-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Globalising the Net Neutrality Debate
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Chevron
Serial breaker of phones
You must be really slow. The ISP landscape in the US is horrible. Most operate in geographic monopolies and the only reason this could have happened at all.
So no. It has nothing to do with my personal interests. Anti trust and anti monopolies laws exist for a reason.
They are. Those who use the most pay the most.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Of course we love a free and unregulated internet. And of course we need to be very careful that commercial or government interests don't partition the system in ways that unjustly affect users, ISPs, telco's and various other users and providers of internet-delivered content and services.
Of course there's a lot of detail in this debate, and it's easy to get lost. At the end of the day, the argument comes down to two opposing views about the role of government in society and the market. I'm firmly in the camp that opposes government regulation and control.
The following piece pretty much summarises where I am. I'd rather leave the internet free.
Net Neutrality Is A Smoke Screen For FCC Power
As the commission vote nears, it's becoming increasingly clear that the FCC is using net neutrality as an excuse to vastly expand its regulatory reach on the Web. Internet companies that pushed this, beware.
In a CNBC interview Friday, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson described the situation this way:
"We have now, under the president's urging with the FCC, moved from pursuing a free and open Internet to regulating the Internet end to end."
That's exactly right. On orders from President Obama, the Federal Communications Commission is using net neutrality as justification to sweep the entire Internet industry into a regulatory regime designed to deal with a monopoly phone industry that no longer exists. It will give the FCC virtually unlimited powers to tax, regulate rates and second-guess every business decision made.
And for what? Nobody pushing net neutrality can point to any example of anything an Internet service provider has done that has brought one iota of harm to any consumer. Net neutrality, in fact, remains a hopelessly vague concept.
To ease industry concerns, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler promises a "light touch." But Ajit Pai, one of the two Republican commissioners who has seen Wheeler's 332-page plan, says it "explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."
Even if the FCC does manage a "light touch" initially, it's unlikely to last. The long history of federal regulators is one of always growing more intrusive.
"Who knows how some future FCC would interpret its new Title II powers?" writes Richard Waters in the Financial Times. "Price regulation of the Internet's interconnection agreements would always be a looming threat."
Waters notes that even companies such as Google and Facebook — which have been pushing net neutrality rules — could find their own business plans disrupted by the FCC's heavy hand.
But while nobody can say what exactly the FCC will do, it's not hard to guess at the outcome.
As IBD has pointed out, the FCC's 80-year history is littered with examples of how it slowed down innovation, stifled competition and raised costs.
And all of it done in the name of consumer protection.
---
And this piece from the AEI says much the same:
Do we need government regulations to preserve net neutrality?
Net neutrality sounds good, but it means different things to different people, making it easy for special interests to manipulate it for narrow political ends.
One definition of net neutrality is a user’s freedom to connect to any Internet content, application or service. This is uncontroversial, and Internet providers already agree to uphold this principle.
Using their own definitions, however, companies such as Netflix hijack the language of net neutrality to lobby for regulatory favors. They want the government to mandate that transit costs they pay for today become free. In the offline world, such a deal would mean that retailers could not negotiate agreements with their suppliers or even where products could be placed on shelves.
This campaign intensified when President Obama called for the Internet to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II would effectively give control of the Internet to the federal government, allowing it to monitor networks and set prices. For starters, expect a price increase of at least $150 per year due to new federal, state, and local fees on your Internet subscription.
Regulation proponents argue that without such rules your Internet provider would speed up or slow down websites. There have never been rules against this, but Internet providers don’t do it anyway. Simply put, the business opportunity to deliver an open Internet is far greater. Failing that, antitrust laws deter discriminatory behavior, already ensuring net neutrality. Of the billions of Internet experiences every day, there are only two minor net neutrality violations on record. They were resolved swiftly with existing rules.
Many Americans oppose Internet regulation. Recently, 60 tech companies and 100 American manufacturers –including IBM, Intel, and Black & Decker – warned that Title II regulation would harm the economy and reduce investment.
