Bishops back ‘net neutrality,’ but Catholic grassroots shows a divided front

[Gnarwhal]

Imagine the Internet as a milkshake, with everything we love and hate about the web inside - from blogs and news sites to viral ‘screaming goat’ videos. In this analogy, Internet service providers (ISPs) are the straw, allowing the consumer to access the content that he or she desires.

Net neutrality states that the straw must treat all content in the same way, and cannot, for example, change the download speed of one site over another or charge for preferential treatment.

Bishops back 'net neutrality,' but Catholic grassroots shows a divided front

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't think people realize how much the repeal of Net Neutrality could jeopardize the Church in the future.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I don't think most people on either side of this issue actually have a realistic image of the issue.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't think most people on either side of this issue actually have a realistic image of the issue.

Do enlighten, then.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

My home WiFi speed has doubled recently.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't think people realize how much the repeal of Net Neutrality could jeopardize the Church in the future.

Can you explain this a bit? Mostly this issue is presented as something too geeky for most of us to care. But it does matter, because the internet is on the knife edge of being either a public utility open equally for all or a private tool for those with the money to use it.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Do enlighten, then.

There are two different ways of looking at the issue, depending on how you see the Internet and internet service providers.

Is the internet primarily a product/service that is being sold to people?

or

Is the internet primarily a means of access to information and market places?

If you see the internet as primarily a product or a service that is being sold, then it only makes sense that the companies who provide the product / service should have control over what they sell.

Further, it is pretty well established historically that a free competitive market place is better for the consumer while heavily regulated marketplaces tend to be worse for the consumer. This is particularly pertinent since the regulations used for Net Neutrality were originally intended for public utilities and we have historical examples of what happens when something like phone service was regulated under those rules as opposed to being left to a more free market place.

Regulating telephone companies under those regulations was basically a failure and was terrible for the consumers. People were stuck with no options, expensive service, and generally low quality service.

Removing those regulations gave us the vibrant competitive market we have today for phone service. People now have lots of options, we have competitive pricing for a wide array of service options and service is generally pretty good quality.

There are some very valid arguments here that have historical merit in that we have actually seen them work themselves out in real life.

Now, if you view the internet primarily as a means of access then the picture can change rather dramatically. Imagine, if you will, that the internet is like a system of roads by which consumers get to the various retail stores that they want to shop at.

Now imagine that those roads are controlled by a private company and they can, at their discretion, change the speed limit on any of the roads or install speed bumps etc.

Then let's say that the road company decided that since there was lot's of traffic to Walmart, they would install speed bumps on that road, and open a special lane with no speed bumps, but charge an extra toll to drive in that lane.

Or worse, imagine that the road company also had members that had shares in Target stock. So in order to boost Target, they make the roads to Walmart slow, bumpy, and generally poor quality.

Perhaps worst of all, imagine that the road company just doesn't like your business because maybe they have political, religious, or other ideological disagreements with you. As a result they do everything they can to slow down traffic to your business and deny you access, as well as denying consumers access to you.

Obviously these scenarios are pretty bad.

Now here is the real rub. Both of these ways of viewing the internet are accurate. The internet falls into both categories.

This means, it is very likely that excessive regulation really will and already has restricted the expansion of the internet marketplace, hurting consumers primarily by keeping prices high and restricting the service options available to them.

It is also true that the internet is somewhat unique in that it is primarily a means of access to an extended marketplace, both of ideas and commerce. It is pretty unusual and understandably dangerous to give private entities unrestricted control over other people's access to marketplaces.

The real question is, what is the best way to secure ease of access, and security of access for both the consumers and providers of content in the internet marketplace?

Is it better to rely upon the government to regulate access? This puts ultimate control in the hands of government bureaucrats and elected officials. The people only have secondary control in that they can apply pressure to the government.

or

Is it better to rely upon the free market to regulate access? In many cases this does allow much more direct control for the people because the free market is essentially a direct democracy in which people vote with their dollars.

I'm well aware how many people have extreme distrust for companies like Comcast and Charter. I'm one of them. Charter has screwed me over more than once. I'm also aware that currently there is very limited competition and few real options available to consumers in this space.

I know that under government regulation, this situation won't change much. Yes I won't have to worry too much about Charter or Comcast screwing with my Netflix access, but I also know that I will likely never get better options than the somewhat crappy ones I currently have.

I also know that letting the regulations go, and surrendering Internet Access to the free market will yield uncertain results. It PROBABLY will eventually bring in more competition which will likely restrict the ability of Comcast and Charter (and others) to screw over their customers etc.

So the issue is essentially a trade off and a bit of a gamble. Neither side has perfect options, both sides have problems.

