Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@NedFodder said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Economists usually agree that consumption tax (VAT or sales tax) is the second-best kind of tax in this sense (after land/resource taxes). Worse taxes, in order of increasing negative effects, are income, capital (corporate profit), and transaction taxes.
I'm not sure what economists you've been talking with. Can you provide any kind of source explaining how they sorted those? My understanding is that income tax is generally considered to be one of the most sensible taxes, with VAT being close to the bottom of the pile.
@Benjamin-Hall said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
- Government should only do those things that are constitutionally required.
- In doing this, they should interfere as little as possible in people's freedom.
- To do their jobs, they need revenue.
- Since taxes interfere in freedom (by reducing resources available to the individual), the most efficient (least distortionary per unit revenue) tax should be used.
We agree on all these.
@Benjamin-Hall said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
- VAT taxes are pretty much at that optimum.
You have not explained how this follows. How does the VAT achieve those objectives? Compare VAT against an income tax.
VAT can make certain activities economically unfeasible, since they raise the cost of operation (in the examples I posted above, the sales tax made selling cookies at $0.3 go from providing a slight profit to making a loss, requiring that the price be raised for the business to keep running). It also raises the salaries you have to pay your employees, since they now have to deal with all the prices in the economy being higher.
Income tax doesn't affect the sale price of items. It does put pressure on salaries, since that's where the tax is being taken from, but note that it puts no pressure on low salaries (which may be exempted from the tax or pay a very low rate), and only ramps up for higher paid positions. A business will generally have many low paid workers and few highly paid workers, so the effect of the tax on the operation of the business is far lower, whereas the VAT can shut down a business entirely.
So while the VAT slows the economy, by raising prices, making cheap labor more expensive, and making certain activities untenable, income tax lowers prices and makes hiring easier.
Collecting the tax is also easier. For the vast majority of the population, their income is handled by their employer. So you just need to check that the employer is reporting what they pay properly. With VAT, you need to keep track of every single transaction in the economy. That's a lot more paperwork both for businesses and the government, so income tax is also more efficient per dollar collected. Difficulties for what constitutes income arise mostly from investments. If you buy a house, the house's value increases, and you sell it, do you report the difference as income? What if it's shares instead of a house? Personally I don't think it should. On the other hand, dividends or the interest on loans and bonds should count as income.
With no VAT, the need for assistance from the government also decreases, since costs for everyone are lower. So social services also become more efficient. With VAT, a fixed percentage of the assistance you are giving goes right back to the state as VAT.
-
After my previous post here I ended up in the hospital (long story). I meant to add that while I support true Net Neutrality, I don't know enough about Title I vs Title II to have an opinion there. From what I am reading so far in this thread it seems like it is best to consider them as entirely separate issues, rather than lumping them together. I'd like to apologize to @boomzilla for making assumptions about his stance on Net Neutrality based on his stance on the Title II classification.
-
@LB_ said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
After my previous post here I ended up in the hospital
Must've been some post
-
@Kian I'll admit that my preference for a VAT-style tax over an income tax is based on fuzzily-remembered postings on various economics blogs & papers. I'm willing to stipulate that another type of tax will work better.
However, I have a preference based on principle that taxes should be simple*, broad**, and low***.
*Simple means that there should be very few nooks and crannies, very few exceptions or definitions. The simplest (albeit impractical) tax is a capitation tax: each person pays $X per year. A flat (1 bracket, only standard deduction) income tax is also relatively simple.
**Broad means that as many people pay at least some non-zero amount in taxes each year. This diminishes the temptation to say "don't tax me, don't tax you, tax that man behind the tree" and gives everyone some skin in the game.
***Low means that the government should minimize the effects of taxation on the broader economy. Playing social games with the tax code is not ok--neither is wasting the money on things the government doesn't need to do. Whatever method is chosen should be the least distortionary available. If it doesn't raise enough money, cut spending. Government shouldn't be taking ~50% of GDP (all levels combined).