Americans, just 4 percent of the world’s population, enjoy a quarter of the world’s private investment in Internet infrastructure and drive one-third of the world’s Internet traffic. This investment delivers 5 percent of gross domestic product and employs 10 percent of America’s workforce, 11 million Americans. The unregulated Internet allows almost half of America’s employed to work from home and countless companies to grow. Fifteen of the world’s top 25 Internet companies are American.
With more high-speed wireless connections than any country, the US is the hotbed of mobile innovation. Do we need government regulations to preserve net neutrality? No. The Internet in America works extraordinarily well.
---
Of course there's a lot of detail in this debate, and it's easy to get lost. At the end of the day, the argument comes down to two opposing views about the role of government in society and the market. I'm firmly in the camp that opposes government regulation and control.
The following piece pretty much summarises where I am. I'd rather leave the internet free.
Net Neutrality Is A Smoke Screen For FCC Power
As the commission vote nears, it's becoming increasingly clear that the FCC is using net neutrality as an excuse to vastly expand its regulatory reach on the Web. Internet companies that pushed this, beware.
In a CNBC interview Friday, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson described the situation this way:
"We have now, under the president's urging with the FCC, moved from pursuing a free and open Internet to regulating the Internet end to end."
That's exactly right. On orders from President Obama, the Federal Communications Commission is using net neutrality as justification to sweep the entire Internet industry into a regulatory regime designed to deal with a monopoly phone industry that no longer exists. It will give the FCC virtually unlimited powers to tax, regulate rates and second-guess every business decision made.
And for what? Nobody pushing net neutrality can point to any example of anything an Internet service provider has done that has brought one iota of harm to any consumer. Net neutrality, in fact, remains a hopelessly vague concept.
To ease industry concerns, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler promises a "light touch." But Ajit Pai, one of the two Republican commissioners who has seen Wheeler's 332-page plan, says it "explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."
Even if the FCC does manage a "light touch" initially, it's unlikely to last. The long history of federal regulators is one of always growing more intrusive.
"Who knows how some future FCC would interpret its new Title II powers?" writes Richard Waters in the Financial Times. "Price regulation of the Internet's interconnection agreements would always be a looming threat."
Waters notes that even companies such as Google and Facebook — which have been pushing net neutrality rules — could find their own business plans disrupted by the FCC's heavy hand.
But while nobody can say what exactly the FCC will do, it's not hard to guess at the outcome.
As IBD has pointed out, the FCC's 80-year history is littered with examples of how it slowed down innovation, stifled competition and raised costs.
And all of it done in the name of consumer protection.
---
And this piece from the AEI says much the same:
Do we need government regulations to preserve net neutrality?
Net neutrality sounds good, but it means different things to different people, making it easy for special interests to manipulate it for narrow political ends.
One definition of net neutrality is a user’s freedom to connect to any Internet content, application or service. This is uncontroversial, and Internet providers already agree to uphold this principle.
Using their own definitions, however, companies such as Netflix hijack the language of net neutrality to lobby for regulatory favors. They want the government to mandate that transit costs they pay for today become free. In the offline world, such a deal would mean that retailers could not negotiate agreements with their suppliers or even where products could be placed on shelves.
This campaign intensified when President Obama called for the Internet to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II would effectively give control of the Internet to the federal government, allowing it to monitor networks and set prices. For starters, expect a price increase of at least $150 per year due to new federal, state, and local fees on your Internet subscription.
Regulation proponents argue that without such rules your Internet provider would speed up or slow down websites. There have never been rules against this, but Internet providers don’t do it anyway. Simply put, the business opportunity to deliver an open Internet is far greater. Failing that, antitrust laws deter discriminatory behavior, already ensuring net neutrality. Of the billions of Internet experiences every day, there are only two minor net neutrality violations on record. They were resolved swiftly with existing rules.
