Obama Says FCC Should Reclassify Internet As a Utility - Polidicks

The barrier for entry into the ISP business is already astronomical. It can't get any higher with meaning so worrying about net neutrality squishing the new guys out is an invalid concern. There's already evidence of collusion and price fixing and monopoly negotiations so why is net neutrality the issue when there's free reigning oligopolies with lobbiests able to dump millions into the right pockets. There is no reason to hate net neutrality unless you WANT to get fucked by companies with no interest in your service being good.

[QUOTE=heyo;46458281]I'm somewhat hesitant about net neutrality laws. They may make monopolies worse by creating more barriers of entry and red tape. Also, who are we to decide this is the only way the internet should be run? Maybe some consumers would be happier with other kinds of internet plans. Why limit innovation in this space? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X8WY_Dq1Vg[/media][/QUOTE] How can that guy brush off the fact that ISPs throttle bandwidth to users when there's clear evidence that it's true? "o ya ppl say these guys throttle bandwidth and they have evidence but it is not true and their evidence is not good enough but i wont explain why"

[QUOTE=heyo;46458281]I'm somewhat hesitant about net neutrality laws. They may make monopolies worse by creating more barriers of entry and red tape. Also, who are we to decide this is the only way the internet should be run? Maybe some consumers would be happier with other kinds of internet plans. Why limit innovation in this space? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X8WY_Dq1Vg[/media][/QUOTE] Really that video is just supporting the perspective of the telecomm companies, who are often well known to fuck over consumers. This is something I'd like the government to have considerable influence in, because clearly the businesses aren't doing a good job.

Before I even hit play on that video, I knew exactly what it was going to be about. That guy's face in the thumbnail is the poster child for smug corporate shitlords. If there's going to be a monopoly on Internet service (and, for most of the US, it is or nearly is one), I'd rather it be with a disinterested entity like the government, which exists to provide services to the population, than with a self-interested entity like the cluster of former Baby Bells we have today. [t]http://longorshortcapital.com/wp-content/att_history_chart.jpg[/t] Everyone's seen this, and it's 8 years out of date, so expect even worse now.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46454189]Wait. Wouldn't this in theory force taxes to be placed on the internet in the regards to sales tax?[/QUOTE] even if it did I wouldn't mind if it got us net neutrality

[QUOTE=sgman91;46455947]It's amazing to me how people are completely fine with monopolies... as long as they're either allowed by or directly run by the government. Many of the issues that people have with the current ISPs comes from the fact that the market is so incredibly regulated that competition is all but impossible already. Yet you guys want there to be even less competition. If this happens you'll see a stagnation of innovation (you think Google would have build their fiber networks if internet was treated like water or electricity already are?), a crumbling of infrastructure over the long term, and an absolute destruction of any form of customer service. You might hate the customer service of the current providers, but compared to government established monopolies like Edison, the garbage services, or the water company it's incredible. Last year we had our main street trash can crack down the side. So we call Burtec, the local garbage company, for a replacement... it took three weeks to get one, and guess what? We had no other choice but to wait.[/QUOTE] You wanna know what's great about that argument? It doesn't hold a candle to utilities like phones, internet, water and electricity. All of which are so massively expensive to run that private companies won't touch them without heavy regs and breaks.

Off question: If the internet is seen as a "utility" does that mean we'll be charged per usage, ala gigabytes sent/downloaded? What happens to speeds and such? Is that charged differently...?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46458982]Off question: If the internet is seen as a "utility" does that mean we'll be charged per usage, ala gigabytes sent/downloaded? What happens to speeds and such? Is that charged differently...?[/QUOTE] ...something being a utility doesn't define the methods you are billed. Utilities usually just have more regulations on them so that companies providing them can't fuck with customers too hard. I'm pretty sure the Internet over here would be classed as a utility as we have a fair bit of government intervention to get things going, but we don't have data charges or anything, just flat rates.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46459011]...something being a utility doesn't define the methods you are billed. Utilities usually just have more regulations on them so that companies providing them can't fuck with customers too hard. I'm pretty sure the Internet over here would be classed as a utility as we have a fair bit of government intervention to get things going, but we don't have data charges or anything, just flat rates.[/QUOTE]I don't know, I'm just cautious regarding this kinda of thing because even if it's for the better of net neutrality, it could really be a clusterfuck in different areas it seems.

Internet needs to be treated the way rural electrification was, only handled better. If laws preventing municipalities from rolling out their own broadband networks after years of monopoly-ISP neglect were invalidated, that'd go a long way towards fixing this shit.

[QUOTE=Kidd;46454190]Nice to see Obama get involved.[/QUOTE] And the republicans will do the opposite of what he says or wants just to spite him. And the FCC? Well which ever gets the people who are the heads of the FCC more cash is what they'll do

Fun fact, Comcast has received government handouts (IE, tax breaks and funding) to fix and update infrastructure. Instead of doing that, they also raised the rates of their customers and charge new customers to set up infrastructure under the justification of "having to fix and update infrastructure." They are double dipping the system and it is totally fine apparently.

