Obama wants to make the internet a utility

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,582
798
123
43
Huntsville, AL
Well, the agency in this case is the Federal government (of which the FCC is a wholly owned subsidiary). I have no faith that the FCC will act any differently than the IRS, DOJ, SEC, ICE, etc.
What reason do you have to believe the FCC will be the only Federal agency that will operate in its regulatory capacity in an honest, open and even-handed manner? Why is the FCC exempt from the failures that make other Federal agencies act in an opaque, dishonest and partial manner?
No more reason than I have to believe that corporations with a veritable monopoly, who have already proven they have no interest in doing anything more than squeezing content creators and consumers, won't continue to do more of the same. I am just a realist. Personally I believe that the mega corporations who currently cover vast swaths of the country as the only provider should be broken up. I am actually surprised that you advocated for much of the same. But as a realist I know that DC is bought and paid for by the lobbyists. There is no way it will happen. The FCC is probably the last option. Even on things that should be a slam dunk in congress, amendments and pork get added so that it will never pass. The FCC truly isn't even a good place to hope for it. The current chairman is a former, and some would say current lobbyist. I also remember there was someone who approved a merger while at the FCC then went to work for one of the companies that was part of the merger.

In all honesty, I believe this is a sisyphean task. The ISP's will get this tied up in the courts, and when the USSC eventually rules on it, the court will likely cave.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
There are two things that blocking net neutrality applied to this scenario would allow to happen. The company could say "Hey I see you love baking cookies. If you subscribe to our special cookie baking electricity, we can guarantee you won't have any issues and your cookies may even get done 1 minute faster." The other option available is that the company can say "Hey not sure if you know this, but baking cookies with chocolate chips made by our competitor will make your cookies take an extra 5 minutes to bake. Oh by the way, we just happen to have started offering our own brand of chocolate chips, and if you use our chocolate chips, we can guarantee your cookies will bake as fast as they normally do. Unless you want to upgrade to our new COOKIE EXTREME 2.0 electricity so its even faster?!" And the cookie baking delay isn't due to there being some funny interaction between competitor chocolate chips and your oven. The electricity company knows when and what you are baking, what chocolate chips you are using, and if they aren't their(or their partners) brand, they give you less electricity on that specific outlet in your house.
Tidewater has referenced the application of anti-trust law in previous posts. Both of these examples may in fact be illegal tying (a form of restraint of trade under anti-trust law) and could be addressed if the government would simply use its current power to do so.
 

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,341
32
58
Shiner, TX
I would like to have the same options (as with electricity) as everyone else. It's funny that you assume I was asking for internet welfare.

Did I mis-interpret your statement? You said it would be nice to have high speed internet but its a high dollar affair for you.

So exactly how would government regulation make it cheaper for you?

I'm still paying for rural line fees and access fees 28 years later, which have now become free cell phones for low income recipients. Once the government starts taxing it, it won't stop.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,551
1,877
173
Hooterville, Vir.
No more reason than I have to believe that corporations with a veritable monopoly, who have already proven they have no interest in doing anything more than squeezing content creators and consumers, won't continue to do more of the same. I am just a realist.
I do not think I would characterize your position as "realist." It is quite idealistic.
Personally I believe that the mega corporations who currently cover vast swaths of the country as the only provider should be broken up. I am actually surprised that you advocated for much of the same.
You have probably never met anyone with a stricter view of the construction of Federal powers, but I do believe that breaking up monopolies is within the purview of Federal powers to regulate the value of interstate commerce. I believe Little Jimmy Madison would and the ratifiers of the Constitution would also see as within their intentions (once you had explained what the internet was and what corporations were doing with it; their next comment would be to ask why the Federal government was allowing the existence of corporations to begin with, but we can thank Republicans of the Lincolnian Era and the Gilded Age for that monstrosity.).
But as a realist I know that DC is bought and paid for by the lobbyists. There is no way it will happen. The FCC is probably the last option.
A desperate, drowning man will grasp at anything for salvation, even a boat anchor.
Even on things that should be a slam dunk in congress, amendments and pork get added so that it will never pass. The FCC truly isn't even a good place to hope for it. The current chairman is a former, and some would say current lobbyist. I also remember there was someone who approved a merger while at the FCC then went to work for one of the companies that was part of the merger.

In all honesty, I believe this is a sisyphean task. The ISP's will get this tied up in the courts, and when the USSC eventually rules on it, the court will likely cave.
I just believe the FCC will be as corrupt any other Federal agency. At least ComCast does not have a gun pointed at my head Since I have multiple ISP options, when ComCast charges too much, I can tell them to perform an unnatural act on itself and take my custom elsewhere (which I have, in fact, done).
And all it takes for Leviathan's fangs to come out is a challenge to its authority, and an issue in which large amounts of money are at stake. Leviathan can be quite nasty when challenged. Ask just about any white southerner in 1865.
 
