FCC responds to Obama's net neutrality statement: "I am an independent agency"

cmbjive

Posts: 777   +139
Less regulation got us in this mess. These companies don't do what's best for the people they do what's bests for the company. For us to get any benefit they need regulated. I think history proves my case. Sure if your a company you don't like it but when profit is #1 over yor employees, customer service, and innovation then you need help. So we regulate your *** to do what is right. We should all have fiber but now but we are stuck with this horrible broadband slow *** speeds and worst customer service ever. Now they want to make the Internet into more profit without doing 1 thing to help consumers. I saw throw this ******* out. He is clearly in the companies payroll.

Wait...did we not go from speeds of 13.3 kbps to 1Gps and higher in the span of two decades? Let me ask you different question: Why, after nearly two hundred years, do we still have electric wires above the ground delivering electricity, but after two decades we can get broadband by phone, fiber optic, wireless, and satellite?

You guys don't even know what it is you're asking for.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,001   +6,775
That's an interresting comment .... he is paid by the government yet he feels he is an independent agency? If that is the case, we the people certainly should have the right to vote him in or out, shouldn't we? LOL
 
G

Guest

I don't trust the FCC chairman as far as I can throw him. His first impulse is to regulate now and ask questions later, so the Administration's extreme position will be useful cover for him to regulate more than he might have before, without going to the extreme laid out by Obama.

It's interesting to see the organized trolls let loose by the "net neutrality" lobby discrediting every comment in opposition to heavy federal regulation of the internet as the product of "the cable companies" or "the ISPs."

The fact is that the cable companies and the ISPs are right on this. "Net neutrality" is one of the most deceptive terms ever invented -- it is not at all neutral. Internet bandwidth is not infinite. It is a scarce good that must be allocated. Some want it to be allocated by the market -- the best resources will go to those that value them most highly. Others want it to be allocated by government fiat -- which will necessarily be arbitrary and subject to corruption, cronyism and political influence.

The very reason so many dislike the cable and phone companies is that they have government-granted pseudo-monopolies (I have no connection to those companies and don't even like them very much). The government has already ****ed this up badly enough. More involvement by the government will just make it worse. The best thing is for the government to steer clear, let innovation take its own course and, over time, take steps to remove any anti-competitive effects of the monopoly conferred by existing government regulation.

Or you can continue to engage in moronic name calling.
 
G

Guest

Regulation in itself is not a bad thing in my eyes. It prevents exploitation of lesser citizens by those with superior connections, skills, and resources.


Actually, if you do the empirical research and your criterion is net social benefit, regulation pretty much is a bad thing in general.

It most certainly does not "prevent[] exploitation of lesser citizens by those with superior connections, skills and resources." That is certainly the politician's claim. The reality is that, to the extent regulation addresses "exploitation" at all, it merely substitutes exploitation by one set of folks with exploitation by another. Everywhere, and all the time.

People really need to up their educational game when it comes to economics. Seriously. Oh wait, I forgot, we've allowed the government to have a monopoly on educating us. Doh!
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,696   +6,055
There is nothing wrong with the government setting a minimum bandwidth for all. The problem is once they step in and define any regulations, they will not know when to stop.
 
D

davislane1

It most certainly does not "prevent[] exploitation of lesser citizens by those with superior connections, skills and resources." That is certainly the politician's claim. The reality is that, to the extent regulation addresses "exploitation" at all, it merely substitutes exploitation by one set of folks with exploitation by another. Everywhere, and all the time.

You have no idea what you're talking about. In the financial sector, poor regulation has lead to funds with special connections to exchanges being able to get selective order matching and access to order types that the general public has zero access to. This means that, unlike market participants who don't have special relationships with exchanges, anyone who enjoys such a position can front run to their heart's content. Similarly, the supplement industry has been poorly regulated and recently came under fire for adding chemicals (steroids, hormones, etc.) to their products that are dangerous to consumer health to boost sales. How? By omitting the chemicals from labeling and lab information and marketing the products as providing better results than (often "clean") competitors. It should come as no surprise that the FDA has little involvement in the supplement industry.

Effective regulation is not a scourge on society. Unfortunately, effective regulation doesn't come around that often and people are all too willing to opt for the "anything is better than nothing" approach to industry oversight.
 

Reachable

Posts: 370   +183
The fact that these federal regulatory agencies have the de jure independence that they do makes it all the more difficult to get them to ever function as true organs of democracy. It would take three presidents in succession who determinedly made sure that their appointments were from academia or law or other realm not connected with the industries the agencies regulate to insure that they were uncorrupted. The fact that Wheeler made such a brazen statement is explicitly stating that he works for the ISPs as much (or more, to be truthful) as for any other constituency.