015.

  • Tony||

    (blackblackblack)A certain president was in office then though.(blackblackblack)

  • DesigNate||

    yes, we all know what a racist piece of shit you are Tony.

    (By the way, he was president in 2014 too you fucking idiot.)

  • Locris||

    Libs, like pretty much everyone else will see capitalism at work, even if they won't care to understand it.
    If I understand correctly, the crux of NN was that everyone paid the same and were given equal bandwidth.
    So a Goggle or Amazon couldn't get by (or buy) with more than Reason.
    Well cell phone companies are already doing sort of the same thing with all their unlimited plans.
    And coming from a company that started that trend, unlimited didn't pay the bills. Said company never was "cash flow positive", their term, in its 15 years of existence. It was bought 2-3 years ago by a cellular giant and while the name remains the company is gone.
    Now I work for one of those giant companies, and they are cutting jobs. There is no growth and profits are down.
    The build plan for 2018 has been significantly reduced.
    Thus people, libs included, will see what "unlimited" gets them. I don't know of an escape route from "you get what you pay for".
    As the network demands maintenance and upgrades, there will be fewer dollars and fewer people to do it. Parts of the network will stay broke longer.
    But gimme gimmie gimmie does not cease.
    As my director told us in a meeting once, it is a race to the bottom.

  • commentator||

    How is that "sort of the same thing" at all?

    For the mobile carriers you're talking about, where profits are less than what they used to be, that "race to the bottom" is... free market competition, vying for customers by giving them what they want, while still making money. (Less money than before, but still profitable.) That's a bad thing?

  • Locris||

    The race to the bottom is who has the most money to lose wins. What the win is a dubious award.
    When you have less people to fix what breaks, less money to spend on capacity network additions you get the quality of unlimited. A slowly running clogged up network.
    Users can want peak performance at all times, but you will get what you pay for.

    As an example why would I spend millions upon millions to purchase bandwidth millions more for frequency specific equipment, and the contained cost of backhaul and vendors to provide that fiber path to lose money?

  • commentator||

    You probably wouldn't, but what carriers are actually losing money in the actual real world examples? Or failing to invest in infrastructure? Aren't they all racing to improve their networks, reduce congestion, and boast about the coming of 5G?

    Isn't this all just capitalism in action, as you put it.

  • Bra Ket||

    "The race to the bottom is who has the most money to lose wins."

    You might want to double check your math. I wouldn't call that winning.

    And if your complaint is that you want everyone to have products that cost more than the customers want to pay, well feel free to pull out your checkbook and buy it for them.

  • DajjaI||

    Everyone on my fb timeline is freaking out about the repeal even more than they freaked out about Trump. Which makes no sense - Trump promised to "shut down parts of the internet." Why would you want to give him any more power? I told them: "If your favorite site is slow, just let me know and I'll call your cable company and give them an earful. That'll be the LAST time they throttle your porn." So far no requests, but hopefully it took the edge off.

  • Brian||

    Progressives learned everything they need to know about capitalism from a century old Upton Sinclair novel.

  • mtrueman||

    If Upton Sinclair were alive today he'd be a bandwidth hog or a google user or something really bad like that.

  • Brian||

    Worse, he'd be a zombie.

    Almost as bad as a communist.

  • mtrueman||

    He might even use the internet to download things instead of using it solely for email as God intended.

  • Brian||

    I'm sure you're making a great point about something you talked about with someone else once.

    What that is, I have no idea. But, totes awesome.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    You can look it up; the idjit known as trueman posted that.

  • mtrueman||

    What have you got against nonsense? Damnsight more interesting than anything you've got to say, nattering on endlessly about how studip you're enemies are...

  • mtrueman||

    "I have no idea."

    You know I've always been willing to help you in the past. Don't be afraid to ask any questions, there's bound to be others just as confused as you are,

  • DesigNate||

    The problem, which assholes like you never want to address, is that the people using more bandwidth don't want to pay for it, they want me to. (We all know you and Tony think you should be exempted from having to pay for it.)

