Government to Takeover the Internet

[Bawanna]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, lets carry on discussions in a civil manner and NOT get personal.

There seems to be a couple common denominators in most of these threads that result in mud slinging.

Put a fork in it or travel accomodations will be provided.

Have a pleasant day and a better tomorrow

[berettabone]

I'm not a centrist........................................I hate everything Oblamea wants, needs, thinks is fair, thinks should be done. and his friggen family..................he is a piece of excrement, waiting to be buried in a landfill that is causing global warming. Everything he wants, needs, or touches, turns to manure. When he is done, things WILL improve.

[DanTana]

From my understanding of all this, the biggest issue I have is that this bill will let the FCC not have to force a company to let any other subscribers or lease their equipment. It would be theirs, this is exactly the foundation that led to the monopoly that created MaBell. This would include cabling, satellites, wireless towers etc. If you build it, it would be yours and yours alone to do what you chose. The smaller ISP's will eventually start being pushed out by this and prices will skyrocket.

[getsome]

I'm not a centrist........................................I hate everything Oblamea wants, needs, thinks is fair, thinks should be done. and his friggen family..................he is a piece of excrement, waiting to be buried in a landfill that is causing global warming. Everything he wants, needs, or touches, turns to manure. When he is done, things WILL improve.

BINGO !!! Nailed it +1000....I can just hear Obammy saying it now..."If you like your internet provider you can keep your internet provider....PERIOD"....Lying POS....I can only believe that if that idiot thinks something is a good thing then it must only be good for the tax man and the moochers.....

[Longitude Zero]

This is ALL ABOUT giving governments the right to choke off the internet whenever they feel like it. This is must more of the "we know better" liberal attitude. They are couching it in the fairness aspect but it is all about total CONTROL. As a service owner I should be allowed to favor those who pay more and slow down those that do not. He who has the gold gets the better service. This act will NOT expand competition but like every government act it will choke off competition. The internet is NOT a public utility and should NOT be regulated in this matter.

[bilbo]

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.

Yes, this arrangement was made possible by the common carrier status of the PSTN providers. POTS service is the pipe. The provider can not alter, block, manipulate that pipe. It is required to treat all traffic the same. This allowed ISPs to offer connectivity over this pipe. Anyone could play ISP (I did for a little while) because the PSTN providers where required to sell their "public service" to everyone.

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.

The ISP is the pipe provider. That is *sort of* how things *would* work *if* this bill passes and broadband providers are given common carrier status... This is *NOT* how it works now. Right now the pipe and access to services are offered by the same company. Without common carrier status the pipe owner can block competing services. With it, the pipe owners would be required to provide the pipe without messing with other competing services' traffic.

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?

Of course the regulation itself does not provide lower prices. Right now if you use a competitors services they can block or throttle you at will. Netflix, forget about it, they're taking our media profits. Allow mail service protocols? No way, you have to use ours. VPNs? uhh-uh, that would bypass the throttling we use to undermine competing services. Failed DNS lookups? Why would we just tell you we couldn't find it when we can hijack your browser and direct you to a page that tracks you so we can resell your information and advertise our products? Your analogy does not quite jive. It would be more like spllitting the "product" into two pieces. One, the pipe, is recognized as a "public utility" and you are required to sell it to everyone for a reasonable price. The Broadband providers are still selling this directly to the consumers. The second, the services, are still provided by you at whatever cost you want, also directly to the customer... if they choose to by it instead of getting a competitors services.

That's where common carrier status comes in. The pipe should be just the pipe. They can continue to offer other services but they should not be able to mess with the traffic going to others.

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.

Yes. AT&T is paid to provide the pipe. They can also offer services like long distance but now there is competition due to their common carrier status. That competition for services is what lowers the prices.

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.

Not really. The broadband providers would provide the same product but allow you to use other services without interference. The regulation would also keep them from raising the price to $100 a minute.

Right now the broadband provider also provides services and can use monopolistic practices to block competitors. Want to use Netflix? Too bad. If you want streaming video use ours... BTW it costs five times as much as Netflix.

If the providers are given common carrier status they will be forced to allow competitive services on their pipe. Now you can use $8-month-Netflix instead of the provider's more expensive service. This approach works and it was proven in the Bell breakup. Once the monopoly was broken their common carrier status required them to treat all traffic on their pipes the same. Competitive services, like local and long distance, popped up everywhere and prices plummeted.

If anyone cares:
Link to wikipedia's entry on "Net Neutrality"
Link to wikipedia's entry on "the Bell Breakup"

[bilbo]

This is ALL ABOUT giving governments the right to choke off the internet whenever they feel like it. This is must more of the "we know better" liberal attitude. They are couching it in the fairness aspect but it is all about total CONTROL. As a service owner I should be allowed to favor those who pay more and slow down those that do not. He who has the gold gets the better service. This act will NOT expand competition but like every government act it will choke off competition. The internet is NOT a public utility and should NOT be regulated in this matter.

