Geoffrey A. Manne's WIRED article on NET NEUTRALITY

jasongpeirce

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
45
Geoffrey A. Manne is out with an article in WIRED on net neutrality “The FCC’s Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But.” Manne is Executive Director of the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE). Here are 8 brief takeaways from the article. Yes, net neutrality has been covered ad nauseum. But as the issue of net neutrality heads toward the courts, it’s important to keep it in the policy window.

1. Manne writes that “almost no one really gets it (net neutrality) save for a handful of internet engineers and innovators such as Mark Cuban. Cuban said that net neutrality would create a politicized “Whac-a-Mole environment” and “f*ck everything up.” Also, Manne implies that the “supposed” four million pro-net neutrality comments the FCC acted on may not have come from grass-roots, regular Americans (were the comments rather from Astro-Turf political action committees?). The deeper question though, is this: do you “get” net neutrality?
2. Manne notes that with net neutrality the FCC now has authority over anything it deems “unreasonable.” "Unreasonable" may be your political opinion. This is what Cuban meant by saying net neutrality creates a "politicized Whac-a-Mole environment." The FCC can now "whac" your political opinion off the internet. Furthermore, “’Reasonable’ is perhaps the most litigated word in American history” says former Commissioner Robert McDowell. Also, Manne asserts that the FCC can now oversee interconnection agreements, even though interconnection problems have been minimal, and interconnection costs have fallen 99 percent since 1998.
3. Manne says smaller Internet Service Providers (ISP) will find it harder to compete with larger ISPs. This effect of heavier regulations is true across most industries. Regulations crush small businesses which cannot financially afford to meet regulations.
4. Net neutrality will raise your broadband bill. Says Manne: “A range of state and local fees apply only to common-carrier telecommunications services—which is what the FCC just made your broadband internet service.”

5. Net neutrality protects established businesses from upstarts more than it protects upstarts from ISPs. Manne: “Think about it: If you’re ‘the next Facebook,’ who do you think is more worried about you? Your ISP, or Facebook itself?”
6. Irony: With net neutrality, ISPs are now regulated as common carriers. As Manne points out, the consequence is that the Federal Trade Commission cannot enforce its consumer protection laws against ISPs anymore. Wasn’t net neutrality supposed to “protect” the consumer?
7. Net neutrality is unnecessary: “The record leading up to last week’s vote contained evidence of only five instances in the history of the internet where ISPs may have thwarted content providers’ access to end-users, none of which required heavy-handed net neutrality rules to address” says Manne.
8. The biggest beneficiaries of net neutrality may be telecom attorneys. New regulations act as job stimulus bills for attorneys.
In closing, here’s the headline of the week: “Netflix Exec Says It Didn’t Actually Want FCC to Regulate Broadband So Heavily” (Variety, 3/4/2015). Memo to Netflix: the FCC is a federal government bureaucracy. What did you think was going to happen?

Do you believe Manne’s assessment of net neutrality? If you do, then why did the Obama administration and the FCC push so hard for net neutrality?
 
I agree.

There are billions if not eventually trillions of dollars associated in terms of fees , fines, sales taxes,user taxes, asset forfeitures.
CONSUMERS; Brick and mortar retail businesses,online business, churches, individuals, farmers, growers, are all ripe for the pickings, the government can't possible let this money slip by, Republicans are offering up alternatives to FCC Control that are eager to accomplish the same thing; CONTROL , and further erosion of income through new taxation, fees, etc....

Worst of all, ANY GOVERNMENT OVER-LORDING of the internet will STRANGLE free speech , and the exchange of ideas, our
privacy will continue down the free-falling loss of our inalienable rights of privacy.

We have had antitrust laws since Sherman and the Clayton acts dating back as far as 1890.
Government control of the internet is the biggest TROJAN HORSE in modern History.

Not to mention, we will EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE the scope of the FCC, and size in number of employees working for the FCC
or whatever vehicle this PROPOSED CONTROL rides.

Just like redundant agencies , DHS,NSA,TSA,FEMA.....if we really need more than the FBI, and the CIA,and The National Guard, we are not going to survive as a free Nation.

..
 
1. No one really gets it because there are two separate issues which each have co-opted false choices on the others' side to serve as strawmen in the debate. Net neutrality (the principle) is simply that ISPs cannot discriminate against content flowing on the net.

2. This is pure scare tactics. First of all, no one has seen the net neutrality rules yet (which I disagree with), but assuming that it contains the "opposite" of the first amendment buried in its text somewhere is just ridiculous.

3. How so? Net neutrality simply states that all traffic should be treated equally to all others. If anything, it simplifies the protocol required for communication on the internet, as there is no step required to "pick and choose" which packets should be sent first. Think about this seriously - which would be more difficult to implement: a system where in all data is given the same priority? Or one where there is a hierarchy that must be implemented based on a legal restriction set up by the government? See?

4. The jury is out on this one - here's the bottom line though - I already pay state taxes/fees/etc for the internet, so it seems like a moot point.

5. The truth in your premise does not lead to the falsehood in the conclusion. Of course Facebook and Google are more worried about internet start-up competitors than an ISP...an ISP isn't in the market of creating content!!! Which is exactly why they should stay the F out of that business!!! What Google and Facebook are more afraid of is being charged exorbitant tolls so their customers can access their content (which is the opposite of how the current internet pricing scheme works, in case you weren't aware). Net neutrality says this should remain so.

6. I'm honestly unaware of this facet of the debate, so I'll refrain from commenting.

7. Just like laws against murder are unnecessary because there have only been 5,000,000 of them in history...riiiiiggghhhhttt. In a way, I find a lot of humor in the situation because the ISPs who tried to take advantage and make a profit where they weren't producing anything are now getting a big bitch slap to put them back in their place.

8. This is likely true and is a sad fact.
 
Agre with you wide lens perspective Stratovarious. The implications o liberty are disastrous I feel.
 
Mr. Tansill, good points. I think what it comes down to for a lot of people is if they trust government on this or not. I do not.
 
Back
Top