  • mtrueman||

    "is that the people using more bandwidth don't want to pay for it"

    It's none of your business what these people want or don't want. They pay the ISPs what they ask for. The ISPs can terminate the service if they find the customer unsatisfactory in some way.

  • josh||

    That was a great segway!

  • Sevo||

    "Liberals Are Freaking Out About Net Neutrality Because They Don't Understand Capitalism"

    True enough, but proggies aren't real bright about a lot of issues.

  • janon||

    You people keep telling yourselves that. History will remember you for the reprehensible sociopaths you were.

    Everything looks great to you because you have more than you could ever need. That's the pre-req for the BS empty "libertarian" ideology. Rich, white, a-hole conservatives like yourself with 0 empathy, but who happen to enjoy pot and orgies (hence you're ejection from the real right wing)

    Most people dont have a lot of empathy for slavish worship of corporations that have been *proven* to abuse power *whenever* they are able to. Instead they have empathy for fellow humans.

    But of course worship of abusive institutions while deriding fellow humans is considered "intelligence" in your echo chamber asylum.

    If your life depended on Verizon and Comcast *not* abusing power at the expense of their customers (as they *have* for 30 years) you're saying you'd take that bet? Please. Hypocrite. Oh right... "go to a competitor" THERE ARE NONE! these are regional oligopolies. You have a "choice" between cancer and heart disease. But yeah, you're the "bright ones"

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    But of course worship of abusive institutions while deriding fellow humans is considered "intelligence" in your echo chamber asylum.

    It's considered intelligence in the echo chamber of people who voted for Hillary, too.

  • Glide||

    You realize of course that Verizon and Comcast are literally just groups of the fellow humans you love so much? There is no functional or moral difference between the association of humans called Comcast and the association of humans called Greenpeace. Both just teams of humans pursuing joint interests. I don't trust either, but I think either can help me with certain things for a temporary period and I'd like them to be allowed to do so with myself as the main arbiter of what they can do for me rather than some other humans I don't trust.

  • lafe.long||

    But of course worship of abusive institutions while deriding fellow humans is considered "intelligence" in your echo chamber asylum.

    Hmmm... sounds like you're perfectly describing the progressive mindset.

    "MOAR guvmint you fucking teabaggers!1!eleventyONE!!!"

  • FMurderSlaybraham||

    First of all don't knock pot and orgies. They're the reason I get up in the morning.

    Second I don't think anyone actually "slavish(ly)" worships corporations. I simply trust the motivations of corporations more because they're easier to understand. Not that I think government is without its uses.

    Third corporations have not been "*proven*" (asterisks are not citations) to abuse power whenever they are capable (whatever abuse of power even is, there's a fine line between use and abuse and there are folks here who would probably argue ANY use of government power is abuse by definition)--where's your proof? If you really want to play the abuse of power game, you trot out your best three examples of corporations abusing power and I'll trot out my best three examples of governments abusing power and we'll see who wins.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "The Holocaust! The Holodomor! The Great Leap Forward!"

    "Those were governments."

    "...nuh-uh."

  • janon||

    Same tired arguments on Reason because Libertarians have complete myopia and worship the "free" market since it's worked so well for *them*

    Arguing that something isnt going to happen because it didnt. As if telcos havent spent 30 years consolidating power, and being allowed to, and forming regional oligopolies.

    And yet the same faulted logic wants to pretend that "infrastructure investment" has *slowed* since *2015* (2 years ago). WOW! that "net neutrality" worked fast!

    Odd though... WHY would the investment SLOW if there was *no problem to fix*?

    Explain that geniuses... if there was NO NEED for regulation because telcos were SUCH honest actors, then WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE LEGISLATION and WHY did investment "slow"?

    And when they DO abuse power... then what excuse will you zombies come up with do defend your impotent "free" market worship?

    Libertarians have turned into a *joke* dying on the hill defending the likes of VERIZON and COMCAST, among the most hated companies in *history* because of their *abuse* of their customers.