The idea we should just deregulate the Internet industry is fucking obscene to me.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46455947]It's amazing to me how people are completely fine with monopolies... as long as they're either allowed by or directly run by the government. Many of the issues that people have with the current ISPs comes from the fact that the market is so incredibly regulated that competition is all but impossible already. Yet you guys want there to be even less competition. If this happens you'll see a stagnation of innovation (you think Google would have build their fiber networks if internet was treated like water or electricity already are?), a crumbling of infrastructure over the long term, and an absolute destruction of any form of customer service. You might hate the customer service of the current providers, but compared to government established monopolies like Edison, the garbage services, or the water company it's incredible. Last year we had our main street trash can crack down the side. So we call Burtec, the local garbage company, for a replacement... it took three weeks to get one, and guess what? We had no other choice but to wait.[/QUOTE] The government isn't going to [I]run[/I] the Internet, they're just going to make sure that corporations providing internet aren't going to treat their customers like shit. They're basically gonna add some new rules so corporations provide the internet in a more standardized manner, with no bias. In line with your telephone service analogy, imagine if the government played no part in telephone services. Verizon could hypothetically flat-out prevent you from calling people who have, say, Optimum. The government intervenes to make sure that people are receiving legitimate internet access, and the business schemes stay out of the consumers' business. You know how DirecTV is always dropping TV channels so the channel has to reach out to its audience to convince DirecTV to keep the channel? Imagine that happening to a website like Netflix. It's a corporation intentionally blocking the consumers' options and limiting the free market. If Verizon slows down Netflix, less Verizon customers will use Netflix, and they could potentially go bankrupt. This content provider is relying on a competitor to provide its content to their consumers, and if net neutrality dies, their competitor will have every right to block their services. That makes monopolies. That's killing business. The FCC is trying to protect the free market here, not destroy it.

No, guys, sgman lives in Somalia. Or wants to at least.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46459268]It's amazing to see that you haven't taken an economics class. You do realize a regulated monopoly has a finite amount of money they can make a year right? You do realize that their price increases have to be approved by a legislative body right? You do realize that your basic utilities are already a monopoly, right?[/QUOTE] You do realize that government monopolies are not incentivized by competition to do the best possible job right? You do realize they will continue operating regardless of whether or not people are satisfied with their services? I see no reason why trash collection services can't be done better by the free market. There are no infrastructure issues there.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46458540]Before I even hit play on that video, I knew exactly what it was going to be about. That guy's face in the thumbnail is the poster child for smug corporate shitlords. If there's going to be a monopoly on Internet service (and, for most of the US, it is or nearly is one), I'd rather it be with a disinterested entity like the government, which exists to provide services to the population, than with a self-interested entity like the cluster of former Baby Bells we have today. [t]http://longorshortcapital.com/wp-content/att_history_chart.jpg[/t] Everyone's seen this, and it's 8 years out of date, so expect even worse now.[/QUOTE] Yeah, AT&T recently bought out our local cellular provider, Plateau Telecommunications. The thing is, while Plateau didn't relish in fucking you until you were bled dry with hidden fees and other such bullshit contractual agreements (their contracts were pretty nice and consumer friendly), their service was hit-and-miss. But then again, AT&T buying them out doesn't necessarily mean that'll improve, which is the sad bit.

[QUOTE=heyo;46459564]You do realize that government monopolies are not incentivized by competition to do the best possible job right? You do realize they will continue operating regardless of whether or not people are satisfied with their services? I see no reason why trash collection services can't be done better by the free market. There's no infrastructure issues there.[/QUOTE] There's tons, and for the lowest common denominator, it would just lead to garbage collecting on the sides. Its better pay for workers, the money comes outta taxes and people get their garbage regularly which is then sent to specific fields which are marked way ahead of time to be used as dumping grounds. [editline]10th November 2014[/editline] Its more efficient in almost every method but maybe money.

Awesome, knowing brighthouse they will contest and since they are currently running a monopoly in our area I'm fucked.

[QUOTE=heyo;46459564]You do realize that government monopolies are not incentivized by competition to do the best possible job right? You do realize they will continue operating regardless of whether or not people are satisfied with their services?[/QUOTE] So basically we have nothing to lose, because this is exactly how they function right now.

Well, I found out something that I'm kind of ashamed of myself for. The first time I saw this in the headlines, I actually got pissed off because they made it sound like he was going to put a bunch of new red tape and censorship on the internet. So far, I do actually think this could create a better playing field for service providers.

