As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Net Neutrality: Why shouldn't IPs regulate their own network?

Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
edited October 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
So while I agree with the Net Neutrality concept in theory, and I don't want traffic to sites regulated by an ISP's whims, what really is there constiutionally to prevent a private organization from setting up restrictions and guidelines for the use of it's product. You see similar situations with private organizations that set up arbitrary rules, or propietary products that can only be used in certain situations. The only argument I can come up with is if the ISP in question is a monopoly in a certain area, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate traffic in the geographic region. Similar to how Microsoft can't exclusively package certain items onto their OS because it is still technically a monopoly. But if there are more than one IP's providing comparable service, then really is there anything to stop them from limiting traffic at whim? You can make a law, but will that law stand up to a constitutional challenge?

Lady Eri on
«13

Posts

  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    kdrudykdrudy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It could be argued that net neutrality is in the interest of the general welfare of the country, which Congress has the power to provide for.

    kdrudy on
    tvsfrank.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    Well the point is that companies regulating traffic differently would absolve the need for any legal solution in regions where there is more than one ISP. Which is the case in many parts of the country.

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The interstate commerce clause is a beautiful thing. (and actually applies nicely, for once)

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    Well the point is that companies regulating traffic differently would absolve the need for any legal solution in regions where there is more than one ISP. Which is the case in many parts of the country.

    ... How? So we're going to offer individuals the choice to purchase several different ISP plans so that they may have unfettered internet access? Not to mention that technically there are many limitations to this in the first place.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ISPs can't use their networks to stop competition under the same legal reasoning that broke up Ma Bell and keeps electrical utilities from tying any customers that use their lines to their service. In a philosophical nutshell the benefit to society from the increased competition and customer choice vastly outweighs the harm to the monopolistic companies.

    I'm of the belief that there's really no reason dumb infrastructure like cellphone reception, electricity, or internet connections should be provided by private companies at all, but that's neither here nor there.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Didn't the taxpayers pay for the infrastructure for the network in the first place and the companies themselves were given monopolistic contracts by the government so they could use the networks?

    Invisible on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Also I'd stress again - the idea is an exercise in double billing. The only thing no net neutrality leads is to service providers running what amounts to a protection racket: "nice website you've got there, be a shame if anything were to happen to it ay buddy?"

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    So while I agree with the Net Neutrality concept in theory, and I don't want traffic to sites regulated by an ISP's whims, what really is there constiutionally to prevent a private organization from setting up restrictions and guidelines for the use of it's product. You see similar situations with private organizations that set up arbitrary rules, or propietary products that can only be used in certain situations. The only argument I can come up with is if the ISP in question is a monopoly in a certain area, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate traffic in the geographic region. Similar to how Microsoft can't exclusively package certain items onto their OS because it is still technically a monopoly. But if there are more than one IP's providing comparable service, then really is there anything to stop them from limiting traffic at whim? You can make a law, but will that law stand up to a constitutional challenge?

    As a common carrier, you aren't responsible for the legal status of products you move. A phone company is not legally responsible for phone-based fraud, FedEx aren't legally responsible if someone ships drugs through their system.

    If you start sniffing about and using x-rays to inspect packages, you lose common-carrier protections and are suddenly legally responsible.

    Robman on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Boy scouts don't operate major national infrastructure.

    EDIT: Also since when is free speech defined as the right to limit that of others?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Man what legal precedents have I missed that would allow an extortionist business model under the guise of free speech?

    Robman on
  • Options
    RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company?

    oh boo fucking hoo

    Rust on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    Well the point is that companies regulating traffic differently would absolve the need for any legal solution in regions where there is more than one ISP. Which is the case in many parts of the country.

    ... How? So we're going to offer individuals the choice to purchase several different ISP plans so that they may have unfettered internet access? Not to mention that technically there are many limitations to this in the first place.

    Maintaing unfettered internet access isn't a consitutionally protected right though. I would imagine as long as there are two seperately owned competing ISPs, then they each operate however they want.

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    Well the point is that companies regulating traffic differently would absolve the need for any legal solution in regions where there is more than one ISP. Which is the case in many parts of the country.

    ... How? So we're going to offer individuals the choice to purchase several different ISP plans so that they may have unfettered internet access? Not to mention that technically there are many limitations to this in the first place.

