Do you support net neutrality?

Finding unbiased sources on any topic is difficult. But you can learn as much by reading between the lines of biased sources, reading the arguments on both sides, and trying to understand the interests of the individuals and companies with these biases. After reading this information, try to establish what is in your best interest. (Also avoid the ideologues with absolute positions as they rarely have anything interesting to say. So if the argument against net neutrality is simply "government regulation is bad" ignore it. To much regulation is bad. No regulation is worse but the ideologues don't get it.)

Net neutrality is a topic that has interested me for a long time but not nearly as long as regulation of the "telephone" market. My interest in regulating the telephone market goes back to a seminar in the early to mid-80s explaining the deregulation of the long distance and equipment markets. It was fascinating to learn the history of telecommunications, the social benefits of giving AT&T a regulated monopoly, and how this regulation had become a burden on society. After this seminar, I helped various clients exploit the business opportunities this deregulation presented. Since then I have followed the story closely.

Since I acquired my knowledge over 30 years, It is hard to cite references. There may be a good book on the topic but I have no clue what it is. Here are my research suggestions.

Look at the bio's of Verizon executives. You will discover most of them started with one of the "Bell Operating Companies", i.e., AT&T, a regulated monopoly until sometime in the late 80s, to early 90s. When these gentlemen joined the AT&T family, it had been a regulated monopoly for about 2 generations. This meant their bosses and mentors had grown up within a regulated environment and taught them how to manage a regulated utility as a monopoly. This dramatically impacts subjective decisions like pricing. You can find those bios here http://www22.verizon.com/onec...

Next look at Verizon lobbying efforts and read about their spending and priorities. Probably the easiest way to do this is to perform a google search on the phrase "Verizon lobbyists". I could point you to specific articles but that would reflect my bias. It is probably better you pick yourself. I don't know if you can find it anymore but particularly fascinating was their efforts to enter the TV distribution business while keeping cable out of the local telephone business. One month they are arguing they shouldn't be required to get agreements with every local government to deliver TV services and the next month they are arguing Cable companies should be required to negotiate with every local government to deliver 911 capability and rules should be establish to prevent anyone without 911 service from advertising local telephone service.

I am less familiar with cable companies but see similar behaviors and recommend the same research for a company like Comcast. Read the history of the cable companies...the jail sentences for bribing local officials and look into the early contracts. Again cable systems originated as local monopolies regulated by local government and outgrew their regulators through consolidation.

Finally Net Neutrality google the phrase "google and net neutrality". Repeat this for the other leading internet services. Focus on why these companies have changed their position between 2006 and the present.

If you do this, you should have a good grasp of the issues, personalities, and implications of the debated on net neutrality. I know it is a lot of work but no pain no gain.

Interesting point of view...let's go back to 1970. What country had the best telephone system in the world? Best highway system? most reliable electrical grid? Safest public water supply? Cheapest natural gas?

In 1973, all these things were regulated by the government. Today telephone service, the electrical grid, and the natural gas supply have been deregulated. Does America still have the best in the world for all of these things?

I believe in 1970 we had excessive government regulation and although this post may sound otherwise, the deregulation of the telephone system was absolutely necessary. AT&T would have stifled the government's introduction of the internet for example.

When I was in my 20s, I bought the whole libertarian Ayn Rand philosophy. As I grew older, I discovered places where Government intervention and regulation have helped. One of the best examples is the telephone system...by providing for universal service and permitting AT&T to create a regulated monopoly, this country acquired the best telephone system in the world. As a period of rapid technical change emerged, the government deregulated the industry appropriately. As the industry has consolidated and Verizon has recreated the old AT&T monopoly without government regulation, the telephone system in this country has fallen slightly behind Europe and dramatically behind the services available in countries like India and Japan. It is almost embarrassing to discuss cell phone service in this country with Europeans and the Japanese and Indians just laugh at our antiquated systems.

It is this perspective that influences my position on net neutrality. Establishing the appropriate allocation for various bandwidth consumers is necessary. I would prefer to see this accomplished in public forums rather than behind closed doors during contract negotiations.