Many Americans oppose Internet regulation. Recently, 60 tech companies and 100 American manufacturers –including IBM, Intel, and Black & Decker – warned that Title II regulation would harm the economy and reduce investment.
Americans, just 4 percent of the world’s population, enjoy a quarter of the world’s private investment in Internet infrastructure and drive one-third of the world’s Internet traffic. This investment delivers 5 percent of gross domestic product and employs 10 percent of America’s workforce, 11 million Americans. The unregulated Internet allows almost half of America’s employed to work from home and countless companies to grow. Fifteen of the world’s top 25 Internet companies are American.
With more high-speed wireless connections than any country, the US is the hotbed of mobile innovation. Do we need government regulations to preserve net neutrality? No. The Internet in America works extraordinarily well.
---
Last edited:
Arthur
Honorary Master
And then there's this plea in Data Center Journal for the one thing that made the internet work: a free market. "Net neutrality" a la Obama will destroy that.
Net Neutrality: Curing Crony Capitalism With Corporatism
In case the joke in the title wasn’t clear, crony capitalism and corporatism are basically the same thing: governments and corporations teaming up at the expense of consumers/citizens and competitors. Unfortunately, many proponents of net neutrality look at crony capitalism and leave off the crony part when talking about the economic conditions in the U.S. As a result, many say that capitalism (which might roughly be on par with “free markets”—i.e., an economy whose main distinctive is rejection of force initiated by one party against another) has been unable to stop major ISPs, who have perhaps rightly earned the ire of consumers who perceive them as providers of lousy, overly expensive services. But in their more lucid moments, some of the same net-neutrality proponents recognize that part of the problem has been government intervention. So why the expectation that more government intervention will solve the problem?
Against Net Neutrality Doesn’t Mean for ISPs
Joshua Steimle, in an excellent dissenting piece at Forbes, said, “Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not [in favor of net neutrality]. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the ‘pleasure’ of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side.”
Having once lived in a rural location at the mercy of the CenturyLink, Comcast and Verizon troika, I understand the frustration with ISPs. At that location, CenturyLink refused to provide DSL despite offering it to others just a stone’s throw away, and Comcast refused to provide cable despite a nearby line that nevertheless continued many more miles out into the sticks. Verizon only offered mobile broadband—an acceptable alternative to dialup in speed, but only at the cost of an arm and a leg in bandwidth overage charges (even assuming I didn’t try to use Netflix or some other streaming service).
But whatever the reason, such a lack of real competition cannot be laid at the feet of the so-called free market: no such thing exists or has existed in recent years in the U.S. What is commonly termed a “free market” is typically bastardized socialism and fascism that mixes subsidies, regulations and taxation in a brew that is at best toxic to innovation and entrepreneurism.
Will Cronies Change Their Stripes?
Writing at InfoWorld, Paul Venezia—a regular net-neutrality proponent—said, “Market forces cannot level this [ISP] playing field. The market is powerless against the collusion, profiteering, and extortion these corporations have engaged in for years. Essentially, these ISPs have broken the system, and now, the system needs to change to fix the problem.” One might gather from this statement that we tried the free market, but it failed. Yet earlier, Venezia also said, “For many years now, ISPs have operated with very little oversight or regulation, and have been free to build and define their Internet service business as they see fit, with the bonus of massive amounts of taxpayer dollars lining their pockets. Billions of dollars has poured into these companies through such vehicles as the Universal Service Fund and government grants to encourage expansion of service to underserved areas.”
In other words, the government subsidized these companies. Naturally, having been given a financial leg up on the competition, they have come to dominate the market. And sure, they did as little as they could get away with in exchange for that money. Most consumers follow the exact same philosophy: get the most for your money (i.e., labor). The phrase “very little oversight or regulation” is relative; compared with full-on government control, sure! Said Venezia, “There is no such thing as self-regulation in a market with no competition, and the big ISPs have abused this situation for long enough.” But making a slight change from a government carrot to a government stick is not the same as giving up on the free market. The free market hasn’t even been tried. And let’s not forget that wherever there’s a government carrot, somewhere else there’s a government stick (e.g., in taxation).
