No More Net Neutrality?

[Bob Denman]

The prodigal Son has returned...
:congrats::welcome:

 

[UtahPete]

Since I'm as much a Civil Libertarian, and I am a Conservative Republican; the less Governmental intrusion: the better! :thumbup:

The government regulates utilities for a number of beneficial reasons. The FCC was trying to formulate regulations on the internet to protect those who would be vulnerable (i.e. you and I) to predatory market forces. What this FCC has just decided is that the consumer doesn't need protection. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[PrairieSpyder]

The way I understand the law(s) I think the biggest factor for people is control. Yes, higher costs are a factor as well but I think control is the largest factor.

There are only a handful of companies that provide internet access to the people of the USA. I know ATT and Comcast are 2 of them. With no net neutrality they now have the control over the content they provide and the speed at which you can consume it. You want faster speeds you pay more, that isn't a whole lot different than it is now. The big one for me..... If ATT decides it wants to start charging website owners a fee to be able to have their site viewable by ATT customers they can do that. For example. If ATT says to Lamont, "you have to pay a $500/yr fee to have SL viewable to all customers who get their internet service from ATT". If he doesn't pay and you get your internet from ATT, you won't be able to view SL.

Or if ATT decides it doesn't like a certain type of web content (political, religious, TV shows, etc) they can choose to block that content to their customers or only provide it if the customer pays additional fees.

I obviously don't know all the ins or outs of the law but from what I've read about it (which I believe to not be fake news) that's the biggest issue in my opinion.

Up till the early 80's there was only one long-distance carrier, AT&T. (I started working for AT&T Long Lines in 1980.) Then MCI started competing for the LD business; then they de-regulated who you could buy your desk phone from; then AT&T sold the cellular technology patents to Motorola. At one point you had only two cellular choices, one analog and one digital, in any given market. Now look at all the choices you have, cellular, VOIP, land-line (anyone still using that?), etc.

With all the cellular and internet traffic going on, some companies still have to provide the conditioned circuits to carry it. There's a cost associated with doing so. It makes economic sense to not regulate the net as a utility. It developed without so much regulation and now it can continue. I think we'll welcome all the innovation that will come from a free market.

 

[UtahPete]

The prodigal Son has returned...
:congrats::welcome:

Mmmm...that bowl of potage was my undoing. Thanks!

 

[RinconRyder]

So is the Sky Falling; or isn't it? :dontknow:
The old informal agreements will continue to exist, and very few changes will occur (in the short-term...)

Since I'm as much a Civil Libertarian, and I am a Conservative Republican; the less Governmental intrusion: the better! :thumbup:

It is MUCH too early to begin worrying about the fallout of this regulation. Several states have already begun designing their own internet regulations (hello WA and CA) which will effectively prevent any federal tampering. They have also threatened to create a state-owned ISP to compete with the existing commercial entities. And, at last count, even the Republicans in the House and Senate were very much against this mandate and could pass legislation to counter it. Then, there are the lawsuits already being filed to set it aside. In short, the FCC just laid a mine field it will have to negotiate without blowing its own feet off.

 

[Bob Denman]

:shocked: "Government run internet"?
I smell a train wreck brewing! nojoke

 

[UtahPete]

The big one for me..... If ATT decides it wants to start charging website owners a fee to be able to have their site viewable by ATT customers they can do that. For example. If ATT says to Lamont, "you have to pay a $500/yr fee to have SL viewable to all customers who get their internet service from ATT". If he doesn't pay and you get your internet from ATT, you won't be able to view SL.

Or if ATT decides it doesn't like a certain type of web content (political, religious, TV shows, etc) they can choose to block that content to their customers or only provide it if the customer pays additional fees.

I obviously don't know all the ins or outs of the law but from what I've read about it (which I believe to not be fake news) that's the biggest issue in my opinion.

:agree: That's my understanding of the issue also.

 

[UtahPete]

:shocked: "Government run internet"? I smell a train wreck brewing! nojoke

I would agree, except we're not talking about government running the internet (like the USPS). We're talking about them regulating it for the protection of consumers. Big difference in my mind.

 

[Bob Denman]

When they have my "Best interests" in mind: I start checking to see that my wallet is where it should be... :shocked:

 

[UtahPete]

When they have my "Best interests" in mind: I start checking to see that my wallet is where it should be... :shocked:

Trust, but verify.