  • Tony||

    In their defense I don't think any of their decades-old laissez-faire rhetoric was ever about anything but supporting the corporate status quo. What do you think it's paying for, voices advocating competition against them?

    I don't know why it's so difficult to comprehend the idea that just because the Koch brothers inherited a lot of money doesn't mean they know everything about how the world should run, but on the other hand this is their magazine.

  • MarkLastname||

    No, the fact that their investments have been so profitable and their wealth has increased vastly in size suggests that they know more about their particular industry than your would-be central planners.

    But keep burning that straw if you like the smell so much.

  • Tony||

    So what makes them climate change experts?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.28.17 @ 10:35AM|#
    "So what makes them climate change experts?"

    Jealous little slimebag, aren't you?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Arguing that something isnt going to happen because it didnt.

    Can you believe that some people want proof of something instead of having blind faith in some doomsday prediction with no lack of supporting evidence?

    As if telcos havent spent 30 years consolidating power, and being allowed to, and forming regional oligopolies.

    How'd those oligopolies form without local governments ensuring near-total control for favored companies?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    And yet the same faulted logic wants to pretend that "infrastructure investment" has *slowed* since *2015* (2 years ago). WOW! that "net neutrality" worked fast!

    Odd though... WHY would the investment SLOW if there was *no problem to fix*?

    Explain that geniuses... if there was NO NEED for regulation because telcos were SUCH honest actors, then WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE LEGISLATION and WHY did investment "slow"?

    Because investors can decide not to invest pretty quickly if they believe the ROI may not be worth it. You're welcome.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're just delusional if you think Corporations care about ROI. Tony and Janon see the dark heart of private enterprise for what it is. Private businesses are inherently malicious entities with no concern for self interest. They just want to hurt us. If those CEOs and investors weren't sociopaths, they'd work for the government!

  • Sevo||

    Wait a minute!
    They care about ROI when they can stomp on gramma's neck to get it, but they don't care if they can screw janon and Tony .
    So what they really care about is stomping gramma's neck and screwing janon and Tony. Ask 'em both; they'll tell you.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are we supposed to discern a point through all that foam coming out of your mouth?

  • Glide||

    if there was NO NEED for regulation because telcos were SUCH honest actors, then WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE LEGISLATION

    Interesting logic. If a law prevents something, that something must be bad?

    Are you willing to extend that everywhere?

    "If there was NO NEED for sodomy laws because gays were SUCH safe sex-havers, then WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE LEGISLATION"

  • Fooseven||

    ...is this Olbermann's new show? Needs more shrieking at windmills

  • Lester224||

    When we repeal the NN regulations can Comcast do something like the following?

    Offer me unlimited Comcast video content for $49,99/Month
    Offer video from other content sources at $99.99 per month.
    Offer email from email.comcast.com at $19.99 per month
    Offer email from an app like gmail or thunderbird at $29.99 per month
    or

    Offer all video content at $49.99 per month, but Comcast content runs at higher bandwidth than other content which takes longer to load and stutters in the middle of it.
    or

    Offer all video content at $49.99 per month but only Comcast or content suppliers who pay Comcast high fees run at higher bandwidth.

    or

    Make websites that badmouth Comcast invisible or load extremely slowly? (I think they would be subject to lawsuits if they did this, but they can argue that their bandwidth is not the public square).

    In order to understand all the controversy around the NN regulations, it would be helpful to see concrete examples like this.

    Right now, as far as I know, when you buy your broadband package at 100 Mbps that speed applies to ALL content (shared among your devices of course), and content from some sources is not favored over content from other sources. Content providers don't have to pay extra money to Comcast to get a bigger share of that 100 Mbps.

  • Sevo||

    How long does it take to harvest all that straw?

  • commentator||

    Asking for concrete examples is "strawmanning"?

    Aren't you on the exact same side of the debate (NN regulations aren't needed)?

  • Lester224||

    Sorry to strain your attention span. Just read the last paragraph. I was hoping someone could shoot down all the examples and say none of those things could happen after the NN repeal. That would ease my possibly unreasonable worries about ISPs favoring their own content so much that it amounts to effective censorship.

