Interview 1327 – Jeffrey Tucker Bids Farewell to Net Neutrality

by | Nov 27, 2017 | Interviews | 10 comments

Jeffrey Tucker of joins us again to discuss his latest article, “Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition.” We explore the details of the net neutrality discussion that is being ignored by nearly everyone, including how the corporatocracy actually favours net neutrality and how government regulation of the internet is precisely what is keeping prices high and access to the market restricted for would-be competitors.

Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition

Tom Wheeler, Former Lobbyist and Obama Fundraiser, Tapped to Lead FCC

Net Neutrality is necessary regulation as a short-term emergency fix to previous bad regulation

Net “Neutrality,” or, How To Regulate the Internet to Thunderous Applause


  1. I have Verizon (Frontier) FiberOptic 75/75. I could get faster speeds, but it would cost another $10 monthly. My monthly cost is $64.99 plus Texas Sales Tax of $3.20 = $68.19 I am now on a month-to-month, no contract.
    I only have internet. They try to sell you a bundle package with TV & and on-demand movies. I won’t do it. I just want the lowest price I can get for viable internet service. I don’t do Hulu nor Netflix nor any other “subscription”.
    Previous to August 2017, I was on a two year contract with Verizon. My net cost was about $2 cheaper monthly than now. It was a “bundled” package which I got when they had a promotional offering. They bundled a hard wire phone line into my internet service. I told them I didn’t need a phone line, but it would cost me more not to have it. What is interesting, is that there were other taxes, surcharges, and “recovery fees” associated with the phone line ($8.26 monthly). And yet, my net cost was cheaper than what I am now paying.

    Different towns/cities in Texas typically have a choice between two providers. Verizon(Frontier) or Comcast(Spectrum) cable in my area. Sometimes the choice is between AT&T and one of the two previously mentioned.
    Verizon internet service is now “Frontier Communications”. About a year ago or more, Frontier bought it. The transition was nightmarish as Frontier’s administration/customer service was in chaos.

    I priced the Cable rates which are comparable to Verizon. Again, they try to upgrade you to TV. Cable uses a large satellite dish, and years ago when I had them I realized that Texas Storms will mess up your service.
    A few years ago, I thought of collaborating with neighbors on WiFi, but I am worried about bandwidth and someone playing games. One neighbor’s WiFi ID is “Hillary’s Emails”… …I’m sure we would get along. I even toyed with ideas of how to channel the Library’s WiFi about a mile away.

    Subscription services like the internet, electric, water, sewage, gas, trash, phone… I hate these. Every household is sucked in. Sucked in until you die or get off the grid. And their revenue must be ungodly.

    • If you buy a decent access point, it will have some QOS (quality of service) settings which should allow a fair share of available bandwidth to everyone. People who tend to game don’t do it on wireless (or at least try not to) because it introduces even more lag to the connection, thus making their gaming less competitive, which can be a real time killer depending on the game genre.

      Long range (several miles) wireless networks are fairly simple to setup as well. All that is needed is a decent wireless adapter with a directional antenna.

      The tough part is to get the people to play nice.

  2. bharani,
    I seem to remember a Corbett Report episode which talked about a community that did become its own internet provider.
    Corbett often emphasizes decentralized, more local control as our pathway forward.

    You might use the Corbett “search bar” for “solutions” plus keywords.

  3. I agree, any monetization of the internet means the large cartels win.

  4. The argument goes back to libertarianism. There are many forms of libertarianism.

    Anarcho-libertarianism can be easily debunked.

    What many of us want is libertarian socialism, and it is not an oxymoron.

    Anarcho capitalism has delivered to us the large, monolithic corporations that make their own law. They do so by controlling the government that is supposed to regulate them. Buy legislation, like ALEC does. The Congressman rarely read the bills written by the transnational corporate politicians, they simply pass them for election money or bribes. The government exists to protect capitalism under capitalism and to assure little or no democracy. It does not exist to protect you.

    Capital, as Marx noted, seeks profit and more capital. This will always mean that small anarcho libertarian capitalists will seek profit through buy-outs, mergers, carteling, monopoly, what we see now.

    Anarcho capitalists believe that selfishness is a virtue, as did Ayn Rand who died collecting Social Security and medicare. If selfishness is a virtue, then there is no authority that can be made to stop me, if I am an anarcho capitalist, from doing anything I wish as long as it is not force.

    Adam Smith warned us about capitalism. A good reread might be advised. Smith was not an anarcho capitalist.

    Smith feared what we have now, a profit seeking system that becomes monopolized, both subjectively and objectively.

    Anarcho capitalists support the Koch Brothers, the Walton Family, Bill Gates (though many would oppose Gates’eugenics as non voluntary force), Jeff Bezo, Warren Buffet and more of this ilk.

    No, the idea of returning to a flea market society, that never existed, free of exploitation and authority if we could only embrace anarcho libertarianism, is proposed to both confuse and justify the system we see today.

    Yep, if you think that capitalism or anarcho capitalism works, take a look at the top ten arguments put forth by anarcho capitalists and you will see they have no logic.

    I am a libertarian, but I am a libertarian socialist. And no, the position is not oxymoron. Libertarian socialists are against State control.

  5. Nov 21, 2017 Article
    The Citizens of Detriot Are Building Their Own Internet

    May 2016
    The Town That Made Its Own Internet – In Greenfield, Massachusetts, 40 percent of the town’s residents didn’t have access to Internet, so the mayor hired someone to build a cheap system of its own.

    I could have swore that Corbett once talked about a town creating its own internet.

  6. Wow, seems to be a really intensely discussed topic. Can’t remember having seen such a bad like/dislike-ratio on a corbett youtube-video.

    Happy to see Rick Falkvinge being featured through an article.

    My stand is, when we have to deal with any government apparatus or agencies like the FCC, it is about power play, never about ‘the good’ for ‘the people’. Anything good may far more likely come about accidentally, not on purpose.
    (And as such I simply observe this and don’t start to argue what the FCC should do.)
    E.g. in Germany the bus travel deregulation (real deregulation) a couple of years ago. (Pretty much the only good thing I can remember in my lifetime here which came about through politics.)


  7. This seems to be a real hot topic for people. I simply posted the link to the original article and people jumped down my throat almost immediately. Whether I agree with everything this interviewee said I found the new perspective enlightening. I guess others do not share that feeling…

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member