Rebutting this kind of sentiment, Steimle notes, “I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government…Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations.” Witness, for instance, the frenzied attacks on ride-sharing services like Uber, which are threatening to wipe out traditional (and traditionally expensive) taxi services. Under the guise of “consumer protection” and other noble-sounding ideals, existing providers are trying to maneuver governments into banning or regulating such competing services—surely not in the interest of customer service (they could just guarantee better service to win the market), but to hamstring a rival.
Continues Steimle, “If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.” With all the focus on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposing Title II–style net neutrality regulations, should we really expect an outcome much different from the electricity situation? How much real competition (not just the paper stuff) do you see in electricity providers, honestly? Granted, there are infrastructural roadblocks to having numerous options, particularly in rural areas, but the point is that expecting competition simply because of greater regulation is unreasonable.
Who Do You Love?
Adding to the schizophrenia of many net-neutrality proponents is the notion that the government is more benevolent than corporations and is better able to deliver or guarantee services than the private sector. “I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything,” said Steimle. Need proof? NSA, IRS, SOPA, PIPA, TPP, CISPA, NDAA, CIA, PATRIOT, NSL (national-security letter) and on and on with the government-sponsored acronyms that should strike fear into the heart of Internet users (and citizens in general) that are interested in being “free” and “open”—two words that all too easily fall out of the mouths of people in a rush to give the government greater control of their Internet access. “Simply put—I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if ‘my team’ wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term,” he added.
With regard to privacy, corporations are almost invariably preferable to the government. A corporation that raids your data (usually because you agreed to it—think Facebook or Google) will at most target you with advertisements for something it thinks you want (or that it wants to convince you that you want). A government, particularly the U.S. government, can target you for prosecution, jail and even death—such as for the reason of not having “a more responsible father” in the despicable words of former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The notion that the government won’t take full advantage of greater regulatory authority to increase its spying is like expecting it not to eventually raise the rate of a newly instituted tax (like the federal income tax).
(continued next post)
Net Neutrality: Curing Crony Capitalism With Corporatism
In case the joke in the title wasn’t clear, crony capitalism and corporatism are basically the same thing: governments and corporations teaming up at the expense of consumers/citizens and competitors. Unfortunately, many proponents of net neutrality look at crony capitalism and leave off the crony part when talking about the economic conditions in the U.S. As a result, many say that capitalism (which might roughly be on par with “free markets”—i.e., an economy whose main distinctive is rejection of force initiated by one party against another) has been unable to stop major ISPs, who have perhaps rightly earned the ire of consumers who perceive them as providers of lousy, overly expensive services. But in their more lucid moments, some of the same net-neutrality proponents recognize that part of the problem has been government intervention. So why the expectation that more government intervention will solve the problem?
Against Net Neutrality Doesn’t Mean for ISPs
Joshua Steimle, in an excellent dissenting piece at Forbes, said, “Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not [in favor of net neutrality]. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the ‘pleasure’ of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side.”
Having once lived in a rural location at the mercy of the CenturyLink, Comcast and Verizon troika, I understand the frustration with ISPs. At that location, CenturyLink refused to provide DSL despite offering it to others just a stone’s throw away, and Comcast refused to provide cable despite a nearby line that nevertheless continued many more miles out into the sticks. Verizon only offered mobile broadband—an acceptable alternative to dialup in speed, but only at the cost of an arm and a leg in bandwidth overage charges (even assuming I didn’t try to use Netflix or some other streaming service).
But whatever the reason, such a lack of real competition cannot be laid at the feet of the so-called free market: no such thing exists or has existed in recent years in the U.S. What is commonly termed a “free market” is typically bastardized socialism and fascism that mixes subsidies, regulations and taxation in a brew that is at best toxic to innovation and entrepreneurism.
Will Cronies Change Their Stripes?
