FCC outlines new 'third way' internet regulatory plan, will split access from content

[SAWYER]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/...-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/#comments

 

[nakedfrog]

Does this mean we can look forward to a "universal broadband service fee" in the future?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/

You linked to the comment section anchor.

 

[TehMac]

how about no government involvement in the economy? What a revolutionary idea...if only some people had thought of that...

Oh well, guess those people don't matter, after all, they only wrote the laws that determined the course of the most successful nation on earth.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

looks like isp's are getting exactly what they want, and customers will be getting the shaft. huge surprise.

 

[AndroidVageta]

how about no government involvement in the economy? What a revolutionary idea...if only some people had thought of that...

Oh well, guess those people don't matter, after all, they only wrote the laws that determined the course of the most successful nation on earth.

It almost brings a tear to my eye due to hate and disgust of our current "government". This country is not what our fore fathers created nor wanted...in fact we are now the complete opposite of what we tried to escape from and faught the Revolutionary War over.

There is NOTHING the American people can do about this...the Gov does what ever they want too...everyone knows this.

 

[sourceninja]

So now we are in a three way with the FCC, the ISPs, and ourselves.

Great, Now I get it at both ends...

 

[robphelan]

how about no government involvement in the economy? What a revolutionary idea...if only some people had thought of that...

Oh well, guess those people don't matter, after all, they only wrote the laws that determined the course of the most successful nation on earth.

if you think that no regulation by the govt would magically turn corporations into people-loving puppies, i want some of what you're smoking.

No regulation would give corps a license to screw us with no recourse. don't say, 'vote with your wallet' - try that with your cable co, or ISP - only 1 option for the vast majority of people here in the US.

BTW, P&N <--

 

[her209]

how about no government involvement in the economy? What a revolutionary idea...if only some people had thought of that...

Oh well, guess those people don't matter, after all, they only wrote the laws that determined the course of the most successful nation on earth.

The government has always been involved in the economy: allowing slave labor, imposing tariffs and duties, determining who you can do business with outside of the US.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Yeah, the government used to not be involved in the economy...we got 16 hour days, 6 days a week, no time off, fired for any reason, no benefits, and paltry wages. Please take me back to those days!

 

[nakedfrog]

The government has always been involved in the economy: allowing slave labor, imposing tariffs and duties, determining who you can do business with outside of the US.

You're trying to use logic and reason with him. How cute

 

[Meghan54]

Yeah, the government used to not be involved in the economy...we got 16 hour days, 6 days a week, no time off, fired for any reason, no benefits, and paltry wages. Please take me back to those days!

This. And don't forget the ability to send your child off to work 8 hour days at the age of 9.

And all the "market forces will take care of everything" nonsense that's bleated.......care to remember Standard Oil? At its largest, it controlled 88% of all oil refined in the U.S. through its almost complete vertical integration and monopoly. Guess what kind of prices they could charge, esp. today if that still existed?

So, I suppose the Sherman Anti-Trust act is wrong, too, then?

And corporations have time and again shown they simply think of the bottom line, pure and simple. Ford and its Pinto debacle.....the cost of $11 for a plastic shield to be put over the rear end of those cars was deemed to be more costly than defending and paying out in litigation for not doing it. Such is corporate thinking.

But, guess those market forces worked, eh?


Now, I'm not advocating the gov't controlling everything, but corps. have historically shown time and again their disregard for anything but their bottom line. There has to be some sort of oversight in place, otherwise you're simply letting the inmates run the asylum.

 

[TehMac]

if you think that no regulation by the govt would magically turn corporations into people-loving puppies, i want some of what you're smoking.

Great point, but this regulation will not make corporations behave either, they're not charities, nor are they magical fairies. This regulation just puts the government between you and the seller leading to a grand extortion scheme.

No one expects corporations to "love" people, but they need business because that equals money. Letting the free market operate unhindered will further both the freedom and expansion of a business, as well as your own freedom and opportunity.

No regulation would give corps a license to screw us with no recourse. don't say, 'vote with your wallet' - try that with your cable co, or ISP - only 1 option for the vast majority of people here in the US.

You mention the ISPs as a good example of a monopoly. Well, I do have a choice, if one internet company isn't giving me a good rate, I can either drop my internet usage and just use the library's access, I could go over to another provider like AT&T or Comcast, or if I wanted to keep using the internet, I could cut out other things from budget.

I myself for example do not have cable television, nor do I even watch network television. I save lots of energy bills, while still paying for services I actually want/"need."

The commonly cited "monopolies" of the "Robber Barons" of the developing West were government created monsters--the U.S. government legally owned all the land the developers wanted to build rail road tracks on, and so instead of leasing the land out to whoever wanted it, the government sold parcels of land (which technically is constitutionally questionable but they did it anyway) to railroad companies.

Because each rail road company 'OWNED' the tracks because they had bought the "rights" they were free to create monopolies.
Now, 100 years later, same story different resource. The government is selling out different segments of its land--whether that be a city or whatever to different Telecom companies.

In other words, the free market theory of competition isn't working in the instances you cite because the government is not letting it.

Rather than piling on more government regulations, the simple answer is to de-regulate as much as possible.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i dont want to read that, can someone post the cliff notes?

 

[TehMac]

i dont want to read that, can someone post the cliff notes?

you referring to what I wrote? I promise I it only books big because I split it into several different bits

 

[drebo]

No regulation would give corps a license to screw us with no recourse. don't say, 'vote with your wallet' - try that with your cable co, or ISP - only 1 option for the vast majority of people here in the US.

BTW, P&N <--

Ironically enough, the exact predicament you state here (one option for telco) is a DIRECT RESULT of government involvement in this industry.

The fix is, to be honest, more government involvement, though not at the federal (or even state) level. The real fix to the whole net neutrality issue is for municipalities to buy the "last mile" from the ILECs and open it to anyone who wants it at reasonable rates. Then they need to convert all COs to be IXPs. These two actions address virtually every issue we currently have with our broadband network.

Converting COs to IXPs would significantly reduce the costs associated with ISP peering, thereby lowering the costs of off-net content delivery (the primary driving force behind tiered networks). Opening the "last mile" up to competition will drive prices down and performance options up.

The problems being faces are that current Telecommunications ideology (law) assumes that service delivery and content delivery are one in the same. This is very much not the case anymore, and for many ISPs, content comes from off-network sources. This means that the ISPs not only don't make money from providing the content (Comcast doesn't get revenue from the commercials you watch on Hulu.com, and they lose potential revenue that they might get from commercials that you watch on their content channels (website or TV)), but it actually COSTS them money to delivery these services to their customers (Comcast has to pay for interconnect bandwidth between whatever ISP hosts Hulu.com's servers and their own network).

This is why ISPs want to deploy tiered networks. ISPs want to be able to charge content providers (like Hulu, Netflix, Vonage, etc) for top-tier (preferred) access to their customers. Under the current model, because there is almost no competition over the "last mile", this would be seen as extremely anticompetitive and would likely be ruled as illegal. That's why it hasn't been implemented yet on any networks. However, if the "last mile" were to be opened up and IXPs were to be much more common and readily available, these problems would all be alleviated because the costs associated with content delivery would be but a fraction of what they are now.

 

[amdhunter]

Who gives a shit? By the time all of this becomes law, we'll be sick of the internet. Do you really think the internet won't fade away in the next 5 years or so?