Last edited:

Silverback

1st Team
Oct 5, 2010
834
0
16
Oak Grove
Did I mis-interpret your statement? You said it would be nice to have high speed internet but its a high dollar affair for you.

So exactly how would government regulation make it cheaper for you?

I'm still paying for rural line fees and access fees 28 years later, which have now become free cell phones for low income recipients. Once the government starts taxing it, it won't stop.
We should have equal service for an equal cost.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,209
2,587
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
As a (legit) libertarian I can't support net neutrality. The solution is not more government power and regulation. Some folks are just naive.
sorry, Mr (legit) libertarian, whatever that means, what is your solution then for us poor naive folk?
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,209
2,587
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
At least ComCast does not have a gun pointed at my head Since I have multiple ISP options, when ComCast charges too much, I can tell them to perform an unnatural act on itself and take my custom elsewhere (which I have, in fact, done).
And all it takes for Leviathan's fangs to come out is a challenge to its authority, and an issue in which large amounts of money are at stake. Leviathan can be quite nasty when challenged. Ask just about any white southerner in 1865.
glad you have a choice, my only choice is to move

now understand that technically I have "broadband" options but only because the ISP monopolies have loosened the definition of "broadband" through their lobbying efforts to include things like DSL and Wireless internet as Broadband. In my line of work I need 2 way HD Video for conference calling, IP Phones, dedicated VPN tunnels and always on full bandwidth in order for all of this to function properly. That gives me exactly 1 choice. Comcast. A choice that when I made it was "unlimited" and has recently redefined unlimited to mean 300GB of Data a month which I am already exceeding. Why do they get to redefine this again? Oh I know why because there is no oversight and because I have no choice.

You want to know why they changed the definition of Broadband? So they can claim they are not a monopoly because with their definition in place I technically have a choice, even though I don't.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,015
6,341
253
Mountainous Northern California
To answer your question, I am not sure that classification as a utility truly is THE best way to do it.

I will dig into the 706 question though.

706 is all about availability.



As to why they are going with the reclassification, I think it has to do with the government can then dictate terms of the broadcast license. IE "Thou shall not throttle my Sanford and Son's youtubes" Granted it is the FCC chairmans purview to say what those terms are but /shrug its at least a consistent point of entry for discussion. If everything goes to the wild west, and consumers and businesses alike have to deal with different companies with different terms, the burden for using the internet became higher. "Do I go with Uverse because of its speed, or Knology because the CEO is the brother in law of Hulu and I get a discount on Hulu packages?"

As to the unintended consequences, frankly I have no idea. I would like to believe after all the attention that it got (greatest response to pending decision by FCC ever) the public can at least attempt to have a say in what happens instead of allowing for back room deals and lawyers decide how the internet works.
Section 706 is settled law and empowers the FCC to do everything you want done. I can only think of one valid reason the government would rather reclassify: It will have more (unnecessary) power.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,582
798
123
43
Huntsville, AL
Section 706 is settled law and empowers the FCC to do everything you want done. I can only think of one valid reason the government would rather reclassify: It will have more (unnecessary) power.
706 unless I'm reading it incorrectly doesn't say anything about how the ISPs can treat traffic on their network, just that they have to promise to try and get broadband to ever increasing areas.
 

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
5,852
132
73
Has nothing to so with that and everything to do with the face last mile providers aren't playing nice with backbone ISPs at the peering points. Something has to be done. This is one way. Otherwise Telco's will extort businesses to get in the "fast lane" whatever that means to them.
Have you seen the Bill that will be signed into Law by the POTUS? Is it going to be like the Affordable Care Act where you will need to read it after it's signed into law to find out what's in it. Hopefully, nothing will happen before January 3, 2015.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,551
1,877
173
Hooterville, Vir.
glad you have a choice, my only choice is to move

now understand that technically I have "broadband" options but only because the ISP monopolies have loosened the definition of "broadband" through their lobbying efforts to include things like DSL and Wireless internet as Broadband. In my line of work I need 2 way HD Video for conference calling, IP Phones, dedicated VPN tunnels and always on full bandwidth in order for all of this to function properly. That gives me exactly 1 choice. Comcast. A choice that when I made it was "unlimited" and has recently redefined unlimited to mean 300GB of Data a month which I am already exceeding. Why do they get to redefine this again? Oh I know why because there is no oversight and because I have no choice.

You want to know why they changed the definition of Broadband? So they can claim they are not a monopoly because with their definition in place I technically have a choice, even though I don't.
Yeah, your situation pretty much sucks. I'm sorry about that.
What are the barriers to entry (besides legal challenges which can be dealt with via legislation) for other ISPs to get into that market, which would seem to be ripe for competition?
Is it just laying the cables? Would "utiliziting" the cables solve that problem and leave ISPs to compete?
I am not trying to be a smart aleck here. You obviously have more expertise in the technology than I do.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.