Donald Trump Jr. still wins his bet because a phrase like this shows the internet guy doesn’t understand the issue. The FCC can’t give anyone any rights. A right, by definition, and as stated clearly in the U.S. constitution isn’t bestowed by the government. That’s what makes our constitution different than most. Everyone thinks that every more or less democratic society in developed countries is the same - but it isn’t. In the commonwealth countries and the U.K., subjects of the monarchy are granted rights by the monarchy - including things like the right to assemble and form a government. The U.S. is different. You can talk about how much that matters in day to day practice, but it is still the reality.
Someone’s livelihood is always at stake. But whose? And is the “solution” being proposed really going to fix the problem and do it in an equitable way?
Okay, except it’s not extortion to charge for a service. We have toll roads all over the place, and the people who are campaigning for net neutrality are hugely fond of toll roads. We just added flex tolls to a major commuter road into Washington - where all this drama is happening. But for some reason, then people who manage the “roads” of the internet are not allowed to put up tolls, or set parameters on who can drive where, how fast or at what times. Because we want those roads. That’s fine logic, but we don’t apply it to anything other than ISPs. Google is in legal hot water in the EU and in the US for all kinds of unsavory practices. They have a monopoly on internet video through YouTube and they are abusing the hell out of content creators for MASSIVE profits. No one is willing to stand up to them because Google is incredibly powerful. They have a near monopoly on internet searching. Again, I’m not particularly afraid of Google. But if I’m afraid of a company abusing their power and control I’m not AT ALL worried about Comcast bullying Google.
The government is also “people.” And can be corrupted by power as well - as was the case when the FCC illegally regulated ISPs prior to 2015. They exercised power, without the authority and without any vote of Congress or public survey or any of the nonsense that everyone is clamoring for now. And all they are doing is reversing (some of) what they did in 2015.
I am not arguing in favor of awesome, super, benevolent ISPs. Comcast and Verizon are not my friends. But neither are google or Netflix. And I’m looking at the history of FCC regulation and I see NOTHING that makes me think the FCC will be effective in protecting consumers from companies accruing power. Look at TV, Cable, Radio and Telephone services in the U.S. and their history. Of those, two were DELIBERATELY monopolized by FCC regulation (Cable and Telephone) and the other two were virtually monopolized as a result of the fact that regulation generally stifles innovation. It’s very difficult for startups and new players to enter a heavily regulated environment. Their big competitors have a huge advantage in dealing with government regulators and use that advantage to squash them. TV in the U.S. was a shared monopoly between 3 stations that purchased the rights from the FCC. For 50 years. It wasn’t until Cable started allowing TV stations to broadcast without using airwaves that new networks (Fox, CNN, ESPN) were able pop up in the USA. Meanwhile, the FCC encouraged cable monopolies that then charged people and are able to sell bloated million channel “packages” that no one wants in order to overcharge when all anyone really wants is HBO. These companies “extort” fees and negotiate agreements to carry or not carry channels on their packages all the time. While under FCC regulations that DO NOT ALLOW for competition in that market. So, Cable companies went nuts until the mid-90’s when fiber optic phone lines and satellite were able to again, skirt FCC rules and offer TV services not through “cable.” And the cable companies tried desperately to use the FCC to stop it.
So I am very VERY skeptical of this idea that somehow the FCC is going to regulate ISPs to ensure consumer protection when they have failed to provide consumer friendly policies in EVERY area that they have had control of since the 1930’s. Yes, some of this is my inherent political biases, but I’m not seeing anything I would describe as evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, as @R1stormrider keeps pointing out, good luck to the first cable company that blocks Netflix.
Because the Attorney General’s office in one of the 50 states is a great place to launch a national political career. And also because they take money from giant tech companies that will be impacted. It’s New York, California and Washington state that are leading the call to sue the FCC. Know any big tech companies headquartered in these states (Google, Amazon, Microsoft for example). Again - I’m not even criticizing this action. I would be happy to take money from giant tech companies. Maybe they are right. But you can’t just stare up at the sky and say “gosh, why would politicians be doings something about it if it wasn’t important?” If that was our standard of gullibility on everything we would be in a sorry place indeed. If I put examples here, it will get too political for the forums, but if you want some I will gladly give you a dozen policy initiatives that the net neutrality people hate where I could counter with “gosh, why would politicians be doing something about it if it wasn’t important?” The issue for the states in court will be about federal pre-emption of state laws. We had another “discussion” around state’s right to set their own rules around 1860 - and NO ONE in the U.S. is going to sit around and argue that States are allowed to set their own rules for that issue. The standard is that states are only allowed to pass laws regulating things that the federal government does not address. They can’t controvert federal laws and rules (although there are lots of examples where they do). It’s not quite so cut and dry but that’s the general principle. So these lawsuits will be decided entirely based around arcane legal theory that has literally NOTHING to do with whether or not net neutrality is good or bad for consumers. But all you will hear in the papers and from the mouths of politicians and AG’s will be about how they are fighting for the consumers in their states.