The primary issue is ensuring access to the e-marketplace, but it's not a cut and dried answer that government regulation is actually the best way to do that.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Can you explain this a bit? Mostly this issue is presented as something too geeky for most of us to care. But it does matter, because the internet is on the knife edge of being either a public utility open equally for all or a private tool for those with the money to use it.

Simon_Templar touched on this in his post, but the risk that the Church is facing is that with the repeal of Net Neutrality, not all information is regarded as equal. Or to put it another way, site owners would be required to pay fees to the service providers for preferential treatment, anyone who can't would be subjected to throttled traffic or potentially even blocked access altogether.

Where the Church comes in, is if a service provider like Comcast one day decides that it's in their best interest to support abortion, then they're going to use every resource at their disposal to make sure the pro-life movement can't circulate it's message and loses momentum. That's just one of any number of reasons that they could pull down to justify restricting access to parish websites, Catholic nonprofits, the USCCB site, etc.

With net neutrality laws in place, you have the ability to access any website the exact same way: as quickly as your connection will allow, without any throttling or hindrances. Without those protections the providers can control consumer access to web content on a case by case basis depending on whether the site owners capitulate with the requirements the provider puts in place to gain access to the "fast lane".

Catholics are perpetually up-in-arms about abortion but shrug off net neutrality, failing to realize that a loss of those protections could trickle down and negatively impact the pro-life movement.

It's a major lynchpin that will have a negative impact on many levels for the Church.

There are two different ways of looking at the issue, depending on how you see the Internet and internet service providers.

Is the internet primarily a product/service that is being sold to people?

or

Is the internet primarily a means of access to information and market places?

If you see the internet as primarily a product or a service that is being sold, then it only makes sense that the companies who provide the product / service should have control over what they sell.

Further, it is pretty well established historically that a free competitive market place is better for the consumer while heavily regulated marketplaces tend to be worse for the consumer. This is particularly pertinent since the regulations used for Net Neutrality were originally intended for public utilities and we have historical examples of what happens when something like phone service was regulated under those rules as opposed to being left to a more free market place.

Regulating telephone companies under those regulations was basically a failure and was terrible for the consumers. People were stuck with no options, expensive service, and generally low quality service.

Removing those regulations gave us the vibrant competitive market we have today for phone service. People now have lots of options, we have competitive pricing for a wide array of service options and service is generally pretty good quality.

There are some very valid arguments here that have historical merit in that we have actually seen them work themselves out in real life.

Now, if you view the internet primarily as a means of access then the picture can change rather dramatically. Imagine, if you will, that the internet is like a system of roads by which consumers get to the various retail stores that they want to shop at.

Now imagine that those roads are controlled by a private company and they can, at their discretion, change the speed limit on any of the roads or install speed bumps etc.

Then let's say that the road company decided that since there was lot's of traffic to Walmart, they would install speed bumps on that road, and open a special lane with no speed bumps, but charge an extra toll to drive in that lane.

Or worse, imagine that the road company also had members that had shares in Target stock. So in order to boost Target, they make the roads to Walmart slow, bumpy, and generally poor quality.

Perhaps worst of all, imagine that the road company just doesn't like your business because maybe they have political, religious, or other ideological disagreements with you. As a result they do everything they can to slow down traffic to your business and deny you access, as well as denying consumers access to you.

Obviously these scenarios are pretty bad.

Now here is the real rub. Both of these ways of viewing the internet are accurate. The internet falls into both categories.

This means, it is very likely that excessive regulation really will and already has restricted the expansion of the internet marketplace, hurting consumers primarily by keeping prices high and restricting the service options available to them.

It is also true that the internet is somewhat unique in that it is primarily a means of access to an extended marketplace, both of ideas and commerce. It is pretty unusual and understandably dangerous to give private entities unrestricted control over other people's access to marketplaces.

The real question is, what is the best way to secure ease of access, and security of access for both the consumers and providers of content in the internet marketplace?

Is it better to rely upon the government to regulate access? This puts ultimate control in the hands of government bureaucrats and elected officials. The people only have secondary control in that they can apply pressure to the government.

or

Is it better to rely upon the free market to regulate access? In many cases this does allow much more direct control for the people because the free market is essentially a direct democracy in which people vote with their dollars.

I'm well aware how many people have extreme distrust for companies like Comcast and Charter. I'm one of them. Charter has screwed me over more than once. I'm also aware that currently there is very limited competition and few real options available to consumers in this space.

I know that under government regulation, this situation won't change much. Yes I won't have to worry too much about Charter or Comcast screwing with my Netflix access, but I also know that I will likely never get better options than the somewhat crappy ones I currently have.

I also know that letting the regulations go, and surrendering Internet Access to the free market will yield uncertain results. It PROBABLY will eventually bring in more competition which will likely restrict the ability of Comcast and Charter (and others) to screw over their customers etc.

