Government to Takeover the Internet

[DanTana]

I've tried to provide arguments from different perspectives.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...s-not-neutral/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/4-...rticle/2560013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...e2b_story.html

Most agree, that this is reintroducing regulations on the broadband providers, that has never been good for the consumers. Some of this reminds me of the days of AT&T and phone monopolies. They could essentially say I own that cable you cannot use it.

Now Mr. Wheeler’s plan is to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act — a legal designation that currently applies to firms such as old-school telephone companies. That would expose broadband providers to a new world of federal regulation. Under the plan, the agency would choose not to enforce many of the most onerous Title II regulations, such as forcing cable companies to let any would-be Internet service provider use the wires they installed to sell its own Internet-access service. But the industry worries that future FCC commissioners would expand their regulatory scope, given the opportunity.
But in some respects, reclassification would limit regulators as well as the cable companies. It’s very likely that the Federal Trade Commission would be unable to conduct investigations and enforce actions in the broadband business, as it has done on issues such as broadband “throttling” — limiting customers’ connections — and consumer privacy. Consumer advocates should be wary of forcing the FTC to surrender its authority.

[ScottM]

So... You don't know what the bill says, but you like it. I see. Your bill exists, look it up and sell it to us. Most of all, tell us why any internet regulation is needed.

No, I said that the original poster (DanTana) didn't specify what (or which) bill they were referring to - it was just a copy-and-paste job from Utah senator Mike Lee who just links to a petition which itself has no link to any bill. But wait, he said "Obama" and "government takeover" and that got the conservatives here all fomented... But do you guys know what you're fomenting about? Title II definition of Internet Broadband as a utility or just regulation overall? Or are you still stuck at "Obama?"

Hey - you may not know this, but there is more than one bill. Yep. I know, crazy, right? That there would be something deeper than "Obama" to parse through?

There was an FCC bill, then there was another that the GOP supported because "Net Neutrality is baaad" and it stripped the FCC of its prior resolution. Then the GOP received pressure from their corporate and private citizens to actually embrace the concepts of Net Neutrality because its concepts equally protect conservative interests. The GOP's position now opposes FCC's authority because there is debate over whether classifying Internet bandwidth as a Title II utility is the best solution, even if there's agreement about Net Neutrality's conceptual benefits - that's a fundamental shift from the GOP over just a couple months ago, and something Mike Lee may be a little behind on.

In fact, there is now a Republican-sponsored draft HR bill that proposes Net Neutrality without giving FCC enforcement power, but they haven't worked out how to give it any teeth, which by effect would be a meaningless bill that's only for show (big surprise, right?). Conversely, some Democrats have criticized Utility classification as something that may discourage investment in new Internet technologies, so there is a lot of middle ground for hammering out the details.

Now, which bill do you think the petition is referring to? Without a specific link from the original poster (or Senator Mike Lee), we may never know, and that was my point. I'm for Net Neutrality, with the admission that the devil will be in the details yet to be determined. Already the telecom industry backs the GOP's plan because it's a way for them to appear supportive without having to comply with much. It's lobbying at it's best, and by doing so, it'll kick the can down the road and leave everyone, including conservatives subject to the same downsides Bilbo lists above, but cynically the GOP may try for exactly that to make both their telco masters happy and their constituents believe their interests were advanced.

So, hate the draft FCC plan if you must, but if you still need to be sold why any Net Neutrality regulation is needed, may I elicit the help of more esteemed Conservatives?

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publi...et-competitive

Is that enough, or do I need to do even more reading for you? <-- And I am sorry for the rude snarkiness, but I guess I'm growing frustrated by some members' tendency to automatically oppose anything the President likes, even if there are elements in there worth keeping and building upon. Believe me, as a centrist, I have the same frustration with my liberal friends about gun control and certain kinds of financial regulations.

[yqtszhj]

You guys are a corporatist's wet dream - Morgan, Carnegie, Westinghouse - all of 'em. I bet y'all hate government safety regulations too, like those pesky boiler requirements and child labor laws and seat belts and DOT certification and fines against companies that dump waste into rivers. I bet y'all think those are job-killing regulations that are nothing but liberal desire to take over the world and put everyone in a socialist fascist communist somethingist nanny state. Maybe some of you would privatize the nation's roads and ATC and police too. Might as well - our prisons and a good part of our military are already privatized, no? There's plenty of private profit to go around, so why stop there?! Certainly companies always have our best interests in mind, right? Those Wells Fargo / Pinkerton / mining company disarmaments and murders were just anomalies, right?

