Obama Says FCC Should Reclassify Internet As a Utility - Polidicks

[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] internet is already charged on a per use basis for a portion of customers. the majority of customers pay a flat rate than per use for excess (if there is a limit). just like basically any other utility charge you'll have to pay in a standard home

[QUOTE=.Lain;46463727]internet is already charged on a per use basis for a portion of customers. the majority of customers pay a flat rate than per use for excess (if there is a limit). just like basically any other utility charge you'll have to pay in a standard home[/QUOTE] Which is absolute bullshit. I pay a flat rate of 15/mo with no caps, no additional charges or slowdowns after using my connection a lot.

Verizon charges my family $60 a month for 5GB of mobile broadband, and we get severe penalty fees for going anything above it per megabyte. [editline]11th November 2014[/editline] I read a Politico article, which put down what people from each party were saying. They're all full of crap. Republicans are trying to turn it into the government wanting to control everything, and Democrats are only for it because Republicans are against it.

The idea that competition inspires innovation isn't entirely true. It can actually severely hamper innovation. As competition increases, businesses can try to innovate at great risk, or take the safer method and make minimal, low cost changes with virtually no risk. And when you and the competition get big enough, its even safer to simply agree to certain conditions that keep costs roughly the same and services roughly the same, and you eliminate risk all together. At that point innovation not only becomes unappealing, but becomes actively dangerous. At that point pushing innovation is viewed as a threat to the system, meaning you get excluded from it and end up as an outcast while also taking great risks. It becomes almost impossible to compete.

Okay, for those who keep talking about innovation. Please watch this TED talk. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r1IPsldbBg[/media]

You know, I've always considered that your home isn't complete without tap water, plumbing, electricity, and the internet. I'm serious, nobody who is now in their mid twenties to thirties is actually going to consider living without internet. It should just come as a standard for basic modern day living [sp]come'on Google fiber![/sp]

Is it me or he looks like he has a cold or suffering from hayfever or something but either way he didn't look well in that video, on another note Gobama!!!

-snip retarded-

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46459578]Your power and water are perfect examples of government monopolies.[/QUOTE] Devil's Avocado - but people have rather equal needs for power/water. It's either there, or it isn't, assuming we don't get pedantic about water quality or power outages. An overwhelming majority of the population doesn't need special water that can come out boiling or high pressure, or "high speed" power. What I would fear in a monopolized/government style of internet overhead, is that they might casually write off 2 mb/s as a good standard and we can all sit with that. Or that they might lag behind the trends. Governments tend to be thrifty, so I can't see them being ecstatic about upgrading the infrastructure either. Even where I am, Suddenlink runs far too many customers for their lines and you can really see how shitty it can get on a holiday night when everyone's clogging it with Netflix all at once (I would never blame this is it wasn't a repeat, time-based occurrence and written off by a tech once.) [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46459578]Also the current system isn't incentivized by competition to do better either, the providers around here cost roughly the same amount, for the same services, with the same shitty customer service.[/QUOTE] Totally agree here. Being on hold for 30 minutes is bad enough, but playing looping advertisements while I wait should be fucking criminal. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46459578]You don't get to pick your gas, you don't get to pick your [highlight]electricity[/highlight], you don't get to pick your [B]water[/B], and you don't get to pick your [B]trash services[/B], and you know what, they were [B]EXCEEDINGLY [/B]well.[/QUOTE] Gonna argue that it's not "EXCEEDINGLY" well. In some places it can be pretty abysmal, but at least it's there. The issue is, is that people do not have a 0 or 1 internet need. The casual population can almost get by on what a phone provider could give. Work-at-home, gamers, those who like Netflix, small businesses, etc - all have much higher needs. You get the picture. I'm all for the actual competition and the inability to charge based on content, but I'm wary of Government regulation and intervention. To say that the (US) Government is a well-informed, up-to-date, non-biased entity is frankly hilarious. :v:

[QUOTE=Doom14;46473273]Devil's Avocado - but people have rather equal needs for power/water. It's either there, or it isn't, assuming we don't get pedantic about water quality or power outages. An overwhelming majority of the population doesn't need special water that can come out boiling or high pressure, or "high speed" power. What I would fear in a monopolized/government style of internet overhead, is that they might casually write off 2 mb/s as a good standard and we can all sit with that. Or that they might lag behind the trends. Governments tend to be thrifty, so I can't see them being ecstatic about upgrading the infrastructure either. Even where I am, Suddenlink runs far too many customers for their lines and you can really see how shitty it can get on a holiday night when everyone's clogging it with Netflix all at once (I would never blame this is it wasn't a repeat, time-based occurrence and written off by a tech once.)[/quote] It isn't like the current big ISP's are driving innovation or staying on the bleeding edge in most areas, in large part because there's no competition. I've had the same (shit DSL) internet connection for the last 7 years (before which the only option was dial-up), and there's no other options sans Satellite internet. Some places (in the US) still only have the choice of dial-up or Satellite internet. And why would that ever change in the current situation, people need internet, and if an ISP has what is effectively a monopoly in an area, then why would they ever need to improve the service being offered? Also, power and water aren't all that much different; in the case of both, service providers have to provide enough of the resource to keep up with the demand in the area they are servicing, otherwise you end up with brownouts and the water equivalent. Power and water isn't a 0 or 1 need any more than the internet is; some houses use more power, others less. [quote]I'm all for the actual competition and the inability to charge based on content, but I'm wary of Government regulation and intervention. To say that the (US) Government is a well-informed, up-to-date, non-biased entity is frankly hilarious. :v:[/QUOTE] I don't think the government will do the "best" job of managing the providing of internet service, but I think they are likely do a better job of it than the major ISPs are right now.