 

[RinconRyder]

I would agree, except we're not talking about government running the internet (like the USPS). We're talking about them regulating it for the protection of consumers. Big difference in my mind.

Bear in mind that the USPS is closely regulated by <gasp!> Congress. The difference in my post would be that the state versus the federal gubmint. States are typically more responsive to their citizens than the feds.

I really doubt that it will get that far but it is a realistic threat.

 

[JerryB]

Hi Patti,

Re: I think we'll welcome all the innovation that will come from a free market.

That is what they said when they de-regulated the airlines. Anyone think flying is better today?

I made my first commercial flight in 1959, at one time I had over a million freq flyer miles. It has steadily gone downhill since Carter de-regulated it. And I've experienced all of it. nojoke

Jerry Baumchen

 

[UtahPete]

Hi Patti, Re: I think we'll welcome all the innovation that will come from a free market. That is what they said when they de-regulated the airlines. Anyone think flying is better today? I made my first commercial flight in 1959, at one time I had over a million freq flyer miles. It has steadily gone downhill since Carter de-regulated it. And I've experienced all of it. Jerry Baumchen

I don't know if the deterioration in the experience of air travel is solely the result of de-regulation, but that's got to be a factor.

 

[PrairieSpyder]

Hi Patti,

Re: I think we'll welcome all the innovation that will come from a free market.

That is what they said when they de-regulated the airlines. Anyone think flying is better today?

I made my first commercial flight in 1959, at one time I had over a million freq flyer miles. It has steadily gone downhill since Carter de-regulated it. And I've experienced all of it. nojoke

Jerry Baumchen

The telecom industry was a ubiquitous utility. It wasn't regulated such that every household could fly anywhere at anytime just by showing up. But that's basically how the phone system worked. The introduction of competition drove down costs, which were passed along to the end users. It also didn't have to be concerned with safety issues.

I think the internet is more analogous to the pre-divestiture telecom industry.

 

[ARtraveler]

Rules? Since when (of late) does anyone follow the rules? Caveat Emptor--and Merry Christmas and Happy Jingle Bells. :roflblack::roflblack:

 

[Bob Denman]

:shocked: As long as they don't take away my high-speed internet porn... :shocked:














:joke::joke::joke::joke::joke:

 

[UtahPete]

It seems to me our greatest economic disasters have occurred because of insufficient government oversight of the worst capitalistic impulses by various industries, mostly the financial sector. Witness the crash of 1929 and other major recessions and economic turmoil (the sudden collapse of the S&L industry in the '70s and the Wall Street near-collapse of 2008). We can ill afford, I think, to just trust that businesses will do the right thing for society (including the environment) if it costs them market share or profits.

I think that one of the major functions of regulation, even when there's not a monopoly by one player in a segment, is to create a level playing field for all players, so that there's less incentive for one player to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding responsibility (e.g. the mining industry leaving superfund sites for the taxpayer to clean up), or by shifting market risk to the taxpayer (e.g. Wall Street's creative and profitable but deadly derivatives).

Does anyone want to live in a world where the food and drug industry is unregulated? How about unregulated land development and construction?

I can't think of one instance where the public has benefited in the long run from deregulation of an industry.

 

[Bob Denman]

 

[Joe T.]

Ya' know, this would be less important if communities/towns/cities/states (not sure which) did NOT monopolize cable service. Communities/towns/cities/states only allow one cable provider in each large area. At least that is my experience. I call that a monopoly!

If they communities/towns/cities/states allowed open and free competition, this would be a non-issue.

Yes, I know there are DirecTV and Dish satellite service, but they do not provide internet service.

Joe T.

 

[UtahPete]

Ya' know, this would be less important if communities/towns/cities/states (not sure which) did NOT monopolize cable service. Communities/towns/cities/states only allow one cable provider in each large area. At least that is my experience. I call that a monopoly! If they communities/towns/cities/states allowed open and free competition, this would be a non-issue. Yes, I know there are DirecTV and Dish satellite service, but they do not provide internet service. Joe T.

Joe, it must seem like that if you live in a rural area (I do) where there is only one internet service provider. But, this is because there isn't enough business for more than one company. In many cases, there wouldn't even be that one provider if not for government incentives and subsidies. I'm not aware of any municipality that eliminates competition (but that's not to say there isn't one or more - I just don't know which they are).