• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FCC rules broadband internet service a public utility

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryuuroden

Member
There's also a good chance there was an exclusive license granted Cox by Omaha.

And the CLECs regulation was made because of the original monopoly granted the ILECs lol.

Yeah but on the opposite end, I have yet to see any instances where deregulation of some utilities has led to more competition and lower prices. It has been the exact opposite actually. Also all the industries currently regulated were not any better for the consumer when they were not regulated. Just as an example, please show me a country that does not have any environmental regulation and also has a pristine environment. Or a company that does not try to find ways to maximize profits by finding any method it can use to do so even if its harmful to others as long as it isn't restricted by law (legal tax evasion). Even if you can come up with one example, it's still not enough because the other 99.9% do take advantage.

It's the same argument conservatives use for the need for voter ID laws. There have been quite literally single digit numbers of voter fraud in a country of over 300 million people but for some reason that's enough that we need to disenfranchise 30 million voters because those few instances. We even ignore the fact that current laws already prosecute and catch those fraudulent votes. It's a game of smoke and mirrors and the conservative propaganda machine is quite masterful in its production.

Conservatives argue that regulation has created all these monopolies and such and totally ignore the fact that without regulation, history has time and again shown the situation is much much much worse. There is some irony in the matter that many of the problems in regulation have been caused by conservative interference which at times feels like its done on purpose in order to alienate people from supporting it. Very similar to the starve the beast by cutting taxes and creating new unfunded programs at the same time in order to create a fiscal emergency that supports their dogma.
 
The ACA was a conservative solution to the healthcare access problem and republican opposition just further proves that they're simply against anything that Obama and the democrats support. They don't want what's best for the country at all.

In some alternate universe, the ACA was approved by a bipartisan landslide.
 

aliengmr

Member
The fact that the ISP's are upset at this clearly demonstrates they were planning on introducing tier'ed speeds.

Not only that their very reputation up to this point has been shady as fuck.

The opposition "might" have had a leg to stand on if they weren't trying to monopolize, had a decent reputation with consumers and provided the fastest, most reliable, and cheapest internet in the world.

Seeing as how they've done the exact opposite of that, I can't see how anyone would trust them to be unregulated. Especially considering how the internet has been growing in recent years.
 
Considering how much money they have and what they've been trying to do, I could see Google Fiber in most areas in the next few years. With the bringing of more competition in more areas, more jobs can be made as well since more stuff would have to be installed, built and dug up/covered up to make it all run the way we want it to.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Yeah but on the opposite end, I have yet to see any instances where deregulation of some utilities has led to more competition and lower prices.
They aren't really utilities I guess though they had similar state mandated monopolies, but the deregulation that was allowed in air travel in the 1970s democratized it tremendously. Railroads and trucking benefited massively from their minor deregulation slashing costs and multiplying firms and customers.
 

Ryuuroden

Member
In some alternate universe, the ACA was approved by a bipartisan landslide.

Health Care Exchanges were first developed by private small business in the 1980's in order to pool all their employees into larger groups in order to allow them to bargain for better rates with the insurance groups that larger corporations already received. This is totally a free market idea. The ACA established state rights to create their own health care exchanges to allow private individuals to pool their resources with others in order to bargain for better rates with insurance companies. The larger the pool of people the less risk for the insurance company which means theoretically lower rates. Each state was granted the ability to establish its own exchanges which would work better than a federal pool because states could craft it to work the way their state operates. This is the epitome of states rights. It's also an idea that should appeal to conservatives. In Bizarro America, Republican dominated states rejected this approach, opting for a federal exchange in order to purposely derail the ACA from working the way it should work because "We Disagree"

Democrats made many mistakes in the process of passing it but I would argue that Republican moves to sabotage it have been far more harmful to the American people than any of the actual content of the ACA had been originally before all the moves to try to make sure it hurts people and fails in order to vindicate their opposition.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Considering how much money they have and what they've been trying to do, I could see Google Fiber in most areas in the next few years. With the bringing of more competition in more areas, more jobs can be made as well since more stuff would have to be installed, built and dug up/covered up to make it all run the way we want it to.

If the FCC allows phone infrastructure to be public for internet use then yeah, until then, it will continue to be a slow process with slow growth in particular markets IMO.
 
I'll be clapping when/if we see the full realization of this proposal, based on our opinions of what net neutrality really means. Not what, me as a pessimist believes to be true, the unseen sections of this document really will mean.
 
If the FCC allows phone infrastructure to be public for internet use then yeah, until then, it will continue to be a slow process with slow growth in particular markets IMO.

Well as part of the ruling, they have superseded any state or local laws that prevent other companies from coming into areas. So if the municipality voted on to have this ISP in the area and passes, then they can, and no other cable companies are allowed to keep them from doing such.
 

Ryuuroden

Member
They aren't really utilities I guess though they had similar state mandated monopolies, but the deregulation that was allowed in air travel in the 1970s democratized it tremendously. Railroads and trucking benefited massively from their minor deregulation slashing costs and multiplying firms and customers.