-
@Benjamin-Hall That seems like sound principles. The problem however, in particular with the 3rd one, is that in reality states do not operate with a mentality of "here is the money I can take, how do I use it?" but more "here are all the things I want to do, how do I get money to fund them?". This is natural in a sense this the very raison d'être of a state is to provide something to its citizen (starting with security, rule of law etc.), not to take something from them.
If you fix some kind of ceiling on what the state can take, then you have to entirely change the way public policies are designed -- it's no longer "what are the problems that only the state can address", but "what are the ones we can fit into the budget", which means accepting that some issues might only be solved through state intervention, but will never be due to budget caps (of course, one answer to that is that almost no issues fall into the "can only be solved by the state" bucket, but that's a slightly different discussion). As an extreme example, taxation during a war could legitimately shoot through the roof to pay for military expenditures, and you don't really care about how much of a burden it makes because the use for it trumps everything else. Sure, it's extreme and you could have special rules for that, but it's already going onto a slippy slope of adding exceptions to the rule (if you add an exception for war, do you add one for extreme natural disasters? and what about systemic economic crises? and so on...).
So while it makes a nice philosophical principle, and one that would do a lot of good almost everywhere, I don't really think in the real world it is a viable overarching principle...
-
@LB_ said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'd like to apologize to @boomzilla for making assumptions about his stance on Net Neutrality based on his stance on the Title II classification.
I...don't know what to say. This has never happened before.
-
@remi said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
of course, one answer to that is that almost no issues fall into the "can only be solved by the state" bucket, but that's a slightly different discussion
I would say that discussion needs to happen before any of the other discussions. If a state is doing too much because everyone thinks all of the issues fall under the "can only be solved by the state" bucket, there's no possible way to get everything that everyone wants done with the available money, because what everyone wants gets bigger when someone else is paying for it.
-
@boomzilla I found an interesting comment on reddit about this topic:
Quote:
This dude's ridiculous.
> ... if you look at the Internet that we had in 2015, we were not living in some digital dystopia. There was nothing broken about the marketplace in such a fundamental way that these Title II regulations were appropriate.
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
Like, dude. If you're gonna be a corrupt piece of shit, at least makes your lies more believable. This dude wants 'after-the-fact' regulation as opposed to preemptive regulation. Fucking news flash, you piece of shit. This is already after-the-fact.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
Intended to block illegal file downloads, which at the time there was question whether Comcast would have legal liability if they didn't (DMCA law was still pretty up in the air as to whether illegal torrents attached liability to carriers who didn't try to block them).
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
Like, dude. If you're gonna be a corrupt piece of shit, at least makes your lies more believable. This dude wants 'after-the-fact' regulation as opposed to preemptive regulation. Fucking news flash, you piece of shit. This is already after-the-fact.
So yes, the Madison River case 12 years ago looks like it might be something that the reclassification could have helped. I would prefer an article that actually was able to cover some of Madison River's side, but not enough to do my own research to try to find one :p
Although, even then, judging by the description of Madison River Communications in the linked article, I suspect they are/were a telephone Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) that was thus already regulated by the FCC under Title II
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Not an ISP, mobile phone carrier who is already regulated by the FCC under Title II
Aren't they ISPs when you're using 4G?
-
@izzion In other words, let's start enforcing the rules that we already have?
-
@wharrgarbl
Thus far, the government's position has been no. The carriers would like to have it both ways, but right now they're just getting it both ways (the Title I regulation from the FTC and the Title II from the FCC both).Given how much the wireless carriers depend on FCC-licensed spectrum, I don't see them escaping FCC regulation in the foreseeable future.
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion In other words, let's start enforcing the rules that we already have?
Yeah, if the existing law is enough to solve the issues we've seen, adding new law "just in case" doesn't make much sense to me.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Not an ISP
Do they provide a service where you can access the internet?
Then they're a fucking internet service provider.
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Do they provide a service where you can access the internet?
They shouldn't be able to call it Internet if they block parts of it.
-
@wharrgarbl clever - just block one webpage and suddenly your service no longer provides internet, therefore you are not subject to laws affecting ISPs!