No, this is all about taking that power away from monopolistic private corporations. The Internet *should* be considered a public utility. It is practically required for urban living. I couldn't have even applied for my carry permit if I did not have Internet access. It is literally the only way Illinois allowed applications.

What if there was only one provider of AC power to your house and they told you that next year your monthly bill will be $1K a month. If you don't have the gold, too bad. That doesn't happen because the power grid is a public service and competition between providers keeps the cost down. The Internet should be the same way.

[Longitude Zero]

No, this is all about taking that power away from monopolistic private corporations. The Internet *should* be considered a public utility. It is practically required for urban living. I couldn't have even applied for my carry permit if I did not have Internet access. It is literally the only way Illinois allowed applications.

What if there was only one provider of AC power to your house and they told you that next year your monthly bill will be $1K a month. If you don't have the gold, too bad. That doesn't happen because the power grid is a public service and competition between providers keeps the cost down. The Internet should be the same way.

Taking power away BWAHAHAHAHA that is a laugh. Look who is pushing the legislation, the government and BIG BUSINESS. Wake up. Required for urban living? Are you kidding me or yourself. This is SO LAUGHABLE. I know many folks who do not have internet service in an urban environment and get along just fine. This is a specious argument. Illinois CCW regulations are the fault of the Illinois voters. Here is a newsflash in almost 100% of the country you have only ONE choice for electrical power. There is no competition. Again these opinions are specious and DO NOT HOLD WATER. Proper prior research prevents uneducated postings.

[deadeye]

Come on, this is simple. We need more regulations, rules and laws. I am sure the Fed will run the internet with the same efficiency and "meaningfulness" (gun control term) they have run the postal service, medicare, medicaid, IRS, State Department, etc. Relaaaax. Don't Wooooorry. Be haaaaappy! They couldn't get the internet tax bill through the front door. Why not the back? (I have a pen and a phone - just can't my foot in the door.) If you like your internet, you can keep your internet. Period!

[Longitude Zero]

Come on, this is simple. We need more regulations, rules and laws. I am sure the Fed will run the internet with the same efficiency and "meaningfulness" (gun control term) they have run the postal service, medicare, medicaid, IRS, State Department, etc. Relaaaax. Don't Wooooorry. Be haaaaappy! They couldn't get the internet tax bill through the front door. Why not the back? (I have a pen and a phone - just can't my foot in the door.) If you like your internet, you can keep your internet. Period!

Well said. I am from the government and I am here to help you. Right.

[yqtszhj]

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.

^^^^^ this man right here knows what he's talking about.^^^^^

Imagine this, you own a restaurant. Then the government comes in and tells you that you have to make room in your kitchen so this guy that cant afford his building can bring his stove into your kitchen. Then you have to let him go to the table with your waiter to offer the customers food from his stove at half the price. Then you have to let the guy use your refrigerator to store his food and use your plates, glasses, and silverware to serve the customer from his stove. but he does pay for the one newspaper everyday that the customers read.

That is how "government competition" works. The "competitors " will come in and pick the low easy fruit and the rural customer still gets nothing.

[bilbo]

Okay guys, I am convinced by your lucid arguments. Gub'mint bad. Teh Interwebz r not important. Carry on and have a great weekend.

[b4uqzme]

Additional restriction on any free market...by definition...can only yield negative results in the long run. Even if it sounds good today...it isn't.

The left keeps trying to protect us from everything. Bad things will happen in free markets but in the short term. They will correct themselves in the long run and deliver faster growth vs. an intervening government.

[ScottM]

Additional restriction on any free market...by definition...can only yield negative results in the long run. Even if it sounds good today...it isn't.

The left keeps trying to protect us from everything. Bad things will happen in free markets but in the short term. They will correct themselves in the long run and deliver faster growth vs. an intervening government.

Some real selective memory of history going on here from the Corporatists, and probably few if any of you cared enough to read that conservative article I linked. You deserve the deregulated corporate fraud and abuse you're steadfastly being conned into supporting.

[b4uqzme]

Some real selective memory of history going on here from the Corporatists, and probably few if any of you cared enough to read that conservative article I linked. You deserve the deregulated corporate fraud and abuse you're steadfastly being conned into supporting.

Nothing selective...just about 35 years of studying economics. I stand behind my comments. They address the issue on a much grander scale than just the internet. I'm not sure why your responses need to be so mean-spirited just because some of us disagree with you.

FYI -- I'm not an "ist" anything...just an educated adult.