Yeah but it's still not no holds barred anything goes. Both still have rules to follow. No industry is unregulated per se. Airlines still have federal rules they follow for the good of everyone. Do you want an industry with no mandated safety rules in maintenance and upkeep, training, etc. Companies do not self regulate themselves and unlike government, companies do not have a series of checks and balances built into their system. They do not have a court system that strikes down unconstitutional stuff or require that a majority of their employees approve what moves they make. Oftentimes it is single or a couple majority shareholders making decisions that affect 10's of thousands or more with no repercussions to themselves as long as they make the money. They can't be voted out per se. Companies have far fewer safeguards to making sure peoples rights arnt trampled on than government does. ISP's don't have to answer to the public, the government does. If the public is against this, republicans will win next round and change it. If its unconstitutional, the supreme court with republican majority will strike it down. govt has its flaws but corporations have far far more.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Government is a corporation. And I don't think changing the corporate board to be staffed by Republicans is making it accountable in anyway.
 

muu

Member
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Hearing about the "bill" being a 320page-long document that no one aside from the panel that voted on it has been able to see makes me leery about what's really going on. The last thing I expect is for the government to not exert any control over what this freedom thing means, and it'll be interesting to see what they're hiding behind all this mumbo jumbo.
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
This is only true if there is competition.

Because most areas are a duopoly or worse, a monopoly, what people are "willing" to pay isn't reflective of a true market rate.

They are only "willing" to pay it because there are no other options.

This is why areas where municipal fiber and Google fiber have penetrated, established players like Comcast and Verizon have had to lower their prices to actual market rates.

I agree , should've put that in the post as well.
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
The fact that the ISP's are upset at this clearly demonstrates they were planning on introducing tier'ed speeds.

in the very least ATT was definitely going to do this, could probably find quotes about their vision of the internet future with a google search.
 
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Hearing about the "bill" being a 320page-long document that no one aside from the panel that voted on it has been able to see makes me leery about what's really going on. The last thing I expect is for the government to not exert any control over what this freedom thing means, and it'll be interesting to see what they're hiding behind all this mumbo jumbo.

The bill was 8 pages long. Not 320+ pages.
 

Arcadius

Banned
Atqup1x.jpg


I cannot understand how anyone that did any kind of investigation would be against net neutrality unless they had vested interests in the business.

Can someone explain this better? It's been a while since I've kept up with Net Neutrality, but as I understand it, FCC did good today, anyone who says otherwise doesn't get it or has been "brainwashed".

I do want the graph explained. I have Cox, is Cox good because of this graph, or bad because of this graph?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
I'll be clapping when/if we see the full realization of this proposal, based on our opinions of what net neutrality really means. Not what, me as a pessimist believes to be true, the unseen sections of this document really will mean.


Tilting at windmills.
 
So Time Warner has a deal with our town, free service for schools and such and in exchange no other cable companies can set up shop. This should stop that correct?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Can someone explain this better? It's been a while since I've kept up with Net Neutrality, but as I understand it, FCC did good today, anyone who says otherwise doesn't get it or has been "brainwashed".

I do want the graph explained. I have Cox, is Cox good because of this graph, or bad because of this graph?


Everyone except Cox and Google was throttling Netflix to force Netflix to pay for preferential, well actually, normal treatment. They blackmailed them.
 
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Hearing about the "bill" being a 320page-long document that no one aside from the panel that voted on it has been able to see makes me leery about what's really going on. The last thing I expect is for the government to not exert any control over what this freedom thing means, and it'll be interesting to see what they're hiding behind all this mumbo jumbo.

What does "this freedom thing" mean?
 
So Time Warner has a deal with our town, free service for schools and such and in exchange no other cable companies can set up shop. This should stop that correct?

They did the same thing where I live years ago, got a monopoly in the area for free internet access for a few schools, and the people making these decisions have to be too dumb to understand the repercussions or got some kind of kickback/funding

What business WOUDLN'T give some schools some free shit that costs them next to nothing in exchange for an official monopoly of the region? The things 'Think of the children!!!' can get you...
 

Tawpgun

Member
Still amazed this became a partisan issue.

Remember when people were against the FCC because they were planning on siding with the cable companies during all that SOPA stuff? Seemed like everyone was united against that. Was it partisan then?

Now it's like "OH SHIT A GUV'MENT ORGANIZATION JUST LIMITED A CORPORATION AND OBAMA IS HAPPY, LETS SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE"
 

SimleuqiR

Member
Everyone except Cox and Google was throttling Netflix to force Netflix to pay for preferential, well actually, normal treatment. They blackmailed them.

Cablevision (Optimum Online) was not throttling Netflix. I believe they were one of the top ISPs speed wise.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Everyone except Cox and Google was throttling Netflix to force Netflix to pay for preferential, well actually, normal treatment. They blackmailed them.
It's amazing how much I hate cox but by all accounts they are one of the better services around the country....which really says something.
 
Still amazed this became a partisan issue.

Remember when people were against the FCC because they were planning on siding with the cable companies during all that SOPA stuff? Seemed like everyone was united against that. Was it partisan then?