So the issue is essentially a trade off and a bit of a gamble. Neither side has perfect options, both sides have problems.

The primary issue is ensuring access to the e-marketplace, but it's not a cut and dried answer that government regulation is actually the best way to do that.

The problem with the idea that repealing net neutrality will create a free market is that runs counter-intuitive to the reality of how the telecom industry has been operating for a while now. Even less than two months ago the government filed a lawsuit to attempt to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner. With people like Chairman Pai steering the FCC, it's likely that merger will go through. If a free market is supposed to create more competition, than we're not seeing that outcome.

Furthermore, if the internet was a product or service the same as a piece of furniture or a mechanic, we wouldn't be seeing a rising trend of towns across the country creating their own municipal internet service that's owned and operated by the cities themselves. This trend is exploding in Colorado after Fort Collins won their lawsuit against Comcast, and it's picking up elsewhere too.

I live in a city that's approaching 100,000 residents, and we have one viable internet provider: Comcast. As it is, without open internet laws they're free to manipulate consumers here however it benefits them most. They can raise prices through the roof (my family already pays about $200-250 for a Triple Play package of internet, TV, and phone through Comcast), they can throttle access to business websites that couldn't pay for the access they need, etc.

A recent poll showed that 83% of voters support keeping net neutrality in place, but Ajit Pai lies and says that the people are in favor of repealing those protections.

 

[Gnarwhal]

This is a great episode from Morning Air, a Catholic podcast on Relevant Radio explaining and discussing Net Neutrality with Bishop Christopher Coyne of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont. He is also the Chairman for the Committee on Communication for the USCCB.

It's only 11 minutes long and I think it's incredibly important to listen to.

https://relevantradio.com/?powerpress_pinw=22078-podcast

The episode is 1-2 months old and the FCC's vote that the host mentions at the end of the episode has already come and gone (with the FCC voting in favor of repealing Net Neutrality) but the fight isn't over yet. 50 GOP and Democratic Senators have announced they will support a bill stopping the FCC from repealing Title II, and there is also a lawsuit waiting to be submitted against the FCC.

So look for ways that you can support Net Neutrality whether it's signing a petition or expressing your opposition to the repeal of Title II to your state senator and insisting they stop the FCC.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't think most people on either side of this issue actually have a realistic image of the issue.

It's rather telling that almost every discussion of the issue involves analogies which drastically oversimplify things and which do not really describe how internet traffic works.

Sometimes the analogies don't even make the point that they intend to. I once saw someone (on these forums) make a statement along the lines of "imagine how ridiculous it would be if the speed limit on the road you take to get to McDonald's was 60 mph, while the speed limit on the you road you take to get to Wendy's was 30 mph, just because they were different roads. That's why we need net neutrality."

 

[MoonlessNight]

Simon_Templar touched on this in his post, but the risk that the Church is facing is that with the repeal of Net Neutrality, not all information is regarded as equal. Or to put it another way, site owners would be required to pay fees to the service providers for preferential treatment, anyone who can't would be subjected to throttled traffic or potentially even blocked access altogether.

Where the Church comes in, is if a service provider like Comcast one day decides that it's in their best interest to support abortion, then they're going to use every resource at their disposal to make sure the pro-life movement can't circulate it's message and loses momentum. That's just one of any number of reasons that they could pull down to justify restricting access to parish websites, Catholic nonprofits, the USCCB site, etc.

With net neutrality laws in place, you have the ability to access any website the exact same way: as quickly as your connection will allow, without any throttling or hindrances. Without those protections the providers can control consumer access to web content on a case by case basis depending on whether the site owners capitulate with the requirements the provider puts in place to gain access to the "fast lane".

It's already the case that "not all information is equal." Governments can and do shut down website, and ISPs can and do block access to websites.

Catholics are perpetually up-in-arms about abortion but shrug off net neutrality, failing to realize that a loss of those protections could trickle down and negatively impact the pro-life movement.

Call me crazy, but the reason that Catholics find abortion to be a bigger issue than net neutrality might be that abortion is the murder of an innocent life, and even the worst actions of ISPs aren't the murder of innocent life.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

It's rather telling that almost every discussion of the issue involves analogies which drastically oversimplify things and which do not really describe how internet traffic works.

Sometimes the analogies don't even make the point that they intend to. I once saw someone (on these forums) make a statement along the lines of "imagine how ridiculous it would be if the speed limit on the road you take to get to McDonald's was 60 mph, while the speed limit on the you road you take to get to Wendy's was 30 mph, just because they were different roads. That's why we need net neutrality."

Someone could have asked whoever said that:
What if McDonald's is 10 miles away and Wendy's 5 miles away?