Quote:I'm not advocating to have it completely unregulated. I'm asking how the FCC will fix the issue as you've explained it. You've told me there's to few players in the game and they now can control access to start up competition or speed based on content. How does the FCC fix any of that? If anything the FCC would make it worse just like they did with cable and landlines
For speed based content, there's net neutrality. The problem is that the guy in charge of the FCC is a telecom insider, and Obama won't get rid of him. It's ridiculous.
To start competition, the FCC can do local loop unbundling like they did in the UK. I know the idea
sounds bad, but it works. And in the long run it works for everyone. Some companies will see a drop in profits, but only similar to what they would drop in profits if they were given
real competition. They might even see a rise in profits because they'll have more access to more customers, and become more innovative. And customers would benefit with lower prices and far more options.
The problem has been that the FCC has been doing things at the behest of the big corporations, instead of at the behest of the people. It's something that needs to change. We need to take money out of politics (which is far easier said than done).
I'm not a fan of big government. I know that the FCC is the reason we have many of the problems we have now. But those problems can only be fixed by the FCC now that they're here. The market is just too difficult to penetrate for competition, and the big 5 basically have a quasi-monopoly that they can do what they want with, and the free market won't bring in new competitors for them if we get rid of the regulations we have now.
Honestly a major problem with our government (aside from money being too big in politics) is that our government has become incompetent. It should serve the people, not the corporations. We need someone with common sense. Someone who can say "You know what, let's change how things work." instead of "*(False) HOPE AND (Minimal) CHANGE" or "Folders of women. Someone who won't put industry insiders in charge of the industries they are formerly part of.
So the neutrality guys their talking about the FCC recatagorizing internet access as a utility is this the only way to achieve it?
I'm not sure how I feel about recatagorizing to put it under the FCC jurisdiction. Why is it not possible to simply pass legislation requiring unfiltered access across the board? What they're talking about now sounds more like a step towards nationalizing the internet, That would be a Very bad situation.
Quote:I'm not sure how I feel about recatagorizing to put it under the FCC jurisdiction. Why is it not possible to simply pass legislation requiring unfiltered access across the board? What they're talking about now sounds more like a step towards nationalizing the internet, That would be a Very bad situation.
It's the government. They'd be so much more effective (and save a lot of money) if they'd just change a lot of the rules and regulations that they had. Most of them exist to try to limit government control, but do it ineffectively. There's a lot of bureaucratic red tape. Everything has been made so complex that getting anything done requires six extra steps.
Quote:It's the government. They'd be so much more effective (and save a lot of money) if they'd just change a lot of the rules and regulations that they had. Most of them exist to try to limit government control, but do it ineffectively. There's a lot of bureaucratic red tape. Everything has been made so complex that getting anything done requires six extra steps.
Understood and that would be my hesitation to back anything that puts the entire internet under the control of the FCC. I think Net Neutrality as it's been explained here is very reasonable and something we all should support. But it seems the details or how they want to go about doing it right now is only going to make matter worse.
Quote:So the neutrality guys their talking about the FCC recatagorizing internet access as a utility is this the only way to achieve it?
I'm not sure how I feel about recatagorizing to put it under the FCC jurisdiction. Why is it not possible to simply pass legislation requiring unfiltered access across the board? What they're talking about now sounds more like a step towards nationalizing the internet, That would be a Very bad situation.
You wouldn't know a Very bad situation if it were kicking you in the crotch.
The FCC has always had jurisdiction over internet providers, the problem is that they have defined regulatory categories created by congress, the courts essentially said you can regulate broadband and internet providers in general, but that the FCC has to actually do it under a categorization and can't just create a set of rules that congress didn't already authorize them for.
You probably don't understand this, and think the real problem is too much regulation, but over the past decade it's been a lack of regulation that caused the current situation whereby broadband in the USA is slower and more expensive than a significant part of the industrialized world.
Quote:Understood and that would be my hesitation to back anything that puts the entire internet under the control of the FCC. I think Net Neutrality as it's been explained here is very reasonable and something we all should support. But it seems the details or how they want to go about doing it right now is only going to make matter worse.
