Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please tell me whats wrong with the internet that we now need a massive bureaucracy to regulate it.
And why does the Obama administration refuse to release the plan publicly.
Obama's 300 page bill could lower internet costs or could regulate web sites who disagree with the leftist point of view. We don't know because, once again, “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in in it”.
I hate to say it, but I believe the only solution to this problem is to separate provision from content. No content provider should be allowed to control service to the end user. I wonder if the right wing ideologues get it?
I wonder if the Left wing ideologues get it. Whats to prevent a biased left wing or even a right wing bureaucracy from imposing unfair costs on consumers visiting certain political sites.
It doesn't matter how much pressure he bears on them, the President has little leverage here. All there are doing is putting rules back in place that they already had. If you want to blame someone blame the Republican Congress for giving the FCC the power to do so or blame Bush for appointing members of the FCC that first dreamed up net neutrality for broadband.
They want to control the flow of information and limit free speech. And open up new ways to make money while doing it. That's all you need to know.
Yeah, Republicans never pass and enforce obscenity laws or try to pass laws regulating dress or the type of language people use in public or anything .
It doesn't matter how much pressure he bears on them, the President has little leverage here. All there are doing is putting rules back in place that they already had. If you want to blame someone blame the Republican Congress for giving the FCC the power to do so or blame Bush for appointing members of the FCC that first dreamed up net neutrality for broadband.
FCC is made up of 5 members 3 democrats and 2 republicans. Unfortunately the socialist thug seems to be getting everything he demands.
FCC is made up of 5 members 3 democrats and 2 republicans. Unfortunately the socialist thug seems to be getting everything he demands.
Yes, it often goes that way. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to remove the members so they really don't have to listen to the President. Whereas a normal executive agency serves at his or her pleasure. And again, these are the same rules they have been using for some time. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend :-P?
]Obama's 300 page bill could lower internet costs[/b] or could regulate web sites who disagree with the leftist point of view. We don't know because, once again, “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in in it”.
Like the ACA did of course, which means prices will rise.
We need to learn from experience and see the bill before its passed, fool me once ......
Here is the real issue, devoid of the distraction of the framing of the issue by the right wing ideologues as one of the free market versus guuuuuvment.
The central issue is that service providers who are also content providers. Now pay attention, right wing so called free market ideologues. Most people in the USA have two choices for internet service. Their local telco, or their local cable company. I am excluding satellite internet access, because it is a sucky service, but what I say also applies.
So in my case, I can choose between AT&T and ComCast. Competition, right? Well no. Since when is two "competition"? Anyone remember when the airlines were government regulated and there were two carriers on every route? Competition means anyone can enter the market and compete. As I recall, it was during the Carter administration that the airlines were deregulated and the result was true competition, new entries erupted, and, at least on the major routes, prices fell.
Well, what we have today is similar to the situation with the airlines. Two carriers to every home. This is not competition. This is monopoly. (Well, oligopoly, but the two are very close, particularly when there are only two choices.)
With this twist. As a result of the consent decree of 1985, the telcos are required to provide access to their central offices and to their wire for third party competitors. That is why there are DSL companies who can offer high speed DSL for "cheap" using telco wire.
Well, Comcast has no such obligation under current law. So ComCast can exercise their monopolistic control over me the customer by charging their content competitors more for access to me, the customer. Wne the costs for NetFlix and Hulu rise, I the consumer pay more, and Comcast can undercut the prices their competitors charge.
Re-read what I have written until you understand. This is not an argument about free market versus government regulation. It is an argument about a level playing field in which all competitors compete equally, with the result being a better price and more options for consumers.
Hell, why do you think ComCast is spreading so much money around to the politicians?
TWO choices? LMAO People have many more choices than just two. A simple search gave me these providers in my area AND this isn't all of them.
Verizon
At&T
Time Warner
Hughes
Fios
Charter
Comcast
Using more bandwidth and receiving a higher level of service actually costs someone money?? Who would have thunk it???? How dare anyone supporting companies allowing to compete with each other and offer different services.
Re-read what I have written until you understand
Fricking A ... Let's use the interstate highway system as an example.
Does anyone care what's in the trucks, as long as the goods get delivered?
OR should we charge some trucks more for carrying, oh say, food from Mexico, versus, oh say, food from the Sacramento Delta?
That is what the internet is all about - content available to the consumer. I mean what else does ComCast want? Say they buy the New York Times then charge higher access fees to every other newspaper in the nation? You happy with that?
I hate to say it, but I believe the only solution to this problem is to separate provision from content. No content provider should be allowed to control service to the end user. I wonder if the right wing ideologues get it?
Sorry, Chuck, but I can't buy your interstate highway argument. Yes, some people DO care as to what's in the trucks and are willing to pay more to get the truck faster to where they want it. Even the US mail offers faster service for a higher price. People will pay more for higher speed internet service if they want it. If they're happy with e-mail and getting pictures of the grandkids then why would they want to pay more for high speed when dial up suits them fine? I don't see a problem with the internet other than the government's trying to get their claws into it and pushing the usual one size fits all mentality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
