So who here wants the government to rule the internet

Since when does the government want the too large to fail crowd to play on a level playing field?

The government wants to control free speech from everything I have heard coming out of the talking heads mouths.

 

No, you misread me...I fear the government screwing the system up or abusing political speech more, much more than I fear companies doing the same. I fear censorship and I fear taxes....

 

What will you call it when Comcast charges you 10$ to watch a youtube video?

 

That would be an opportunity for some entrepreneur to take Comcast's business by offering a better deal.

 

Unless the deal is 'For Free', then we're all getting (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. Not to mention in many areas, these providers are the only available service.

 

I'd call them 'out of business' as their competitors take over...The government simply does not care who goes broke...look at the healht care scheme.

 

Why would they go out of business? If we let the providers take over we will be paying for internet that we currently enjoy for free.

 

And hasn't made it to the last mile. IE, rural areas.
Regulating it like a utility means those rural farm businesses won't have to rely on dial up and can have broadband like the city folks.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that first line but if Comcast is charging 10 bucks to watch youtube videos, I could take their customers by charging them less.

Why wouldn't there be other entries in the market if Comcast over prices their service?

 

The point is... we shouldn't have to pay at all!

 

Why do you think Comcast would try to do something as dumb as trying to charge a premium for something that customers expect free? Youtube would sue them, their customers would sue them and unsubscribe to their service and some competitor would come in and offer a better deal.

Further, if Comcast would try to do that, why haven't they already done it?

 

My internet costs me about $50 a month....nothing free there and many sites on the internet also charge...What I do not want is the government charging use taxes and limiting content.

 

The feds want the FCC to do this so they can create new taxes and regulatory fees:

FCC Plans Internet Tax Increase

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.


They also want to regulate blogs and political activities in the vein of the McCain-Feingold law which set limits on political speech.

 

The feds are proposing rules changes that will bring disaster, as a solution to a problem that does not exist, with statutory authority they do not possess.

 

Comcast sure is losing customers.. They are asking $100-140 a month for cable and internet.. People are going to streaming and Roku.. all sorts of alternatives.

 

You say that but Comcast is already doing that with Netflix, that's why they were in court last year, along with Verizon. Now to be fair they are charging Netflix directly, not the end user, however if you think that money doesn't get transferred to the end user then you have no idea how business works. They absolutely will charge YouTube (owned by Google) and they will have to pay. They have set the precedence where they can charge any content provider and if not paid slow down their content. That's the big problem here, well that and the ludicrous cost but that is secondary to what they are trying to do which is basically control the internet and push their content (whatever Comcasts service in lieu of Netflix is).

The way I see it the only solutions are either government regulation (I don't particularly want that) or B break up the local monopolies companies like Comcast have. B is much more difficult. Unless we can send multiple companies singles over existing cable lines (and maybe we can) we'll need to build infrastructure. Google is starting, but they are very slow to move at this point. It isn't cheap. It would be best to have the government actually install fiber through out the nation and rent it to multiple companies in local areas, but we're hemorrhaging so much money that it's hard to justify the expense. It would certainly be beneficial to cities without much internet infrastructure and could help expand the tech industry. At the very least it would help a lot of people as access to the internet is access to all sorts of useful information and tools. I wouldn't be a software engineer today were it not for a free version of Microsoft Visual Studio and a lot of tutorials, video and written.

 

This is why if the government is to regulate the net it needs to be done as an independent item, not tied into existing laws. It's not a phone line, it's not television, it's not cable, it's the internet. Unfortunately we all know how lazy government is and in fact going through existing regulations may be a better way because we also all know how many retards there are out there who would love nothing more than to add bull(*)(*)(*)(*) regulations "for the children" and what not. Sad we have to deal with this, but unless we can break up the local resource monopolies the cable companies have there's no other option. Letting them regulate themselves isn't going to work, they'll just provide the internet they want to provide.

 

My understanding of what was happening with Netflix and Comcast is that Netflix was saturating the settlement free transit routes it was using to get to comcast lines. The congestion was caused by Netflix. It doesn't seem terribly unreasonable that Netflix should pay for increased usage. If I want faster internet I pay for it, why shouldn't Netflix. This was infrastructure not keeping up with demand, not Comcast being the bad guy. Not to suggest I have any love for Comcast, but it doesn't make any sense at all for them to try to screw over a major player like Netflix or their substantial clientele.

Since that time Netflix has also implemented its own content delivery network along with Open Connect caching appliances to solve its congestion problems. I believe Google is also developing its own networks.

Government regulation is no solution, its merely another layer of bureaucratic management that will increase costs and reduce innovation. The local monopolies you suggest should be eliminated are the product of government. If you want an idea of what government will do with the kind of problem already resolved by Netflix and Comcast to provide better service to more people, take a look at how government handles water and power shortages. They don't work to increase consumer satisfaction or provide for consumer demand, they increase prices, reduce service, ration the product and fine the consumer. Why would you think their involvement in the internet would be any different?

 

That's government...It is what they do...

 

The regime's goal is control and tax increases. We will see Internet access become one more way to plunder the successful in order to enrich the democrat voters. The Insane one is driven by his hatred of successful Americans who are not democrats. The Internet will be priced in accordance with our ability to pay government for the privilege. The benefits will be granted in accordance with one's willingness to participate in plundering your neighbors. Everyone will be worse off.

 

If you are being promised a level of service, if you are paying for a level of service, you should be getting that level of service...Long ago I was getting my internet through 'Quest'....they promised 'up to' 20mpbs service and charged a premium for the 'high speed' service. What I was actually getting was about 8mpbs....When even that pitiful service was not delivered and my home network crashed, they blamed (in order)...my computer, my router, atmospherics, and finally my alarm companies system. They refused to send out a repair crew unless I paid for it. I left them for another provider. They spent the next 3 years badgering me for fees for leaving them before the contract had expired. It seems they figured their contract had only one responsibility, my monthly payment. Their delivery of service was optional...They never got a dime.

 

This goes right back to legal plunder. You cannot take someone else's property without compensating them for it. When you do you are rightly called a thief. This is illegal plunder. So you vote, instead, for politicians who will perform the plundering on your behalf instead. This is called legal plunder. The government passes a law that allows them to do legally, to take someone else's property, without just compensation. This is called legal plunder. Or, to use your term, democratic fairness.

When governments become injurious to our rights we are obligated to overthrow them and create a government that protects our rights instead.

 

So the heavily regulated cable companies are charging an arm and leg, so people will switch to the far less regulated internet, which you then want to be heavily regulated just like cable...huh?

 

I have Senior TV... which is $54 a month for 100 cable channels and high speed internet.

 

Isnt it amazing that as usual liberals want the government to run everything. Apparently they realize they are too dumb to run their lives.