As far as I understand it, it'd only put the ISP Providers under FCC Control. Internet Access being labeled as a utility would make the ISP providers utility companies. Much like the government doesn't tell us how we may use electricity, they would not tell us how to use the internet.
Now, I may be wrong. I'm not sure. But that's how I understand it.
Quote:As far as I understand it, it'd only put the ISP Providers under FCC Control. Internet Access being labeled as a utility would make the ISP providers utility companies. Much like the government doesn't tell us how we may use electricity, they would not tell us how to use the internet.
Now, I may be wrong. I'm not sure. But that's how I understand it.
That makes sense, I'll do some more looking into it.
Quote:Understood and that would be my hesitation to back anything that puts the entire internet under the control of the FCC. I think Net Neutrality as it's been explained here is very reasonable and something we all should support. But it seems the details or how they want to go about doing it right now is only going to make matter worse.
It's important that they get classified as utilities. The ability of for profit companies to be able to control the free and independent flow of the world's information in this current age is as dangerous as if they could control the flow of power or water. Hence the reason those are regulated in this manner.
They have already said they wont implement "price fixing" type regulations, so they will continue to be able to charge obscene rates (compared to the rest of the world) while providing no new value to the costumer. It is also likely they will maintain their strangle hold on competition. I actually don't understand why republicans are so up in arms over this, other than Obama said it so we MUST condemn it. As far as I understand it, all this does is keep them from being able to charge Netflix more or they slow down the speeds.
Quote:It's important that they get classified as utilities. The ability of for profit companies to be able to control the free and independent flow of the world's information in this current age is as dangerous as if they could control the flow of power or water. Hence the reason those are regulated in this manner.
They have already said they wont implement "price fixing" type regulations, so they will continue to be able to charge obscene rates (compared to the rest of the world) while providing no new value to the costumer. It is also likely they will maintain their strangle hold on competition. I actually don't understand why republicans are so up in arms over this, other than Obama said it so we MUST condemn it. As far as I understand it, all this does is keep them from being able to charge Netflix more or they slow down the speeds.
The more I'm reading up on this the more it makes sense to qualify it as a utility. I haven't seen a good reason not to, other then like you said Obama said to do it so the natural reaction is to oppose it from Republicans.
Like I was saying my only concern was if putting the internet under the FCC would put content under the FCC control but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Quote:The more I'm reading up on this the more it makes sense to qualify it as a utility. I haven't seen a good reason not to, other then like you said Obama said to do it so the natural reaction is to oppose it from Republicans.
Like I was saying my only concern was if putting the internet under the FCC would put content under the FCC control but that doesn't seem to be the case.
As with most political issues, mud is being slung and misinformation is being spread. Obamacare of the internet? Please.
This is something that SHOULD be completely bipartisan but that will never be the case with current Dem and GOP leadership.
It seems to me from reading this thread that the threat of regulation is coming from Comcast. Comcast and the other 3 or 4 internet providers want the freedom to regulate the internet themselves. "Net neutrality" actually means DE-REGULATION of the internet. At least, that is the effect of it. It prevents the 4 or 5 private companies, which are monopolies, from regulating the internet.
Personally, I don't want someone at Comcast deciding what I can or cannot see on the internet.
Quote:I'm not advocating to have it completely unregulated. I'm asking how the FCC will fix the issue as you've explained it. You've told me there's to few players in the game and they now can control access to start up competition or speed based on content. How does the FCC fix any of that? If anything the FCC would make it worse just like they did with cable and landlines
Honestly, I'm not sure why you indulge him. Watch the video Unravel posted. That will answer your questions without trying to screw with your head.
Quote:Those giant telecom companies wouldn't exist if it wasn't for government interference to begin with. That's not free market, that's crony capitalism.
So, I guess we'll just put you down in the "let everyone fight over the spectrum by turning up their broadcast signal power until it drowns everything else out" column.
Crony capitalism is the problem introduced by republican governance, the solution isn't less governance, because you'll never get rid of central control. The best you'd get is even bigger even more predatory corporate power if you got rid of government regulation.