    Maintaing unfettered internet access isn't a consitutionally protected right though. I would imagine as long as there are two seperately owned competing ISPs, then they each operate however they want.

    Which goes back to the point that inhibiting that access inhibits an individuals right to free speech and any court which rules otherwise is fucking retarded in an objective capacity.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    kdrudykdrudy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I still say it falls under general welfare of the United States. The ability of anyone to do virtually anything they want over the internet has fundamentally changed the world for the better, it is in the countries interest to keep it that way here.

    kdrudy on
    tvsfrank.jpg
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Except that in most parts of America, there is not more then one ISP providing comparable service, and the argument falls flat it everyone regulates their traffic in different ways.

    Excusing the fact that the whole thing is an exercise in double-billing people.

    Well the point is that companies regulating traffic differently would absolve the need for any legal solution in regions where there is more than one ISP. Which is the case in many parts of the country.

    ... How? So we're going to offer individuals the choice to purchase several different ISP plans so that they may have unfettered internet access? Not to mention that technically there are many limitations to this in the first place.

    Maintaing unfettered internet access isn't a consitutionally protected right though. I would imagine as long as there are two seperately owned competing ISPs, then they each operate however they want.
    Are you trying to claim that any kind of business regulation is unconstitutional? I don't think you are, but I also don't think you've run through the implications of what you're saying.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    So you're comfortable with Verizon routing packets from Hulu.com at a very low priority in order to drive customers to their own cable subscriptions?

    Or degrading all traffic from Skype in order to drive customers to their own voice offerings?

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company?

    oh boo fucking hoo

    I will remind you only once, that I support Net Neutrality. I am just looking for a legal framework to support it. If you are incapable of participating in the intended manner of the discussion, and would like to create an emotionally chagred discussion on the merits of insitutions operating in a certain way, please create your own thread.


    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Guys

    I think this might be an elaborate troll. I mean really, a libertarian communist (based on their avatar)

    Robman on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    commerce clause

    It is not only not unconstitutional, it is explicitly written into the constitution.

    Article 1 Section 8

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company?

    Maybe if your definition of "Speech"(actually expression is the term in the amendment) is "any action ever"

    Khavall on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This feels like it ties in nicely with that corporate personhood thread.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Boy scouts don't operate major national infrastructure.

    EDIT: Also since when is free speech defined as the right to limit that of others?

    Wouldn't they argue the solitician of their product can't be defined as inalienable right? Can we classify the Internet as a public good which should have regulated protections like water and electrcity? How would we go about doing that, is a congressional act enough?

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company?

    Uh, America does this all the time.

    Quid on
  • Options
    RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Guys

    I think this might be an elaborate troll. I mean really, a libertarian communist (based on their avatar)

    libertarian definitely, at least based on the arguments (monotonously reciting canned soundbites until all avenues have been exhausted, and then doing it again)

    Rust on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Websites already pay hosting fees. What the ISPs are looking to do is to turn every single routing hop into a toll bridge, which would destroy the internet.

    Robman on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company?

    Uh, America does this all the time.

    article 1 section 8

    the clauses you want to read extra carefully are 3 and 18

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elldren wrote: »
    commerce clause

    It is not only not unconstitutional, it is explicitly written into the constitution.

    Article 1 Section 8

    I like this solution. Do you think congress will pass a bill to regulate that in particular? If not, can states do it one by one?

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Websites already pay hosting fees. What the ISPs are looking to do is to turn every single routing hop into a toll bridge, which would destroy the internet.

    Well yes, but they aren't paying hosting fees to that particular ISP the argument could be made. Again, I don't disagree that it would be detrimental.

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Uh, are you saying you're concerned the FCC is unconstitutional? Short answer : No.
    That is a very silly question that google could answer, as well as common sense, given that if the FCC couldn't survive a constitutional challenge it wouldn't have done so already.

    Long answer:
    A combination of the google, the constitution, http://www.amazon.com/Telecommunications-Policy-Carolina-Academic-Casebook/dp/0890896259 and http://search.barnesandnoble.com/State-and-Federal-Administrative-Law/Michael-R-R-Asimow/e/9780314262998 will help you understand why.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Salmon for false. For instance, the current financial crisis came about because of the removal of regulations of non-fraudulent activities. In fact, most regulations don't exist to combat fraud and potential criminal activities.... laws against fraud and those criminal activities do that. It doesn't even become fraud or criminal activities until after the "regulations" exist. "Business models" that consist of business practices that are harmful to society such as monopoly, underpaying workers, the production of food that is not sanitary/healthy, productions of products that are dangerous, unsafe working conditions, pollution, or discriminatory of a protected class (by race, for instance) are the primary target of business regulations. Even practices we now call fraudulent such as insider trading were legal until they were regulated.