The facts are in 1970, the FCC regulated the telecom industry setting rates, aka, tariffs, during rate setting hearing. It also regulated TV and radio although I believe the regulation was less onerous. The trucking, rail, and gas pipeline industries were similarly regulated by the ICC with each company required to publish tariffs and offer the same prices on the same terms to all customers. Pricing for electricity and gas delivered to the home was regulated by state utility commissions and for insurance by state insurance commissions. Pricing for the cable industry was established by cities and townships. Most of this regulatory regimen was established between 1910 and 1940.

So if the deregulation pursued in the 1980s and the 2000s, was so successful why has America lost the competitive advantage it had in 1970? I actually agreed with your argument. Unfortunately, history didn't seem to be on my side. I am still fishing for the right balance between private initiative and government regulation but do not buy the argument that the infrastructure has declined because of increasing government regulation.

Since 1980, the Republicans have reduced regulations on business and increased regulation on individuals, e.g. requirements to board an airplane. In 1970, all I needed to board an airplane was a valid ticket. That ticket did not need to be issued in my name and I did not need to produce any identifying information for domestic flights. In December, 1972 the FAA under the Ford (a Republican) introduced the metal detector requirement. Sometime during the Reagan administration, the requirement to provide identify information for domestic flights was introduced. And then the Bush administration introduced the onerous requirements in place today. So while the Republicans have increased corporate freedom they eliminated the right to travel without identity information. One of the reasons my father gave me for being glad I lived in the US and not the Soviet Union.

IMO, history demonstrates individual freedom leads to a strong America when combined with a regulation of corporations. While regulation of the individual while deregulating corporation leads to a weak America.

The observation is based on personal experience in England, France, and China and comments from folks who travel between India and the US. A quick google search, however, turned up the following comparisons:
Costs of mobile phone service in Europe vs. North America from 2009
http://news.cnet.com/8301-103...
Discussion of the differences by an industry insider from 2006:
http://mobileopportunity.blog...

These articles essentially substantiate my own experience with Europe and are better documentation.

Generally my experience is that a cell phone user in China or Europe can bring their phone to the US and use it here. While US cellular subscribers cannot do the same in Europe and China.

Here are some references suggesting the electric grid is less reliable:
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews... - This article suggests the decline in reliability is a concern to the Dpt of Energy.
http://www.electricenergyonli... - This article discusses the implications of the August, 2003 black out that shut down much of the nation's business. Personally, I was aware it happened but my wife died on August 15, 2003 so there bigger concerns in my life at that time. It wasn't in my case but I suspect there are others who lost loved ones because of this incident.

So these references provide some basis for my assertions in the previous post. I have not provided references for Natural Gas because I believe that to date, deregulation in Natural Gas has been a good idea....but hitting 1 out of 3 is only acceptable if you are a baseball player.

Jon....The following is provided in the interest of full disclosure and to help you appropriately discount my positions.

Because of a job action, I retired last year which gives me time to pursue other interests. My pension and investments provide adequate income for me to live comfortably. My former employer also pays my health insurance. At this point, none of my income comes from the government although I plan to collect social security when I am old enough. I have not ruled out going back to work and evaluate several employment opportunities per week.

A significant portion of my income is derived from rental properties in Phoenix. I began acquiring these properties in 2008 when the bottom fell out of the market. The remainder of my portfolio is in a variety of stocks, mutual funds, and one small start up where I was an Angel Investor. These investments may influence my political positions as I know my political positions influence my investments.

Public policy and religion fascinate me and so recently, I have spent considerable time addressing these questions on Sodahead. As you note, I am well educated and strongly opinionated. Because the researching the facts to support positions is how we learn, I try to substantiate my positions with links to information sources. Feedback that points out overlooked facts is greatly appreciated but it seems stupid to disagree without providing supporting facts which can be substantiated.

No one pays me for either my research or comments....although if someone made me an offer, I would consider it. It would be wonderful to get paid to do what I enjoy but I am not certain the obligations that come with the money would be worth it.