Obama wants to make the internet a utility

[Tide1986]

Me and a buncha Maysville Boys are gonna pay you a visit. Be bringing axe handles. What is an ilk anyway? Pretty sure I ain't one! BTW our infant mortality rates aren't good.

How can you possibly have time with all the illegal immigrants you're having to stack up in your tenements on behalf of The One?

 

[Bama Reb]

Hey cuda.................how about

you................try to ..............respond

in................ a ...............way
that isn't.........................so broken up










and...............hard to follow

I think he's talking real slow because he knows y'all can't read very fast.

 

[Bama Reb]

Me and a buncha Maysville Boys are gonna pay you a visit. Be bringing axe handles. What is an ilk anyway? Pretty sure I ain't one! BTW our infant mortality rates aren't good.

Cool! Can I have one? I broke mine this summer and haven't replaced it yet. Thanks!

 

[seebell]

Me and a buncha Maysville Boys are gonna pay you a visit. Be bringing axe handles. What is an ilk anyway? Pretty sure I ain't one! BTW our infant mortality rates aren't good.

Cool! Can I have one? I broke mine this summer and haven't replaced it yet. Thanks!

Boy tried to date your daughter? :biggrin:

 

[Bama Reb]

Boy tried to date your daughter? :biggrin:

Nice try, but no. I made a bet with my neighbor. I bet him I could chop down trees faster with my axe than he could with his chainsaw..
DT_drv: :s-chainsaw:

 

[NationalTitles18]

Update: FCC decides to go Title II route. AT&T objects.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/title-ii-closing-arguments/

 

[NationalTitles18]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/04/the-bad-argument-behind-the-fccs-move-to

Interesting read.

 

[Tidewater]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/04/the-bad-argument-behind-the-fccs-move-to

Interesting read.

This may work out.
I have serious concerns that, while the Federal government will talk a good game, when it comes down to it, the "regulation" will be based, in large measure on the campaign contributions of the ISP to the party in power at the moment, or the political tenor of the message being transmitted.
I have absolutely zero faith in the Federal government's ability to do anything honestly and fairly. Zero.
But they will talk a good game, so nobody will care and "journalists" (or the piles-of-excrement-held-together-by-human-skin that pass for journalists in this country) will sign Hallelujahs to the wonders of government. Yea!

 

[Tide1986]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/04/the-bad-argument-behind-the-fccs-move-to

Interesting read.

Here's the gist of the article:

No doubt Wheeler and his backers would argue that the continuing growth and importance of wireless data service is the reason for changing the way it is regulated; the more important it is, the more oversight it requires. According to the FCC, mobile data now accounts for more than half of online traffic.

But that growth, and the relative stagnation of mobile voice usage, undermines Wheeler's argument about how the success of the wireless industry makes the case for Title II. Instead, it suggests that Wheeler wants to pursue reclassification not because the wireless sector has been successful under Title II, but because of the service that has been successful without it.

 

[Bama Reb]

The government's position on most everything:

the more important it is, the more oversight it requires.

In the government's eyes, there's no such thing as leaving well enough alone.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I have absolutely zero faith in the Federal government's ability to do anything honestly and fairly. Zero.

I have absolutely zero faith in telcom/ISP company's ability to do anything honest and fairly. Zero.

If nothing is done about net neutrality then everyone will be paying more money just to access your favorite sites. It's already starting to some extent. Many ISP already charge some services, like Netflix, a "fast lane" tax. If Netflix refuses to pay, the ISPs throttle the speed of all Netflix traffic. Stuff like this will just get worse and worse if nothing is done. The entire internet should be open and free from "fast lane" taxes and, throttling just to earn an extra buck should be outlawed. If it takes turning it into a utility to get this done, then so be it.

I'm sick of seeing republicans claim that this will stifle innovation and will cost consumers more money if it is reclassified. This is exactly what is happening now without net neutrality. ISPs don't want to spend the money to truly upgrade their networks, they'd rather throttle your speed and charge you more for access. This country is severely lagging behind in internet speeds compared to the rest of the world because no one wants to upgrade the networks. They don't want to take the hit on there bottom line to provide consumers a better more fairly priced service. Americans pay more money for internet access but, get much lower speeds the most of the modern world. Why are people okay with this? Netflix has raised their rates 2 times in the past few years all because of the lack of net neutrality laws, the ISPs keep demanding more money form Netflix to keep their "fast lane" open. This kind of stuff needs to be stopped.

How would you guys like it if one day if your ISP decided to tax TideFans or throttle all TideFans traffic to dial-up speeds if you refused to pay (or any other site your enjoy). This has already started to happen. When Comcast first went after Netflix, Netflix tried to fight them but, they throttled their traffic to the point were Netflix wasn't usable for many Comcast customers. Of course, the customers didn't blame Comcast, they blamed Netflix, who eventually caved and it wasn't long after that when Netflix announced their price increase. I'm not okay with this type of practice but, more of it is coming if nothing is done. The internet must remain open and free from ISP manipulation, they should not have a right to determine what is more important on the internet and then charge more for it's access.

 

[Tidewater]

I have absolutely zero faith in telcom/ISP company's ability to do anything honest and fairly. Zero.