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Then they're a fucking internet service provider.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@Adynathos said in The official unpopular opinions thread:
Without net neutrality, I expect ISPs to interfere with this ability to communicate with everyone.
Why do you expect that?
@Adynathos said in The official unpopular opinions thread:
I do not believe that market / competition can cause ISPs to provide the service I want.
I do not believe that anything else will cause ISPs to provide the service I want.
One thing you can expect, is that you ISP will charge you more if you visit internet content providers like Netflix or YouTube. (I remember ISP planning to charge users for accessing Netflix is the main reason that FCC step in and create that regulation to enforce net neutrality)
And they'll also charge those high-bandwidth content provider for their high network usage. That'll harm companies like Microsoft to provide free update services. In the end, every netizen (not only those in U.S.) will be hurt.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak
No explanation of the pros and cons of Title I vs Title II unfortunately.
-
When reading the article, I found it a little strange that there wasn't a single mention of their actual prices at any point. Overall, the article seemed fairly well written, though it was obviously written from an opinion of "the FCC needs to regulate the evil cable companies".
So, since I was a bit curious, I went looking for Cable One's website. Where they list...(specifically linking mobile, because it includes the post-promotional prices and the www version doesn't)
Starter plan: up to 100Mbps for $55/month ($35 for the first 3 months as a customer), 300GB data plan
Family plan: up to 150Mbps for $80/month ($50 for the first 3 months as a customer), 500GB data plan
Streamer/Gamer plan: up to 200Mbps for $105/month ($75 for the first 3 months as a customer), 700GB data plan.And their data plan is: http://support.cableone.net/Pages/AnswerDetail.aspx?a=145
If you exceed your data plan 3 times in a 12 month period, you will be upgraded to the next data plan, and cannot downgrade from that data plan for at least 3 months.
If this is what evil monopoly service looks like, then apparently Comcast's is so far beyond being an evil monopoly that it defies explanation by mere mortals. Since Comcast doesn't even list prices on their website until you give them address, and in my area, they charge $80 ($50 for the first 12 months as a customer) for up to 75Mbps with a 300GB cap, and they throttle at the cap for every month (including the very first month you exceed the cap) unless you pay overages, with no way to get a bigger cap by increasing your service tier.
-
I don't remember it being mentioned yet, so lets so over why Verizon and such are classified as Title II in the first place.
- In 2005, the FCC came up with 4 principles of an open Internet.
- In late 2010, these were actually put into law as the first Open Internet Order (PDF).
- In 2014, Verizon sued the FCC saying the FCC had no authority to regulate them because they were not a (Title II) common carrier. The courts agreed and suggested that if the FCC wanted to be able to regulate ISPs this way that they should reclassify said ISPs.
- In 2015, the FCC reclassified Verizon and the like as Title II (with a forbearance on many provisions, including rate setting) and released the second Open Internet Order (PDF).
On a side note, I think a lot of people haven't read the second Open Internet Order, since they're not aware of provisions such as "reasonable network management" (aka QoS) being exempt from the No Throttling rule.
-
@powerlord said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
so lets so over why Verizon and such are classified as Title II in the first place
Could we cover what Title I and Title II mean? As a non USIan, I generally switch off as I have no clue what they mean, and most of the rest of the arguments centre on the distinctions
-
@Jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Could we cover what Title I and Title II mean?
Title I
Title II
;)
-
So if I understand correctly, Verizon was classified as "slightly, almost imperceptibly smaller"?
-
@hungrier 'Almost imperceptibly'? It's a massive two pixels, man! :P
-
@Jaloopa
The terms refer to the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Specifically, "Title I" is short hand for Title I, Section 102 and 103 of the 1996 act, which specifies certain types of carriers and determines whether they're subject to the regulations for Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) or Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), or exempted from them. The regulations for LECs/ILECs stem from the 1934 act's Title II, which places regulatory authority for common carriers under the FCC's jurisdiction.
In general under the 1996 act's Title I, telephone service was identified under Section 102 as included, and Internet service was identified under Section 103 as excluded.
