Should the internet be considered a utility ? (Poll)

[Modelworks]

The arguments go both ways.
Some say it should be considered a utility and that would give the government the ability to regulate it and also the ability to fund projects to enhance the networks and rural areas.

Others say that it is not a utility and that it has nothing in common with water, electric, or phone utilities . That it is better to keep it as it is. That internet is not required like the other three are.



So is it a utility , and if it is should it be made official ?

How a utility is defined:

An organization supplying water, electricity, transportation, etc. to the public, operated, usually as a monopoly, by a private corporation under governmental regulation or by the government directly.


A company such as an electric company or gas company, the nature of which is to be a monopoly in a particular region. Because no free-market forces can exist in this situation, governmental regulation of such companies is the norm.

 

[Leros]

Water is a necessity. Electricity is kinda needed but not really. Telephone is certainly just a convenience. Internet is same as the phone.

 

[BoomerD]

The internet itself should not be considered to be a utility, but the connections to it should be. (telephone, cable, whatever)

 

[Cristatus]

That's a really good question, but I don't have an answer to that. I'm just here to watch

/lawnchair

(C)

 

[imported_Imp]

Going to say no. It's not exactly essential. At least with the phone you can say you might have to call 911. What are you going to do, e-mail/message the police you're getting robbed and hope they check their mail? You don't even have to pay for 911 service I think (here at least).

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Imp
Going to say no. It's not exactly essential. At least with the phone you can say you might have to call 911. What are you going to do, e-mail/message the police you're getting robbed and hope they check their mail? You don't even have to pay for 911 service I think (here at least).

LOL !

 

[adairusmc]

Not a utility - it is a luxury.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The arguments go both ways.
Some say it should be considered a utility and that would give the government the ability to regulate it and also the ability to fund projects to enhance the networks and rural areas.

Others say that it is not a utility and that it has nothing in common with water, electric, or phone utilities . That it is better to keep it as it is. That internet is not required like the other three are.



So is it a utility , and if it is should it be made official ?

How a utility is defined:

An organization supplying water, electricity, transportation, etc. to the public, operated, usually as a monopoly, by a private corporation under governmental regulation or by the government directly.


A company such as an electric company or gas company, the nature of which is to be a monopoly in a particular region. Because no free-market forces can exist in this situation, governmental regulation of such companies is the norm.

no. leave the govt out of it. they'll tax it up the wazoo and mispend/waste my tax $.

phone bill:
$21/month. $6.93 of it is the actual phone line. $5 for local calling plan.
$10 (100% tax) is govt taxes and fees. :mad;

leave my $14.99/month DSL alone!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AstroManLuca]

Internet access is no more a utility than cable/satellite TV is.

 

[Brainonska511]

I wouldn't go about considering it a utility, but I wouldn't mind seeing the government step in setting up better infrastructure to rural areas and then rent out line space to ISPs.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Leros
Water is a necessity. Electricity is kinda needed but not really. Telephone is certainly just a convenience. Internet is same as the phone.

That's how I see it. I guess the argument could be that phone has become a necessity for safety and emergency reasons, but considering how many people don't have landlines anymore you could say the internet has taken some of that emergent information share, along with cell phones and TV.

 

[Baked]

You posted this same topic a couple days ago. Were you not satisfied 'cause it didn't hit 100+ replies?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=ISP

 

[clamum]

I don't consider it one. And I hope it stays that way because the less the government regulates, the less they can fuck up.

 

[lokiju]

Hell no.

Just an excuse to tax it IMO.

Leave it to the businesses to take care of.

 

[GeneValgene]

as long as they don't charge on consumption (like electricity, gas, and water), then i don't really care....that would mean the death of streaming content or video on demand

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Baked
You posted this same topic a couple days ago. Were you not satisfied 'cause it didn't hit 100+ replies?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=ISP

Totally different topic.
This is about whether it is a utility.
The other was about should an isp charge by the byte.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I wouldn't go about considering it a utility, but I wouldn't mind seeing the government step in setting up better infrastructure to rural areas and then rent out line space to ISPs.

I think that is the only real benefit to it being made a utility.
Right now the isp are making it hard for anyone else to come into their territory which technically makes them a utility. But if the government was made to regulate then other companies could come into areas. The problem is the government tends to screw up things as much as they fix them.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I think it depends on what kind of "internet" connection we're talking about.

When we're talking about a connection that uses utility easements to put in hardware (e.g. cable or fiber) networks, then I believe that one company should NOT be able to monopolize its use. I see that the biggest asset here is the right-of-way that the public is providing, NOT the cable/fiber provided by the company. I therefore think that multiple ISP's should be able to offer me internet service over my cable connection (NOT just Comcast).

If the network is "open access", then the ISP's don't need to be regulated. I'm okay with the idea of a separate "cable access charge" needed to recoup the network capital and operating costs, but this should be regulated by the local government that granted the easements. This isn't much different than what we have today for long-distance phone service.

If these networks are "closed" as they are today, then I am definitely in favor of regulating the one company's rates because of their monopoly power (over a network established using public right-of-ways). This isn't much different than what we have today for electrical service (or cable TV for that matter).

Other internet connections (e.g. wireless, satellite) do not need to be regulated (as long as anyone can purchase bandwidth and orbital space).

My two cents...

 

[spidey07]

Agreed with easy and above analogy - it's just a freaking phone. Nothing more than a communication network exactly like the phone network.

 

[Bateluer]

I say keep government regulation out the Internet as much as possible.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I say keep government regulation out the Internet as much as possible.

If government doesn't regulate the internet, then telecoms well ruin it. I wish it wasn't that way, but government regulation really does seem necessary.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I say keep government regulation out the Internet as much as possible.

If government doesn't regulate the internet, then telecoms well ruin it. I wish it wasn't that way, but government regulation really does seem necessary.

What the heck are you talking about? Please explain how the telecom companies will ruin it. There already is sharp government regulation of communications. The Federal Communication Commission, whose bite is much sharper than their bark.

Any part of "The Internet" is regulated by them, just like the phone network. I think the overwhelming majority of people don't understand just how easy it is to become your own ISP.

WiFi ISPs are a perfect example - all you gotta do is get the address space (not gubment, self regulated, very easy to do), connect to The Internet and sell your services. Done. I'm not talking about illegally sharing your consumer connection with your neighbor, I'm talking about being a Wireless ISP, leasing space on a cell tower, putting up your gear, etc. Or in rural areas building your own towers.

If anything The Internet is the most free public network ever and the FCC makes sure it stays that way. If you want to think of it as a utility the monopolys are the norm and we don't want that.

 

[Modelworks]

Interesting results so far , about 50/50 on both questions.
I would have thought people would have gone more with the no government option.