Writing at InfoWorld, Paul Venezia—a regular net-neutrality proponent—said, “Market forces cannot level this [ISP] playing field. The market is powerless against the collusion, profiteering, and extortion these corporations have engaged in for years. Essentially, these ISPs have broken the system, and now, the system needs to change to fix the problem.” One might gather from this statement that we tried the free market, but it failed. Yet earlier, Venezia also said, “For many years now, ISPs have operated with very little oversight or regulation, and have been free to build and define their Internet service business as they see fit, with the bonus of massive amounts of taxpayer dollars lining their pockets. Billions of dollars has poured into these companies through such vehicles as the Universal Service Fund and government grants to encourage expansion of service to underserved areas.”
In other words, the government subsidized these companies. Naturally, having been given a financial leg up on the competition, they have come to dominate the market. And sure, they did as little as they could get away with in exchange for that money. Most consumers follow the exact same philosophy: get the most for your money (i.e., labor). The phrase “very little oversight or regulation” is relative; compared with full-on government control, sure! Said Venezia, “There is no such thing as self-regulation in a market with no competition, and the big ISPs have abused this situation for long enough.” But making a slight change from a government carrot to a government stick is not the same as giving up on the free market. The free market hasn’t even been tried. And let’s not forget that wherever there’s a government carrot, somewhere else there’s a government stick (e.g., in taxation).
Rebutting this kind of sentiment, Steimle notes, “I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government…Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations.” Witness, for instance, the frenzied attacks on ride-sharing services like Uber, which are threatening to wipe out traditional (and traditionally expensive) taxi services. Under the guise of “consumer protection” and other noble-sounding ideals, existing providers are trying to maneuver governments into banning or regulating such competing services—surely not in the interest of customer service (they could just guarantee better service to win the market), but to hamstring a rival.
Continues Steimle, “If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.” With all the focus on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposing Title II–style net neutrality regulations, should we really expect an outcome much different from the electricity situation? How much real competition (not just the paper stuff) do you see in electricity providers, honestly? Granted, there are infrastructural roadblocks to having numerous options, particularly in rural areas, but the point is that expecting competition simply because of greater regulation is unreasonable.
Who Do You Love?
Adding to the schizophrenia of many net-neutrality proponents is the notion that the government is more benevolent than corporations and is better able to deliver or guarantee services than the private sector. “I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything,” said Steimle. Need proof? NSA, IRS, SOPA, PIPA, TPP, CISPA, NDAA, CIA, PATRIOT, NSL (national-security letter) and on and on with the government-sponsored acronyms that should strike fear into the heart of Internet users (and citizens in general) that are interested in being “free” and “open”—two words that all too easily fall out of the mouths of people in a rush to give the government greater control of their Internet access. “Simply put—I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if ‘my team’ wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term,” he added.
With regard to privacy, corporations are almost invariably preferable to the government. A corporation that raids your data (usually because you agreed to it—think Facebook or Google) will at most target you with advertisements for something it thinks you want (or that it wants to convince you that you want). A government, particularly the U.S. government, can target you for prosecution, jail and even death—such as for the reason of not having “a more responsible father” in the despicable words of former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The notion that the government won’t take full advantage of greater regulatory authority to increase its spying is like expecting it not to eventually raise the rate of a newly instituted tax (like the federal income tax).
(continued next post)
Last edited:
Arthur
Honorary Master
Conclusions
Venezia applauded Wheeler by saying, “But for those of us who have been advocating for Net neutrality, this is a day to celebrate. Wheeler’s bold proposal, if adopted, will be the biggest win for the open Internet in the United States in history.” Steimle might respond as follows:
f monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, or the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government.
Part of the problem is the demonstrably false belief in government as a benevolent force. And as technology has advanced, the outrageous acts of governments—whether in bloodshed or spying or repression—have advanced as well. Therefore, the naive idea that handing over control of some industry to unelected bureaucrats (at least I don’t ever remember seeing Tom Wheeler on any ballots) will improve the situation is just that—naive. At a bare minimum, such an action should require consent from Congress; even though representation in the U.S. today is a joke (on average, U.S. Congressional Representatives each “represent” almost 700,000 citizens, making the if-you-don’t-like-it-change-it-by-voting argument laughable beyond belief), at least it provides some semblance of recourse for citizens.
