http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/internet-federal-rules-answer-28625552 Well, here we go again. The federal government, via the FCC, is going to tell us "who's internet it is", because, as Wheeler says, he wants "yardsticks in place to determine what is in the best interest of consumers as opposed to what is in the best interest of the gatekeepers." Oh, isn't that great, Wheeler's acting in the consumers best interest. Just a few Federal yardsticks, he says. Really? No, but I have to give it Wheeler, the term "yardsticks" does sound pretty innocent, doesn't it? The FCC is acting on the wishes of Obama and many leftists who would love nothing more than gaining control of the internet. They've been trying for years and if anyone thinks they're acting solely on behalf of "our" best interests they're clueless. Net neutrality is a lie. It's not neutral and it's not in the consumers best interests, it's in the best interests of the federal government though, and in a big way. No
You are right, politicians and their bureaucracy should have control. That way if a provider wants certain abilities it has to make sure to donate to the two party system which will hand out favors as they see fit. Its what's in our best interest as consumer.
FCC Discussing Control of Internet REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access. Read the story @ http://www.popsci.com/fcc-chief-proposes-stricter-net-neutrality-rules-broadband and add your two cents. Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/February/Government-Takes-Step-to-Regulate-the-Internet/ which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service
One thing to remember If it weren't for Govt, everyone would still be using AT&T. Monopolies are bad for consumers. Open internet, with equal access for all is the very core of net neutrality. I'm not sure how legislating this as law is a 'democratic takeover' of the internet. That doesn't even make sense. Or is just 'govt bad. anything associated is bad' mentality?
Such conservative anti-market extremism is not necessary. The liberals are happy with knocking down all the anti-competition laws that the conservatives support, such as the ones banning local governments from creating cheap city-wide broadband services. Once competition is allowed again, the free market will take of things. Conservatives use such strange arguments to justify having their precious authoritarian government squash competition. A lot of them yell about the Constitution. Really? I just ask because the Constitution I read says that regulating interstate commerce is a power specifically assigned to the government. Broadband certainly qualifies. But then, these conservatives also claim that banning censorship is censorship. Just like they think that banning discrimination is discrimation. At least they're consistently addled. Look conservatives, if you want to be pay obscene amounts to Comcast or Verizon for slow censored service, nobody is stopping you. Just don't force us to do the same.
That's not going to be possible though is it? Private companies (mostly) provide the networks and service while government manages the legal and regulatory jurisdiction. Both will inevitably have some effect on your consumer experience, the only real question here is the balance and nature of that impact. Unrealistic expectations do pose one of the major stumbling blocks here. Well given that the internet is becoming (to be seen as) a fundamental service like gas, electricity, roads and phone it seems likely it will naturally develop in that direction.
Eh, the above is like saying that if it weren't for government, murderers would not be punished, leaving open how the term "government" is defined. No one really knows what our commerce would look like without our federal antitrust laws, can't say that such laws would not have been developed by states, or even municipalities, or other market regulating methods. The second sentence is not necessarily true, which is why despite federal law, AT&T was allowed to flourish for decades after it became a monopoly.
If other AT&T were allowed to continue buying up every telecom it could find, and not allow other companies to use their infrastructure, I highly doubt there would be other telecoms today. That said, you are right that prognostication of possible futures is a futile exercise as we can never really know the impact of decision in any way other then the reality we see today. But Monopolies have never proven to be good for any industry, and the more choice that consumers have, the better and cheaper their options. It's why the Comcast and Time Warner Merger should be denied outright, as that only consolidates more power into fewer hands and forces consumers to deal with what they are given, rather then having a choice, which is the penultimate ideal of a free-market.
Same tension as ever. Too much nanny state government, and the internet gets the life sucked out of it. Too little government, and Big Comm prices it beyond the reach of much of the public - AND imposes the ideology of their choice over the content, AND sells private information to the highest bidder.
Again, I can't be sure of that, given the progression in telecomm technology, cellular, by companies who weren't ATT. I'm not saying that busting up ATT was a bad thing, but keep in mind that didn't happen until 1982, and we still had regional RBOCS. Another factor is internet calling, which developed independently of ATT's infrastructure, and may have developed even faster against a monolithic ATT pricing higher. Innovation kills lots of monopolies independent of government action. They -are- indisputably good... for awhile, especially in the innovative and maturing stage, and lead to greater consumer choice against prior technologies. Most energy in the US is provided by very small oligopolies, if not monopolies, today for example. In addition to choice benefits, monopolies can lead to standardization and even declining prices faster. I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on that deal, and becoming informed must involve weighing the benefits of economies of scale, the state of competition (from satellite and ironically ATT), and the horizontal overlap of current Comcast and TW markets.
The fact is, we still have AT&T who is bigger than ever, and the sad truth is, the competition numbers in the few. I am also on the fence with this issue, because I get irate knowing these big companies throttle data all the time, and frankly, looking at how pathetic our country is with wireless compared to the many parts of the world that too should raise the question of government regulation. I can see responsible government intervention on these issues, but it should be really transparent, and I am not the least bit confident that can happen