Sounds to me like we need more options in ISPs, instead of current ISPs using Congressional muscle to squeeze out competition so they can charge more from people who have no choice.
Give people choices and you'd be amazed at how competition will drive down prices and broaden choices.
Or, give the government the control and we can have less choices and pay more for them.
And, as a special bonus, the government will aim a gun at your head if you do something they don't like. No ISP currently has that authority.

Whatever. Trust the same guys that weaponized the tax code for partisan benefit. They're sure to deal honestly with information, right? Trust them.

 

[TheAccountant]

Sounds to me like we need more options in ISPs, instead of current ISPs using Congressional muscle to squeeze out competition so they can charge more from people who have no choice.

I'm not sure you understand how the industry works. It's not as simple as just "opening up shop" as a provider You either have to lay your own infrastructure or pay someone to use their existing. There are incredible costs involved that stymie competition and start ups.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

I'm anti-regulation for most things but regulation is needed here. It's the best of the bad options.

 

[2003TIDE]

I'm anti-regulation for most things but regulation is needed here. It's the best of the bad options.

Agreed.

BTW The only way you startup an ISP is if you are like Google and have 100 or so billion setting around. The fiber infrastructure they are rolling out is expensive and investors generally hate it. Verizon almost went bust rolling out FIOS.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Today it comes out that Comcast renamed another customer on their bill after the customer had problems with service and billing. Not sure what other options are available in Chicago, but if there were any I'd go to them instead of Comcast. My area in central AL has one palatable option.
There are 2 basic things I'd like to see the government ensure regarding internet service: 1. My access to sites I wish to visit will not be artificially slowed or blocked and 2. I will have more choice in services. I would also wish to avoid new and increased government fees and taxes and other regulations that restrict my use of the internet.
I am not convinced the proposed avenue will do more than one of those things. I am convinced it will do the opposite on at least one of those things. There are years of data to surmise that favored parties will get favorable treatment. IOW, crony capitalism.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm not sure you understand how the industry works. It's not as simple as just "opening up shop" as a provider You either have to lay your own infrastructure or pay someone to use their existing. There are incredible costs involved that stymie competition and start ups.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

I'm anti-regulation for most things but regulation is needed here. It's the best of the bad options.

I get that.

"I have never seen an independent… start up without having to fight the incumbent legally," Patten told Ars. "The incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come."

If Congress were to declare that plaintiffs had to pay all defendant's court costs, and, if a jury were to find the suit "frivolous," then the plaintiffs had to pay double court costs as punitive damages, that would help.
Lumos Networks, my ISP, has found a way to get it done. I picked them because they are small. And because they are not ComCast.

"Regulating" the flow of information is possibly the last thing I would trust to the government that brought you the weaponization of the IRS, Fast & Furious, Obamacare, the attempted immigration "reform" of legalizing millions of illegal aliens, etc.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm not sure you understand how the industry works. It's not as simple as just "opening up shop" as a provider You either have to lay your own infrastructure or pay someone to use their existing. There are incredible costs involved that stymie competition and start ups.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

I'm anti-regulation for most things but regulation is needed here. It's the best of the bad options.

Also for the article you posted:

"I have never seen an independent… start up without having to fight the incumbent legally," Patten told Ars. "The incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come." That's what happened to fiber ISP Falcon Broadband in Colorado Springs. The company started in 2003, competing against Adelphia, Falcon's former engineering chief Michael Wagner said.

I used to live in Colorado Springs/Fort Carson. The cable company used to ride around the base looking for satellite dishes on service members' on-base housing, then they would go to the base Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) and get them to go to the house and tell the occupants that having a satellite dish violated the cable company's exclusivity agreement with the base. One service member called the bluff and demanded to be shown where that was in the contract. When the DEH looked, lo and behold, the clause was not there. But for years, Adelphia used the military to muscle out their (satellite) competition.
That type of activity is dishonest and needs to be punished.

 

[TheAccountant]

I agree there is way too much cronyism in the telcom industry. Look at the quip Obama made about the head lobbyist for Comcast coupled with the consolidation of the industry. Now, if justice would go in and break up these defacto monopolies I would may side against regulation. However, the industry is currently rigged in favor of the big ISPs who spend massive amounts of money lobbying which will prevent any companies being busted up.

There's a reason the big players don't want neutrality and it's not to keep the camels nose from underneath the tent. So, as it stands, my preference is for the government to tell them they can't hold certain content hostage for a ransom.

 

[Tide1986]

A dissenting opinion:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/02/06/broadband_is_not_a_public_utility_1195.html

The Internet shouldn't be regulated as if it's a common utility, because it isn't. It's an ever-evolving, privately owned, and competitive network, with new technologies and applications coming online every day. That makes regulation under antiquated laws a fool's errand.

 

[Tidewater]

A dissenting opinion:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/02/06/broadband_is_not_a_public_utility_1195.html

The Internet shouldn't be regulated as if it's a common utility, because it isn't. It's an ever-evolving, privately owned, and competitive network, with new technologies and applications coming online every day. That makes regulation under antiquated laws a fool's errand.

Sounds tailor-made for the Federal government.