Now it's like "OH SHIT A GUV'MENT ORGANIZATION JUST LIMITED A CORPORATION AND OBAMA IS HAPPY, LETS SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE"

Because puppets being paid to say and do things against the better judgment of the country have power. And compound that with the spin/fear factory known as Fox News and generally low IQ people in rural areas listening to them. That is why.
 

Josh7289

Member
That's kinda lame.

However, the FCC also ruled that municipalities are allowed to start their own ISPs. Also, franchising an area is a municipality's decision, isn't it? So they could theoretically, on their own, allow more ISPs to operate in their jurisdiction, right? I'm asking because I'm not sure on that point.

Still amazed this became a partisan issue.

Remember when people were against the FCC because they were planning on siding with the cable companies during all that SOPA stuff? Seemed like everyone was united against that. Was it partisan then?

Now it's like "OH SHIT A GUV'MENT ORGANIZATION JUST LIMITED A CORPORATION AND OBAMA IS HAPPY, LETS SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE"

Everyone was united behind net neutrality, as far as I could tell, until Republicans in Congress started making a big deal in opposition to it. I'm honestly surprised that there's any opposition to this from the people at all, because it's so clearly good for Internet users.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Everyone was united behind net neutrality, as far as I could tell, until Republicans in Congress started making a big deal in opposition to it. I'm honestly surprised that there's any opposition to this from the people at all, because it's so clearly good for Internet users.

I imagine like 90% of the people that are against it never even mentioned NN before it was brought up last year
 
They did the same thing where I live years ago, got a monopoly in the area for free internet access for a few schools, and the people making these decisions have to be too dumb to understand the repercussions or got some kind of kickback/funding

What business WOUDLN'T give some schools some free shit that costs them next to nothing in exchange for an official monopoly of the region? The things 'Think of the children!!!' can get you...

It really is insanity. It shouldn't be legal, but I imagine there's some kinda loophole that makes it so. Straight up bribery.

.
 

Jzero

Member
I told a conservative to stop watching Fox News for their Net Neutrality arguments and he started defending them. Thats how you know they are very well informed.

i9yG16fxHiJW3.gif
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
I told a conservative to stop watching Fox News for their Net Neutrality arguments and he started defending them. Thats how you know they are very well informed.

http://i.minus.com/i9yG16fxHiJW3.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

they're fair and balanced

like an unregulated internet
 
Health Care Exchanges were first developed by private small business in the 1980's in order to pool all their employees into larger groups in order to allow them to bargain for better rates with the insurance groups that larger corporations already received. This is totally a free market idea. The ACA established state rights to create their own health care exchanges to allow private individuals to pool their resources with others in order to bargain for better rates with insurance companies. The larger the pool of people the less risk for the insurance company which means theoretically lower rates. Each state was granted the ability to establish its own exchanges which would work better than a federal pool because states could craft it to work the way their state operates. This is the epitome of states rights. It's also an idea that should appeal to conservatives. In Bizarro America, Republican dominated states rejected this approach, opting for a federal exchange in order to purposely derail the ACA from working the way it should work because "We Disagree"

Democrats made many mistakes in the process of passing it but I would argue that Republican moves to sabotage it have been far more harmful to the American people than any of the actual content of the ACA had been originally before all the moves to try to make sure it hurts people and fails in order to vindicate their opposition.

I was familiar with health care exchanges and group pooling already because I worked in the insurance industry for a time. I understand, of course, that Republicans should be for it, as I did in 2009 when the bill was announced. Sadly we live in a world where politicians disagree with positions they should ideologically support to ruin the country in the hopes of increasing their chances to win elections.

This recent article by the New York Times highlights one of the many ways Republicans are putting effective healthcare solutions out of reach for many Americans.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I was familiar with health care exchanges and group pooling already because I worked in the insurance industry for a time. I understand, of course, that Republicans should be for it, as I did in 2009 when the bill was announced. Sadly we live in a world where politicians disagree with positions they should ideologically support to ruin the country in the hopes of increasing their chances to win elections.

This recent article by the New York Times highlights one of the many ways Republicans are putting effective healthcare solutions out of reach for many Americans.
These assholes
 

Chichikov

Member
"Net neutrality" has no meaning to me other than as a buzzphrase. There will be favorites played, packets will not be equal. Nobody relevant has any interest in it. Just like with telephone service and radio initially. It's too valuable to allow it unfettered.
Maybe you should educate yourself then, since it actually means a very specific thing (and again, just so you don't freak out about men in suits coming for your porn, this is how the internet used to work throughout most of its existence, it took a while until carriers had the ability to create a non-neutral net).

Now of course, you can always argue that they're not going to do what they say and this is all just a ploy to get the trojan horse of the government into the internet, I can't disprove such evidence free conspiracy theory.
 

VariantX

Member
They already have tiered speeds.

Yep. It's shame that for some cities, almost all of the tiers suck for what they ask you to pay. Nothing in concept is wrong with tiered speeds, but bullshit like throttling you on top of trying to shape user traffic with having fast lanes is well beyond crossing the line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom