FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler aims to reclassify the Internet as a utility, huge win for net neutrality

[insect]

If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.

And the NN proponents are disillusion? Ha! Right now we have a highly UNregulated monopoly for most of the country.

 

[The Chad]

One big example to not give government control of the internet is ObamaCare. Which not only has made insurance either to expensive or so cheap the co pays are unaffordable. The promise of no fees is laughable, Look at your cell phone bill tons of government fees. Regulation will not hurt ISP's it will only make it more expensive for the common user and small businesses'. You will see rates skyrocket you will be tracked by the government constantly and Could be banned from certain web sites depending on which party runs the government. This will keep the current crop of billion dollar companies happy cause regulations and fees will keep new innovative ideas from challenging them. The internet is not a right its a thing When you confuse the two you lose both...

 

[The Chad]

But seriously, folks. Since few things are ever perfectly good or perfectly bad - it would seem net neutrality is more good than bad.

The government controlling things is bad. I don't care what party you vote with.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The government controlling things is bad.

So you want a water bed that doesn't actually hold water?

 

[davislane1]

So you want a water bed that doesn't actually hold water?

False dichotomy is...well, false.

 

[davislane1]

It is more than a little ironic that some NN supporters have been historically unsupportive of domestic NSA surveillance programs. One would think such persons would be against a regulatory bill that can only be implemented via extensive data monitoring.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

But seriously, folks. Since few things are ever perfectly good or perfectly bad - it would seem net neutrality is more good than bad.

All reasonable analysis of the situation suggests the opposite. Net neutrality proponents are willing to take "equal delivery" of data for complete government oversight. Effectively, it is like making a down payment for a car with the deed to your home. I don't care if you're getting a slash rate on a M5 and an extended warrantee, it's a bad trade.

Yes, but trying to convince them of that is like explaining something to a child who has their fingers in their ears going 'la-la-la-la-I can't hear you!' Every now and then they stop for a breath and yell out, 'we need net neutrality, we need net neutrality.'

 

[cliffordcooley]

The government controlling things is bad.

So you want a water bed that doesn't actually hold water?

False dichotomy is...well, false.

I'm not following why you quoted me.

It is more than a little ironic that some NN supporters have been historically unsupportive of domestic NSA surveillance programs.

I hope you are not thinking I want this reclassification to go through. I think this is an area the government can keep their nose out of. I thought it was funny how the previous comment came out as if any government was bad, simply because they govern (any area).

 

[davislane1]

Yes, but trying to convince them of that is like explaining something to a child who has their fingers in their ears going 'la-la-la-la-I can't hear you!' Every now and then they stop for a breath and yell out, 'we need net neutrality, we need net neutrality.'

I liken them more to Thomas the Train. Only, instead of reciting the mantra "I think I can! I think I can!" while trying to climb a hill, I see an engine with five miles of cargo zipping down a 40 degree gradient that dead ends into an active caldera. You can point out that trains can't fly, but at the end of the day they're too committed for the breaks to work. "Moar steam!!!"

I'm not following why you quoted me.
I hope you are not thinking I want this reclassification to go through. I think this is an area the government can keep their nose out of. I thought it was funny how the previous comment came out as if any government was bad, simply because they govern (any area).

I quoted you because it appeared you were suggesting that no government control results in booming snake oil sales. Am I mistaken? If not, I was merely pointing out that the statement was fallacious.

The other comment was not directed at you. It was a random thought that occurred to me after I replied. I've seen more than a few anti-domestic surveillance folks jump on the NN bandwagon.

 

[Guest]

Stupid, stupid, sheeple who think this is a good idea!? This has given the government exactly what it wanted. An excuse to control the Internet via regulation! Stupid, Stupid Sheeple!

 

[Darth Shiv]

Stupid, stupid, sheeple who think this is a good idea!? This has given the government exactly what it wanted. An excuse to control the Internet via regulation! Stupid, Stupid Sheeple!

I'd much prefer a public entity controlling internet access than private ISPs dictating terms. Private has zero interest in serving the consumer in monopoly scenarios. Let's be honest. You have very little fixed line options. They are private companies. They are going to gouge you for every cent they can. And they are going to make their T&C as draconian as they can get away with.

The Government regulation exists to protect consumers. It is there to stop abuse by companies and also to try to force real competition in some situations where applicable. In this case they can't force competition so they are stopping the privates from taking consumers for a ride.

Remember the GFC? People try to get away with crap if you let them.

 

[cmbjive]

I'd much prefer a public entity controlling internet access than private ISPs dictating terms. Private has zero interest in serving the consumer in monopoly scenarios. Let's be honest. You have very little fixed line options. They are private companies. They are going to gouge you for every cent they can. And they are going to make their T&C as draconian as they can get away with.

The Government regulation exists to protect consumers. It is there to stop abuse by companies and also to try to force real competition in some situations where applicable. In this case they can't force competition so they are stopping the privates from taking consumers for a ride.

Remember the GFC? People try to get away with crap if you let them.

This is about the most foolish post I have ever read. I just pointed out that between the advent of the internet and now the internet has evolved to meet the needs of consumers, but you think that having the government - which has trouble getting one website, ONE WEBSITE! up and running will do a better job than Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink, Google, Centurylink, and others private firms to maintain and serve the internet?

There HAS been no abuse of the internet. There HAS been no taking consumers for a ride. But there HAS been a bunch of loudmouthed, spoiled, techies who mostly have a Leftist bent to their politics that has a deep hatred of companies providing them a service so they want the ultimate monopoly that does not respond to any consumer complaint managing the internet. George Orwell, eat your heart out.

 

[Darth Shiv]

There HAS been no abuse of the internet. There HAS been no taking consumers for a ride. But there HAS been a bunch of loudmouthed, spoiled, techies who mostly have a Leftist bent to their politics that has a deep hatred of companies providing them a service so they want the ultimate monopoly that does not respond to any consumer complaint managing the internet. George Orwell, eat your heart out.

Guess you missed the links to the places where they have abused consumer rights by throttling websites. Guess you have missed the part where the ISPs have asked for the explicit right to do so? Guess you have missed the part where that was not part of consumer's current contracts yet they were doing it anyway?

They (the ISPs) want to change the terms of the agreement they drafted. They stuffed up and are trying to pass the buck onto the consumer. There is no leftist there. Trying to change what the current contract service provisions mean... Net neutrality sets in stone that the current contracts can't be throttled and that is the basis for the future as well.

Average consumer should not have to check a set of special options for what websites they visit. The ISP's job is to provide internet access. Not website access.

 

[cmbjive]

Guess you missed the links to the places where they have abused consumer rights by throttling websites. Guess you have missed the part where the ISPs have asked for the explicit right to do so? Guess you have missed the part where that was not part of consumer's current contracts yet they were doing it anyway?

They (the ISPs) want to change the terms of the agreement they drafted. They stuffed up and are trying to pass the buck onto the consumer. There is no leftist there. Trying to change what the current contract service provisions mean... Net neutrality sets in stone that the current contracts can't be throttled and that is the basis for the future as well.

Average consumer should not have to check a set of special options for what websites they visit. The ISP's job is to provide internet access. Not website access.

So because a handful of people feel they have been aggrieved by their ISP that should serve as justification for the ENTIRE internet to be regulated? In what sane world do you think that is just and fair?

And the ISPs don't need to ask for the right to throttle the internet because THEY OWN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH THAT INTERNET IS DELIVERED. The FCC regulating the internet will not change this fact. The same is done with water, electricity, and gas, but that is done with what is known as off-peak and on-peak rating. Do you want that type of rating for the internet?

And the problem with folks like you is that you did not BOTHER to read your contract. You were never promised to have a constant connection or speed. Net neutrality will not impact this issue whatsoever (and maybe when the FCC finally gets around to making the record public we can finally see how the FCC defines net neutrality because it will obviously be different from what the net neuts believe it to be). If you want to read an ACTUAL contract, here is one from my provider, Centurylink:

http://www.centurylink.com/legal/hi...s/HSI_Subscriber_Agreement_ENG_v44_121313.pdf

You will notice throughout the document that the ISP already reserved the right to throttle service. You are out of your mind you think that this will change because the FCC is now regulating the internet.

And no, the ISP does not block your access to a website. You need to engage in hyperbole because the case for net neutrality has always been weak. But as I mentioned before, when you Lefty techies start crying about being robbed of your internet, the first thing you do is ask the largest monopoly of all time to step in enforce arbitrary rules.

 

[Darth Shiv]

So because a handful of people feel they have been aggrieved by their ISP that should serve as justification for the ENTIRE internet to be regulated? In what sane world do you think that is just and fair?

And the ISPs don't need to ask for the right to throttle the internet because THEY OWN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH THAT INTERNET IS DELIVERED. The FCC regulating the internet will not change this fact. The same is done with water, electricity, and gas, but that is done with what is known as off-peak and on-peak rating. Do you want that type of rating for the internet?

They have monopolies on the infrastructure. If there were fixed line competition in each region, then you would have the right to complain about regulation. That is why it should be regulated. That is why it should be considered a utility. Off-peak/on-peak ratings don't necessarily have to apply to the internet but yes you are right. It is an option

And no, the ISP does not block your access to a website. You need to engage in hyperbole because the case for net neutrality has always been weak. But as I mentioned before, when you Lefty techies start crying about being robbed of your internet, the first thing you do is ask the largest monopoly of all time to step in enforce arbitrary rules.

Oh but they give you a 20mbit connection. You try to go to a website that needs 10mbit but the ISP throttled your access to that site to 3mbit. It may not literally be blocking but it is effectively blocking the site access.

That being said, I'm technically proficient but I do not require others to be to use things we take for granted. "Read the contract" is a great way of saying "haha I've hidden a few screw you clauses in there - see if you can find them!". Regulation is the solution to corporates saying "You should have read the contract" when they are trying to get away with garbage. You don't like net neutrality because it keeps people honest.