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.
Because Obama has angled his view on this in just the right way that it sounds like it's an improvement. 'Net Neutrality' sounds great, does it not? Unfortunately, the name is extremely misleading
I posted the proposed regulation above (post #54). What specifically do you find offensive?
But if/when the net gets hacked again by bad guys (North Korea again, cyber terrorists from China or Russia, etc.), and you lose your access and your provider can do nothing about it, I bet you'll be moaning about the government doing something about it.
The US Federal Government had a role in creating the internet, they have a role in running and protecting it. Don't be obtuse and think it's just you and Verizon (or whoever).
I'll take all the government protection I can get on the internet. The internet is way too big and important to be left to profit seekers.
Why did you leave the NSA out of this ? Certainly you've read about the USG intimidation of certain internet service providers to turn over their customer information.
I posted the proposed regulation above (post #54). What specifically do you find offensive?
Because none of it is necessary. These things being presented as an answer to an issue, when there is no issue to address, should raise a red flag.
My guess, this is going to lead to internet taxes, which nobody really wants. The internet works fine without the government getting involved. There's no need for this.
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?
In short, wired broadband looks increasingly like a market failure. FIOS penetration has fizzled in most markets, DSL's speed is non-competitive, and wireless hasn't proven an adequate substitute. As a result, the cable companies, in most markets, have monopoly/duopoly power--and they also own content that their pipes deliver.
Your post is a nice discussion of what can happen in this situation. Shorthand is this: a monopoly/duopoly is never a free market. The company in control extracts monopolist rents from the market, making it inefficient. These rules are intended to limit the damage the monopolists can do.
The big questions are these: 1) will wireless technologies develop to the point that they can solve the last mile problem cheaply? 2) will this form of regulation limit investment in those technologies, delaying their deployment? I think the answers are: 1) yes, and 2) no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slenderman
I have a friend that lives in China and yes his regulated internet is quite fast. However one major problem "content is censored by government bureaucrats". Whats to prevent that from happening here once bureaucrats are in charge.
Easy, the 1st Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
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
Look at Figure 5(a). Looking at 10mbps downstream and 5 upstream, 13% of Americans have no options, 55% have one option, and 29% have two options (note that economic literature finds that duopolies can often act in the same way as a monopoly. Only 3% of Americans have access to 3 or more options.
At 6mbps downstream and 1.5 upstream, what I would call slow broadband, the percentages barely change at all.
We are 2 decades into the internet era. At some point, we have to look at the market results and see them for what they are: evidence of market failure. The results we have today are, in my view, a data point that says the market is currently failing.
The picture is somewhat better if we include mobile broadband networks--the AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile networks. But there are two big concerns with analyzing the market that way: 1) people use the mobile networks differently--they are used for mobile devices and do not satisfy most users' home needs, and 2) mobile broadband networks are already under Title II regulation.
If we compare to other rich countries, our broadband network doesn't look like the world's envy. In fact, the top speeds are seen in highly regulated countries, like South Korea and Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slenderman
You or anyone else doesn't know what's in the regulations because Obama is hiding it. All you can do is just speculate "period"!!!
No, they are not being hidden. The regulations are public. The FCC is planning to release the 300+ page plan next week.
You clearly have no clue how agencies create regulations. I'll give you a brief overview.
Agencies first propose regulations and they then publish those proposed regulations. Next, the public is afforded an opportunity to read the proposed regulation and submit comments. Once the comment period is closed, the agency reads all the comments. The agency is free is to tweak the proposed regulation in response to the comments or to leave it unchanged. At this point, it's no longer a proposed regulation, it's a final regulation.
The agency then decides (in the case of the FCC, the 5 commissioners vote) if it wants to accept the final regulation. If it does, the agency publishes the final regulation along with the rationale for adopting the regulation and with responses to all the public comments received. That's why this final regulation is 332 pages - the regulation itself is 1 page or so and responses to the public comments will be like 300 pages long. 30 days after the final regulation is published, it goes into effect (barring a lawsuit challenging the regulation).
Final regulations - of any agency - are never released prior to being approved. Public input and public review comes at the proposal stage.
You clearly have no clue how agencies create regulations. I'll give you a brief overview.
Agencies first propose regulations and they then publish those proposed regulations. Next, the public is afforded an opportunity to read the proposed regulation and submit comments. Once the comment period is closed, the agency reads all the comments. The agency is free is to tweak the proposed regulation in response to the comments or to leave it unchanged. At this point, it's no longer a proposed regulation, it's a final regulation.
The agency then decides (in the case of the FCC, the 5 commissioners vote) if it wants to accept the final regulation. If it does, the agency publishes the final regulation along with the rationale for adopting the regulation and with responses to all the public comments received. That's why this final regulation is 332 pages - the regulation itself is 1 page or so and responses to the public comments will be like 300 pages long. 30 days after the final regulation is published, it goes into effect (barring a lawsuit challenging the regulation).
Final regulations - of any agency - are never released prior to being approved. Public input and public review comes at the proposal stage
We shall see...however as one poster stated it perfectly "The internet works fine without the government getting involved. There's no need for this." IMHO...this is nothing more than a power grab to police the internet content.
We shall see...however as one poster stated it perfectly "The internet works fine without the government getting involved. There's no need for this." IMHO...this is nothing more than a power grab to police the internet content.
Did you express your opinion on this proposed regulation by submitting a comment to the FCC during the comment period?
And what specifically about the proposed regulation (which I posted above) do you object to?
Why not? Wouldn't that have been the time and place to complain?
Quote:
I don't...I just don't trust this administration.
So you really have no rational argument against the regulation.
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.