So I'm being a little imprecise and lazy, and referring to "Title I" as the 1996.I.103 classification that excludes the ISPs from the 1934.II common carrier definition/obligations - that's more my sloppiness than actual "legal classification".
The 2015 Open Internet Order issued by the FCC specifically said, "we're reclassifying Internet service providers as Common Carriers, subject to the Title II provisions of the Communications Act of 1934" - there's some case history in the Verizon court rulings that @powerlord highlighted in the 2005 - 2015 timeline -- that case history said that the FCC's Open Internet Orders weren't valid unless the ISPs were classified under the 1934 Communications Act's Title II, but there's some dispute (even in that same case law) over whether or not the FCC's 2015 action to unilaterally reclassify was even allowable, or whether it would require further action from Congress to reclassify.
-
The Right adopts the Left's well-worn tactic of hurling accusations of "RACISM!!!" to distract from inconvenient facts.
-
@masonwheeler Rule 4!
-
@boomzilla Not familiar with that one. What's Rule 4?
-
-
@boomzilla OK, not sure how that applies here...
-
@masonwheeler It's essentially "If you can't beat them, join them"
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla OK, not sure how that applies here...
What? Did you forget what you actually posted?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The Right adopts the Left's well-worn tactic of hurling accusations of "RACISM!!!" to distract from inconvenient facts.
-
@boomzilla Yeah. What does that have to do with "make them live up to their own rules"?
-
@masonwheeler
:youcan'tbeserious.rtf:
-
@boomzilla What rules are they making Net Neutrality advocates live up to here?
-
@masonwheeler Uhh....
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The Right adopts the Left's well-worn tactic of hurling accusations of "RACISM!!!" to distract from inconvenient facts.
Did you forget what you wrote again? Accusations of racism?
-
@boomzilla Again, what does that have to do with rules, and the living-up-to thereof, similar to the example given of requiring that every letter receive a response?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Again, what does that have to do with rules, and the living-up-to thereof, similar to the example given of requiring that every letter receive a response?
So...you remember that one time where you said that one side was doing what the other side has done a lot? It's that.
-
@boomzilla Yeah, I get that that's what you're trying to say, but where do the rules come into play?
-
@masonwheeler OK, so...you basically mentioned how the left manufactures reasons to call things racist? That's the rule, see?
I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. Were you expecting something out there labeled, "The rule of calling things racist," or something?
-
@boomzilla No, that's a tactic. A rule is a requirement that must be adhered to, such as the example given where all letters must be replied to.
-
-
@boomzilla What? How does the "make them live up to" part make any sense if we're talking about tactics and not requirements?
-
@masonwheeler FFS...Here's the rule:
Do anything that can be remotely connected to some aspect of race and you get called a racist.
That's what the "Left's well-worn tactic of hurling accusations of "RACISM!!!" to distract from inconvenient facts" amounts to.
-
-
@boomzilla Yeah, but this is only the beginning. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, across the political spectrum; in fact, there's data to suggest that conservative voters are even more in favor of it, due to them being more likely to live in rural areas with little choice in service providers and thus to be acutely aware of the problems that Net Neutrality solves.
Despite the ISPs' cynical attempt to reframe it as a partisan political issue, Net Neutrality enjoys broad support from pretty much everyone, and they're not going to take this lying down.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality,
Fuck those guys.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
in fact, there's data to suggest that conservative voters are even more in favor of it, due to them being more likely to live in rural areas with little choice in service providers and thus to be acutely aware of the problems that Net Neutrality solves.
"Solves." Uh huh.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Despite the ISPs' cynical attempt to reframe it as a partisan political issue, Net Neutrality enjoys broad support from pretty much everyone, and they're not going to take this lying down.
"Partisan?" Are they? Got a link or something?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality,
Fuck those guys.
Yeah, cause we all know corporations rule now. Wait. Corporations are people too.
-
@dcon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Corporations are people too.
At least until the robot uprising, yeah.
-
@boomzilla Robots are going to make corporations not be people?