    I'm hoping we get cheap 5G wireless broadband soon enough to tell Comcast to fuck off. (I've had a lot of problems with Comcast.)

  • NeighborDave||

    Repealing NN does nothing to increase competition. Municipalities signing exclusive deals with providers is the problem, not NN.

  • NeighborDave||

    Not mentioned: Many, many incidences of "bad behaviour" by ISPs
    In 2005, Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. Comcast was denying access to p2p services.
    In 2007 through 2009 AT&T was doing the same thing, including Skype. They took away choice.
    2011 brought us MetroPCS blocking all streaming except YouTube and AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocking Google Wallet so that their service didn't have competition. They took away choice.
    Then along comes 2012, where Verizon blocked tethering apps, despite promising not to do it as part of their winning bid on an airwaves auction.
    AT&T tried to block access to FaceTime unless consumers paid extra. They took away choice and replaced it with 'choose to pay extra.'
    How did 2013 go? Verizon publicly stated that the only thing stopping them from limiting consumer choices was net neutrality.
    In 2014 Comcast literally extorted Netflix for bandwidth: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2014/02/24/business/media/ comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement. html
    Note: I have to put spaces in my hyperlinks because this comments system is garbage.

  • NeighborDave||

    Beyond that and these wholly uninformative articles from Reason these past few days, all I see is a lot of religion about how eliminating government regulations is good.
    Apparently no one can give any more specific reason why it should be repealed.
    Here's what net neutrality does:
    Ban Paid Prioritization: "Fast lanes" will not divide the Internet into "haves" and "have nots."
    Ban Blocking: Consumers must get what they pay for — unfettered access to any lawful content on the Internet.
    Ban Throttling: Degrading access to legal content and services can have the same effect as blocking and will not be permitted.
    That's it. The full text of the regulation is here. https://www.npr.org/sections/ thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534/ fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules
    This regulation was, of course, spurred by Comcast throttling their own subscribers who were trying to use Netflix; a situation I like to refer to as "bandwidth extortion".
    Are conservatives comfortable with the blame for putting Comcast, Spectrum, Google (fiber), and other ISPs in a position to cause headaches for prospective voters?
    What will voters say when Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, Vonage, and others double their prices or more and cite the repeal of Net Neutrality as the cause?
    This blunder will undoubtedly cost conservatives dearly in upcoming elections, and defending this repeal on the hapless grounds that "government is bad" is pure ignorance at best.

  • NeighborDave||

    I expect this kind of groupthink from the left, not from libertarians. You are getting "bamboozled".

  • NeighborDave||

    No replies? Nuts. I was expecting a bunch of trolls and hoping for Kat Timpf! Nothing. No one disputes any of this? 'Tis a sad day for conservatism.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No one disputes any of this?

    Sure--nothing in the Title II designation actually prevents ISPs from "throttling" data, as you morons like to claim. You might want to do some more research on this.

  • FeelTheJohnson||

    Anyone who thinks that either side of this issue has anything to do with capitalism doesn't understand capitalism. Corporations are government entities, and these corporations are given monopolies by the government. There's no capitalism in any of that. Normally, creating more government regulation to fix problems caused by the government is just throwing fuel on the fire, but in this case it's waranted. The inherent checks and balances of a free market simply aren't going to apply here, because it's not a free market. I agree with Reason most of the time, but on this they are just wrong.

  • NeighborDave||

    I guess this site is just full of groupthink rinos.

  • Paige||

    Writing an essay is not an easy task. Passing to a more advanced level of education you will get essay writing assignments on more complex subjects. During elementary school, it is still ok to develop essays on simple topics which are there in everyone's reach. The things change when you grow up. Your topics won't be that easy to develop and the subject areas won't be simple to comprehend, however, despite the problems of comprehension you may face, on time paper submission is essential for receiving a high grade. There are editing services available to help you.

    Good luck!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online