And yet still nobody in this thread has posted an actual bill to read before y'all already oppose it because the Prez said something about it.

You guys do know the idea has (or at least had, until Obama chimed in) BROAD bipartisan support as a way to keep the internet competitive for smaller businesses, right?

Today, if you start a business that competes with your internet carrier, that carrier may slow you down or impede your business without legal recourse because internet bandwidth isn't considered a utility like water, electricity, sewage and natural gas are. And if you're in a location where they're the only viable provider, you're screwed. This is already happening with media content providers and distributors. And yet Internet connectivity is now just at as critical as the other utilities are for a successful businesses and personal opportunity. Oh, and here's one for the conspiracists among us - without a Net Neutrality law, your voice may be throttled for opposing that of your carrier - no lie.

But I'll still wait for that link before jumping to conclusions. One of us needs to. [emoji17]

All this making things fair is a lie. I'm a little guy who works at what is probably the worlds largest telecommunications provider. What the government wants is to get tax revenue. They have lost significant revenue in the last few years due to how the consumer now communicates. We have been able to offer customers voice services using newer technologies at significantly reduced rates (think half the price) than traditional technologies because they are not regulated. Also this special treatment myth is not true. My company will sell anyone all the dedicated bandwidth you want as a customer. I currently have 3 internet options at my home so I have options. High speed HD video over wireless is coming and it will be over the internet. The government want to get into this only to get the tax revenue they are missing now and know is coming in the future. They want to tax it all including the Skype calls that are now OTT services. To think it is anything else is just a dream.

Whatever they claim is the reason they want it now, rest assured it has nothing to do with helping any one but themselves in the end. And if you think we just tow the company line just know 3 years ago every employee was asked why more than 50% of us chose our competitors services over our own and wouldn't recommend our company to our friends and family and our answer was basically "we $uck".

[deadeye]

Is this the Net Neutrality bill? If so, I'm all for it.

I agree. I think the government should take over every facet of our lives. After all we are too stupid to know what is best for us aren't we. If you don't believe me ask the present administration. I would be for a monitor assigned to every community in the U.S. They could go door to door making sure we are complying as we well should. Let's get this over with! Or. Could it indeed be for money as well as control?

[ScottM]

I agree. I think the government should take over every facet of our lives. After all we are too stupid to know what is best for us aren't we. If you don't believe me ask the present administration. I would be for a monitor assigned to every community in the U.S. They could go door to door making sure we are complying as we well should. Let's get this over with! Or. Could it indeed be for money?

Read the rest of the thread before showing us that you haven't.

[deadeye]

Oh, I read the post. I can appreciate that you are a centrist and understand what you are saying. My rant is about the last 2 administrations. Between them the government has taken more and more control of our lives and have accelerated it steadily. I too am a centrist on some issues but not where my personal freedom is concerned. Guns are not the only thing in my life. I am not only concerned about the second amendment but the whole constitution under attack by these tyrants. This "Net Neutrality" will be fine at first but like all the rest of big government running things it will turn out far different than the pretty words these clowns are spewing from their lying mouths. "Obamacare" for instance? I can go on from there but why do it? Give them an inch and they take a mile. If people can't see it then we deserve what we get. Being a centrist in a time of war means no matter which side wins, you loose.

[AJBert]

Sure glad I didn't know that the only way to get the internet was through cable, as has been stated a few times in this thread. Cable is completely non-existent where I live, along with DSL. I can't even get free TV with the old rabbit ears.

However, there are these things floating around up in orbit that allow me to get TV and the internet, and I had more than a few choices of who I would pay to receive what I want.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who think cable is the ONLY way anyone can receive the internet.

Key word in what I posted was "choice".

[ScottM]

However, there are these things floating around up in orbit that allow me to get TV and the internet, and I had more than a few choices of who I would pay to receive what I want.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who think cable is the ONLY way anyone can receive the internet.

Key word in what I posted was "choice".

The examples several of us given have been limited to consumer choice of providers but the issue goes far, far beyond just that - read the article I linked tonight when you have 30-60 minutes. It really does do an outstanding job going into depth why Net Neutrality is of bipartisan merit, as well as its link all the way back to 1970s telco antitrust, how those actions (including breakup of the world's largest and most abusive telco) played a critical part in the Internet's success, and why an ounce of prevention today will be worth pounds of cure later.