    And until Fox has a show called the Titty Fucking and Real Life Dickhead Stabbing I don't think this exactly sets a precedent for "limiting the free speech of the company."

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Websites already pay hosting fees. What the ISPs are looking to do is to turn every single routing hop into a toll bridge, which would destroy the internet.

    Well yes, but they aren't paying hosting fees to that particular ISP the argument could be made. Again, I don't disagree that it would be detrimental.

    Websites pay hosting fees to their ISP, who pay bandwidth fees to someone else or have mutual contracts for it. What's desired is the ability to specifically bill people to use google.com - which is a protection racket.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    How could you pull net neturality as being unconstituional anyway? At the very least the concept would finally force the internet to be recognized as a free speech medium.

    Forcing private institutions to operate a certain way? Isn't that technically limiting the free speech of the company? Regulations exist primarily to combat fraud and potential criminal activity, not to micromanage business models. Boy scouts don't accept atheists and, in same cases, gays. It's their legal right to do so. Is this really all that different?

    Salmon for false. For instance, the current financial crisis came about because of the removal of regulations of non-fraudulent activities. In fact, most regulations don't exist to combat fraud and potential criminal activities.... laws against fraud and those criminal activities do that. It doesn't even become fraud or criminal activities until after the "regulations" exist. "Business models" that consist of business practices that are harmful to society such as monopoly, underpaying workers, the production of food that is not sanitary/healthy, productions of products that are dangerous, unsafe working conditions, pollution, or discriminatory of a protected class (by race, for instance) are the primary target of business regulations. Even practices we now call fraudulent such as insider trading were legal until they were regulated.

    And until Fox has a show called the Titty Fucking and Real Life Dickhead Stabbing I don't think this exactly sets a precedent for "limiting the free speech of the company."

    why are you going to argue about the law when you don't know the law? you're better off posting whatever sources you're reading so we can explain why they're wrong than just slowly distilling them and making the process take three times as long.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    commerce clause

    It is not only not unconstitutional, it is explicitly written into the constitution.

    Article 1 Section 8

    I like this solution. Do you think congress will pass a bill to regulate that in particular? If not, can states do it one by one?

    Seeing as that particular section of the constitution deals with delineating the powers of the federal congress, I think it's safe to say the former would have to do it. States doing it one by one would lead to a race to the bottom situation which would essentially eliminate any actual enforceable regulation and eventually necessitate the intervention of the federal government. Whether or not they would step in before or after this happens is in the air (see also: medical insurance)

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Websites already pay hosting fees. What the ISPs are looking to do is to turn every single routing hop into a toll bridge, which would destroy the internet.

    Well yes, but they aren't paying hosting fees to that particular ISP the argument could be made. Again, I don't disagree that it would be detrimental.

    Websites pay hosting fees to their ISP, who pay bandwidth fees to someone else or have mutual contracts for it. What's desired is the ability to specifically bill people to use google.com - which is a protection racket.

    So where is all the hate for Net Neutrality coming from?

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Lady Eri wrote: »
    Robman: Forcing websites to pay for access wouldn't really fall into extortion, they could argue they are just shifting some of the financial burden away from surfers to content providers. Couldn't they?

    Websites already pay hosting fees. What the ISPs are looking to do is to turn every single routing hop into a toll bridge, which would destroy the internet.

    Well yes, but they aren't paying hosting fees to that particular ISP the argument could be made. Again, I don't disagree that it would be detrimental.

    Websites pay hosting fees to their ISP, who pay bandwidth fees to someone else or have mutual contracts for it. What's desired is the ability to specifically bill people to use google.com - which is a protection racket.

    So where is all the hate for Net Neutrality coming from?

    you?

    Well ok, outside of this thread, the people who would make more money without it.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Guys

    I think this might be an elaborate troll. I mean really, a libertarian communist (based on their avatar)

    That was a phalla avatar, I am not really that libertarian either.

    Lady Eri on
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ISP's hate net neutrality because it denies them from completely exploiting the Web.

    jungleroomx on
Sign In or Register to comment.