Net Neutrality - Pro or Con?

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...mpaign-promise

It passed by a 3-2 party line vote of FCC Commissioners today. It was not subjected to the legislative process. Proponents claim that this will preclude providers from discriminating against any form of legal traffic. Opponents claim it will lead to government overreach and a lack of investment in internet technologies. My preference would have been that it at least be subject to the legislative process. I suspect it will end up in the Courts in some fashion.

Anyone have strong opinions for or against this? My skepticism leads me to oppose it. I am especially weary of major regulatory changes made by agencies and not legislation.

OEC

Net Neutrality's good; the FCC is generally bad. 'Would prefer it went some other way, but so long as they're doing just this on the internets...

makes sense the government would do that...as long as it keeps away from important industries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Net Neutrality's good; the FCC is generally bad. 'Would prefer it went some other way, but so long as they're doing just this on the internets...

---

That is basically the source of my skepticism. If they are doing *just* this as you say, I can see a case for it. Given the track record of the FCC + a recent court case questioning their jurisdiction, you have to wonder how much control will actually be exercised here. Apparently, bills are being introduced in Congress to halt or limit their jurisdiction. I guess we'll see what happens.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

makes sense the government would do that...as long as it keeps away from important industries

---

I didn't see anything specific regarding industry. I don't completely know how they would differentiate that traffic.

OEC, are you by chance a law student?

And a big hell no to any further government overreach into any private industry. Where do these people get off? They are not elected by anyone and therefore answer to no one. Shadowy figures legislating without making legislation... A complete derailment of the Constitution.

Private industry exists by virtue of government overreach, though. It requires laws on property and contract and the like to exist and be enforced. Why shouldn't the government be able to alter the volume of relevant laws, if you believe that they had the jurisdiction to create it in the first place?

Also, individual people engaging in things other than industry aren't elected by anyone, either. Do you agree then that they should not have to answer to the government, either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Private industry exists by virtue of government overreach, though. It requires laws on property and contract and the like to exist and be enforced. Why shouldn't the government be able to alter the volume of relevant laws, if you believe that they had the jurisdiction to create it in the first place?

Also, individual people engaging in things other than industry aren't elected by anyone, either. Do you agree then that they should not have to answer to the government, either?

---

I disagree - private industry exists because of the limited nature of our federal government. The right to do business is an extension of the natural rights, and the government, via the constitution, has made a general promise to avoid abridging those rights. If it does abridge the rights of individuals or bodies of individuals, due process needs to be followed (14th and 8th amendments), and the proposed laws are held up to varying degrees of scrutiny. The FCC is an unelected body that may answer to the government per se, but is not subject to the approval of voters, hence the problem. The Constitution specifically lays out the organization of our government - and bodies like the FCC are creating black letter law without the benefit of a legislative vote. Whether you are into NetNeut or not, congress needs to vote on it.

The laws about property and contracts are intended to safeguard the rights of individuals and bodies of individuals - not the rights of the government.

Just a general question with relation to net neut... Does anyone know how the networks are handling the bandwidth explosion? Is the available amount shrinking because of so many wireless devices with Internet access? Is management of this part of the reason more legislation (or FCC regulations) will be forthcoming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BiggTruxx

I disagree - private industry exists because of the limited nature of our federal government. The right to do business is an extension of the natural rights, and the government, via the constitution, has made a general promise to avoid abridging those rights.

The laws about property and contracts are intended to safeguard the rights of individuals and bodies of individuals - not the rights of the government.

---

There is no such thing as a natural right; all ethics are artificial. Many people act as if a (read: their) perfect system is somehow woven into the fabric of the universe and we need merely detect it, but this is nonsense when you stop to think about it - nothing but a cheap psychological trick designed to put ones own ideas on a pedestal and safeguard them against necessarily criticism.

Mind you, distinguishing legal rights from moral rights according to ones own ethical ideals is a legitimate, even necessary thing to do - but the fact is that the law in this case only matches your opinion on 'true' rights, not some objective universal one. And this law is currently protecting your opinion from being ignored by people who disagree (like myself), thereby facilitating commerce. Ergo, capitalism as we know it exists by virtue of the law, and the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BiggTruxx

If it does abridge the rights of individuals or bodies of individuals, due process needs to be followed (14th and 8th amendments), and the proposed laws are held up to varying degrees of scrutiny. The FCC is an unelected body that may answer to the government per se, but is not subject to the approval of voters, hence the problem. The Constitution specifically lays out the organization of our government - and bodies like the FCC are creating black letter law without the benefit of a legislative vote. Whether you are into NetNeut or not, congress needs to vote on it.

---

I don't disagree with you on the FCC. Representative democracy is diluted into effective non-existence as it is - additional layers of delegation should be quite redundant no matter where your interests in the matter lie.

While I strongly dislike many aspects of the FCC, I strongly approve of their mission statement and understand the need for an unelected body. An elected body would need to advertise to get elected, which means they would have to be friendly to the industry leaders. I thinks the oil industry has shown us time and time again why that is a bad idea.

Kinda like how I feel about elected judges and sheriffs. Some positions need to be more resistant to the whims of the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BiggTruxx

OEC, are you by chance a law student?

And a big hell no to any further government overreach into any private industry. Where do these people get off? They are not elected by anyone and therefore answer to no one. Shadowy figures legislating without making legislation... A complete derailment of the Constitution.

---

I am completing a J.D. this May. Had to take a sick leave, but the subject still intrigues me. It is troubling when administrative agencies overreach to this extent. I sense Congress will probably weigh in on this when it is back in session. The real issue is often the amount of discretion given to these agencies.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

While I strongly dislike many aspects of the FCC, I strongly approve of their mission statement and understand the need for an unelected body. An elected body would need to advertise to get elected, which means they would have to be friendly to the industry leaders. I thinks the oil industry has shown us time and time again why that is a bad idea.

Kinda like how I feel about elected judges and sheriffs. Some positions need to be more resistant to the whims of the public.

---

Judicial elections is a process I am really questioning. With agencies, you have to keep in mind they are often political appointees. I would have been more comfortable with this mandate if it had come from Congress explicitly. As it stands, it is difficult to truly judge on its merits.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat

Judicial elections is a process I am really questioning. With agencies, you have to keep in mind they are often political appointees. I would have been more comfortable with this mandate if it had come from Congress explicitly. As it stands, it is difficult to truly judge on its merits.

OEC

---

I would have preferred congress weighing in, but this is better than nothing. It is what the agency was designed to do, and even then, it is really the minimum of that. Look through what they put out and tell me where it stifles freedom or trade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

I would have preferred congress weighing in, but this is better than nothing. It is what the agency was designed to do, and even then, it is really the minimum of that. Look through what they put out and tell me where it stifles freedom or trade?

---

I don't know that it necessarily does. My main concern is with the process. It remains to be seen how it is implemented in line with these agency rules.

OEC