[bilbo]

Thank you Scott. I was just going to bring up "Ma Bell". Do you guys remember what happened afterwards? Competition soared and prices ultimately dropped. The situation today is fast approaching "We're your Internet provider... We don't care."

[JohnR]

Or are you still stuck at "Obama?"

Straw man argument.

You can't use my opposition to Obama as an argument in favor of increasing regulations on the internet. I ask again, put in your own words why the internet needs Federal regulation. Don't make me read other people's stuff, I don't care what they say. I asked you, since you said you supported it. If you can't boil the issue down to its essence, then you have no rational, logical argument to support it.

[knkali]

The examples several of us given have been limited to consumer choice of providers but the issue goes far, far beyond just that - read the article I linked tonight when you have 30-60 minutes. It really does do an outstanding job going into depth why Net Neutrality is of bipartisan merit, as well as its link all the way back to 1970s telco antitrust, how those actions (including breakup of the world's largest and most abusive telco) played a critical part in the Internet's success, and why an ounce of prevention today will be worth pounds of cure later.

Will do..thank you

[diablo53]

Sure, just use a different broadband provider... Oh wait, most people can't because the only provider in their area is the cable company and the cable company is essentially a monopoly. Net neutrality is about "common carrier" status for broadband providers to keep competition alive and protect consumers from abuse like traffic modification and throttling.

Do you remember 15 years ago when everybody had dial-up service? I was paying $8.99 for unlimited service. I had literally hundreds of options for providers. Why? The common carrier status of the POTS providers required access be given to everybody... That competition is still there in the dial-up market because of it. Unfortunately dial-up is virtually unusable for the modern Internet but it's the only option some people have.

How are you all enjoying your Netflix throttling, dns lookup spam, site re-direction, blocked services and data caps? Net neutrality is about stopping things like this. It's the likes of Comcast, Mediacom and Verizon who are lobbying against this. Everybody loves doing business with those guys and know they have our best interests in mind, right? Wrong. They want to keep the power to squeeze every last cent from us while blocking the competition... all the while telling you that taking that power from them will raise the cost of your service... you don't want that do you my precious? THEY'VE ALREADY LOWERED THEIR SERVICE LEVELS TO THE MINIMUM AND RAISED THEIR PRICES TO HIGHEST THE MARKET WILL STAND. This is about big business. This is not a party thing. "Obummer" didn't do this any more than he raises or lowers gas prices... Not to mention that the US literally cannot "take over the Internet". It's international at this point.



It's very broken. Broadband connectivity in the US has taken a huge step backwards compared to the rest of the world. This is an attempt to fix it.

Here's the flaw with your argument. I work for the largest communications company in North America. Back in the "old" days you could buy internet access from any old mom and pop ISP that offered dial up service... using the telephone line that you already had. That telephone service was likely only available from one company. So you paid whatever the phone company commanded for that service, THEN you paid what you wanted to whatever ISP you chose to do business with.

Same rings true with broadband service. The local service provider is likely the only game in town. You will pay whatever the charges are for the pipe, and then you get to chose how much extra you pay to your chosen ISP. Adding in regulation does not lower prices. Competition on paper is not true competition if the government requires a local service provider to sell their product to a reseller for less than they are allowed to sell to the direct end user.
Would you want to be forced to sell your product, at a lower rate, to the guy down the street who is going to slap his label on it and resell it for the same price you sell the product in your store?

Thats how competative local exchange carriers work now. At&t is required sell their product to a reseller for less than they can sell to their own customers. Oh and here's the best part- At&t is still on the hook for maintenance on the facilities that provide the service, the CLEC only has to collect payment from the customer.

So while its sounds great for end users to have an option. All they are doing is buying a rebranded product from the same manufacturer, and most of the time it is not less expensive.

[ScottM]

Straw man argument.

You can't use my opposition to Obama as an argument in favor of increasing regulations on the internet. I ask again, put in your own words why the internet needs Federal regulation. Don't make me read other people's stuff, I don't care what they say. I asked you, since you said you supported it. If you can't boil the issue down to its essence, then you have no rational, logical argument to support it.

Straw man argument. If you can't be bothered to read other people's intellectual capital then I have no confidence you'll care to authentically consider mine.

[ScottM]

So while its sounds great for end users to have an option. All they are doing is buying a rebranded product from the same manufacturer, and most of the time it is not less expensive.

Read the article I linked. You're missing a lot of critically important details.

[diablo53]

Read the article I linked. You're missing a lot of critically important details.

I don't dispute this. I was just addressing the points I was familiar with.