Wouldn't this classify them as common carriers and would subsequently have to lease out their lines at good rates to other ISP's? You know encouraging competition instead of the competitor having to build the lines right next to theirs which is a prohibitive cost, especially to a new company.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;46455188]The GOP reaction to this is already hilarious. :v: [editline]10th November 2014[/editline] via Ted Cruz:[/QUOTE] Fuck Ted Cruz

[QUOTE=Swilly;46459586]There's tons, and for the lowest common denominator, it would just lead to garbage collecting on the sides. Its better pay for workers, the money comes outta taxes and people get their garbage regularly which is then sent to specific fields which are marked way ahead of time to be used as dumping grounds. [editline]10th November 2014[/editline] Its more efficient in almost every method but maybe money.[/QUOTE] We are in agreement about money. The government doesn't have a bottom line, therefore they are not motivated to pick up trash in the most cost effective way possible. So this will lead to much more money being spent than needs to be. But you see, money is key. Individual workers will be payed more for this job, yes, but this is not a good thing. It's a situation of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Overall, society will be spending tons more on trash collection, and the services will be sub par with very little innovation.

It's good to hear Obama knows what's going on. I'm not so sure net neutrality would've died if he didn't step in, but his urging definitely makes a big difference. People are speaking out, and he's listening. It makes me happy to see and definitely helps me put more faith into his decisions.

[QUOTE=heyo;46460592]We are in agreement about money. The government doesn't have a bottom line, therefore they are not motivated to pick up trash in the most cost effective way possible. So this will lead to much more money being spent than needs to be. But you see, money is key. Individual workers will be payed more for this job, yes, but this is not a good thing. It's a situation of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Overall, society will be spending tons more on trash collection, and the services will be sub par with very little innovation.[/QUOTE] The problem is there is no good solution; relying on the corporations to not do bad things has clearly failed and only seems to show signs of getting worse. So it becomes a matter of who is likely to do the least bad to the internet? Personally, as bad as the US government is, I still think the big ISP's are worse, but that's just me.

[QUOTE=heyo;46460592]We are in agreement about money. The government doesn't have a bottom line, therefore they are not motivated to pick up trash in the most cost effective way possible. So this will lead to much more money being spent than needs to be. But you see, money is key. Individual workers will be payed more for this job, yes, but this is not a good thing. It's a situation of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Overall, society will be spending tons more on trash collection, and the services will be sub par with very little innovation.[/QUOTE]Except that's garbage collection, which is fundamentally different than internet service. You use your garbage for one thing, to put garbage in, and then you're off to do whatever. Most of the time you don't give a fuck about your garbage can, so you don't actually have much to worry about when it comes to shit service. Meanwhile the internet and it's connection to you is far, far more relevant in your life and when it doesn't work it will fuck up your day and it will do so immediately. Garbage collection? Well it will continue to be an annoyance until it builds up into a health hazard, it's not exactly imperative unless the smell is unbearable and if that's the case [i]why didn't you do something about it?[/i] Oh, and another example of how internet service and waste disposal are different: you can physically take your garbage to the dump yourself, which is what I do because it's cheaper. (what little garbage I need to take to the dump) I can't just conjure up my own internet connection by myself, and it certainly wouldn't be cheaper if I could. Plus "innovation" in garbage collection is fucking stupid anyway, how the hell do you innovate something that's been done the same way (in most places) as it's been done for thousands of years? Have nasty shit, take nasty shit to place, dump nasty shit in place, leave. This is the waste disposal formula that's been around since prehistory, and I'm [i]certain[/i] it wasn't government-mandated monopolies that made it impossible for "innovation" to happen. You can only innovate certain things so much, and really, sometimes it seems like people don't even understand what that word means in the first place! There isn't going to be some goddamn innovation in water utilities, or electrical power transfer, nothing large and sweeping at least. What we have is basically all we're going to get, maybe some minor things like new materials or new equipment, but these are almost always the result of technological advancements in other industries. Like, oh, trucks for example, nobody invented trucks to haul some goddamn garbage. Some things don't need cutting edge new ideas, sometimes they work just fine right out of the gate.

It's funny that people keep using the word "innovation". The only innovation in the ISP business is looking for innovative new ways to get more money, which almost always ends up with the customer being shat on either directly (increasing prices) or indirectly (unkept infrastructure).

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46454899]Lets say for the sake of your argument that internet service would be considered a utility in the same way that gas, electric, and water are. All of your current utilities are regulated monopolies. The city (ultimately the public) has complete control over the rates. Of course they still make a pretty penny, but you aren't being shafted by arbitrary rates. They have to submit a request for a rate hike.[/QUOTE] The electric company here is non profit too. All they money they make goes back into improving their systems

As it stands, we pretty much already have a free and open internet. Wouldn't it be more wise to wait and see if net-neutrality is taken away in the future, and then regulate? People always talk about a nightmare scenario happening where ISPs block access to competitors. Well, what is the rush in trying to prevent something that we don't know will happen and is easily reversible? Once a law is in place, it's pretty hard to get rid of it, so you should be damn well sure it's not going to make things worse with unintended consequences. It's a given that you should be pretty sure there's a problem in the first place. The perfect is the enemy of the good. and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.