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.
Because all liberals think they are smarter than everyone else, and have to regulate everyone and everything in order for things to be done correctly, in their mind. Freedom, naturally, goes out the window with this mindset.
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?
What I get is regulations forcing companies who at their own expense laid and strung the wires and keep them running to let third or fourth parties use them.
Other internet companies should lay their own cable and then undercut the monopoly holders. Don't need to regulate any more than that.
What I get is regulations forcing companies who at their own expense laid and strung the wires and keep them running to let third or fourth parties use them.
Other internet companies should lay their own cable and then undercut the monopoly holders. Don't need to regulate any more than that.
The right of way for cable is forced by the government. Everyone is full of hypocrisy.
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?
Reason TV did a great video the other day on your arguments. They don't stand up with reality.
Reclassifying the broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is a rent seeking non-solution to a hypothetical future problem. Then again, most liberal/progressive proposals are rent seeking non-solutions to hypothetical future problems.
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.
We don't need it. The more restrictions we have by the governent the closer we get to being like Russia.
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.