Regardless of the outcome of lawsuits that will likely follow FCC action on net neutrality, there still remains one solution to the problem of cronyism and corporatism that has never been tried: a truly free market.
Venezia applauded Wheeler by saying, “But for those of us who have been advocating for Net neutrality, this is a day to celebrate. Wheeler’s bold proposal, if adopted, will be the biggest win for the open Internet in the United States in history.” Steimle might respond as follows:
f monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, or the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government.
Part of the problem is the demonstrably false belief in government as a benevolent force. And as technology has advanced, the outrageous acts of governments—whether in bloodshed or spying or repression—have advanced as well. Therefore, the naive idea that handing over control of some industry to unelected bureaucrats (at least I don’t ever remember seeing Tom Wheeler on any ballots) will improve the situation is just that—naive. At a bare minimum, such an action should require consent from Congress; even though representation in the U.S. today is a joke (on average, U.S. Congressional Representatives each “represent” almost 700,000 citizens, making the if-you-don’t-like-it-change-it-by-voting argument laughable beyond belief), at least it provides some semblance of recourse for citizens.
Regardless of the outcome of lawsuits that will likely follow FCC action on net neutrality, there still remains one solution to the problem of cronyism and corporatism that has never been tried: a truly free market.
I absolutely disagree. The problem is not a belief that government must act as a benevolent force - the stricture that the government must act within the confines of the law AND with object and purpose that is benevolent is necessary to avoid tyranny.
The problem with the benevolent Caesar hypothesis is not that government must act as a benevolent force but rather the pairing of expectation with consequences. If government is to be a benevolent force it will not use disaster or threat of war to encroach into the affairs of free agents beyond what has been invited. There is a tendency to either hold that because the government must be good its intention triumphs over its inability to economically or efficiently deliver on benevolence or to hold a cynical proposition that allows for the most malevolent of thugs to cease such power as my be taken - otherwise we simply invite tyrants to be mini-dictators while we hope to find liberty in those things where we are able to exclude their presence.
As Acton said: "no class is fit to govern". Imperfection of suitability to govern should not be pretext to eject a criteria of good faith intent. It is not necessary for a leviathan.
The benevolence - albeit temporarily - of the United States Government was instrumental in kick starting what became the Internet, but true benevolence holds no eternal debt over beneficiaries nor rest on the laurels of good intention to justify bad action.
[written while trimming off correspondence to our favourite telecoms regulator, telling them in more words than I care to [and quoting faaaaar too many Constitutional Court judgments for my own good health] that they cannot act malevolently as an alternative to acting stupidly]
The problem with this line of thinking though is that most laws and regulations are not to protect people. People do need to be protected but there are only a few basic rights that need to be protected. Government by itself is powerless by default. It needs laws to act within. Every piece of legislation gives the government more room to act and that is where the problem is as it gives the government more power over our lives. So more power for government means less freedom for citizens. Wherever government has power it will abuse that power for its own gain eventually. So before we introduce any new piece of legislation we need to carefully consider if it affords us any net gain. If it doesn't provide us any new rights that are necessary for government to protect then it's simply not worth it and will just have a net negative effect on our rights.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Now Google is seeing problems with aspects of Wheelers "net neutrality" proposal.
Ars Technica reports:
Google warns FCC plan could help ISPs charge senders of Web traffic
Net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences, Google argues.
Google is warning that the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences that help Internet service providers charge Web services for sending traffic.
More here.
Ars Technica reports:
Google warns FCC plan could help ISPs charge senders of Web traffic
Net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences, Google argues.
Google is warning that the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences that help Internet service providers charge Web services for sending traffic.
More here.