Americans Don't Want the FCC to Regulate the Internet

[Madoc]

'When asked whether government regulation or free market competition was a better mechanism to protect Internet users,'

If this was indeed the question asked, then I think it is a false dichotomy, or at the very least deceptive. The implication is that if the FCC isn't in charge that the result will be a "free market" environment. This is FALSE. Whether or not the FCC has oversight, there are still all sorts of laws and agreements which dictate how business works in regards to both the physical and digital Internet.

While I am generally a strong believer in free markets, I'm well aware that lots of companies pretend that everything would be fine if there we no direct oversight on them, when in reality there are a bunch of laws that protect them and their position in their respective markets. They buy politicians and get bills passed which benefit them and NOT the average citizen. They're hypocrites, IMO, and most people answering this poll probably don't have any idea of how things really stand these days.

This poll is useless.

 

[nutzo]

Moreover, I find it comical that anyone puts any faith into a 'free market' when we are still in the aftermath of one of the biggest collapses in economic history caused by massive de-regulating of the banking system. In fact, the only banks that were unaffected by the collapse were ones in much more heavily regulated countries. And now, they are in position to buy up the US banks, all because of the stupid, illogical hatred of regulations. Enjoy all your Canadian owned banks.

You need to stop watching MSNBC/CNN. It wasn't deregulation that caused the banking problem.
The changes in the banking laws that the left likes to call deregulation, was a minor change that allowed banks to diversify some of their investments. If you actually look at the banks which took advantage of these changes, they where much less likely to have needed a bailout than the banks that didn't.

The real problem was caused by high oil prices and the resulting collapse of the housing market due to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both of these companies where created and controlled by the US Government, and overseen by congress. And which party was in control of Congress when this happened? Little hint, it begins with a "D"

 

[RanceJustice]

And free market cannot and will not be available in the industry of ISPs with regulation either.



I've never changed position, I come from a single premise. However, others may miscontrue what that is, so it might appear to change but that would be someone elses mistake. What I'm saying is a monopoly cannot exist in free market. Only in regulation, or with using government force/bribes/bids/no-bid contracts can a monopoly exist. Take away government control completely, included what they've already embedded in the industry (which is allowing ISPs to control rights to areas), then you move more towards free market. But what I'm hearing is that others promote MORE government control, giving more power to the very same people that enable companies to practice non-free market.



Read above. A monopoly is use of force instead of free business practices, and only the government has use of force in a free society and free market. Private companies use the government when, by definition of free market, they couldn't.



I never said it is easy, we've all let it grow to this big giant machine over a century and we'll either have to work hard to remove it all or suffer the consequences. But one thing is for sure I damn well won't be giving or sanctioning MORE power to those who have caused and allowed free society to dwindle.

Just chiming in here, but the idea that a monopoly can only exist because of governments is absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. In fact, a "free market" will tend towards monopoly more than a properly regulated one. Why? Here goes..

Removing most if not all regulation will allow those who are the most unethical, most greedy, worst-for-society-but-best-in-business companies to make the most profit. Consider, Wal-Mart for the vast majority of its life. Outsourcing, cost cutting, no benefits, horrid pollution in developed nations, sweat shops etc... all allowed it to grow so large and so profitable that to this day, EVERY TIME a console video game is produced they send it not just to the rating board but to WalMart. If WalMart says no, the game is edited or trashed because due to WalMart's reach, it isn't worth putting out a game that WalMart won't sell!

Whenever you remove regulation, the scum rises to the top faster than the good because they will go by any means necessary. Without regulations, its entirely possible for a monopoly to form - it happened tons during the lassiez-faire period where Standard Oil and whatnot would simply buy or bribe away all the crude going to an area because they have the money and power to do so. It was functionally impossible to go up against all the trusts and robber barons until the government regulated them and said that you can't pay people in company store money alone, 5 year olds aren't allowed to work etc...

All these things were profitable for the unscrupulous businesses of the day and allowed them to rise to regional or near-national monopoly status without government giving them preferential treatment, they simply "looked the other way" and refused to regulate. "Free Markets" always trend towards monopoly because if there are no "cops", then the biggest baddest robber is going to form a criminal syndicate that not only plagues the good of society as a whole, but puts lesser criminals out of business.

 

[RanceJustice]

You need to stop watching MSNBC/CNN. It wasn't deregulation that caused the banking problem.
The changes in the banking laws that the left likes to call deregulation, was a minor change that allowed banks to diversify some of their investments. If you actually look at the banks which took advantage of these changes, they where much less likely to have needed a bailout than the banks that didn't.

The real problem was caused by high oil prices and the resulting collapse of the housing market due to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both of these companies where created and controlled by the US Government, and overseen by congress. And which party was in control of Congress when this happened? Little hint, it begins with a "D"

Incorrect. Fannie and Freddie were saddled with these bad loans only due to private fatcats like Goldman-Sachs and whatnot offloading poisoned finance at a profit and their lackeys allowing them to do so due to a systemic lack of regulation. If there was oversight these assets would have been identified as toxic, but it served wall street to weave a wonderous tale that somehow millions of janitors were "somehow" pushing for home loans they couldn't afford, and that these loans were then "magically" traded away at a loss. The banks have been deceiving everyone and warping the industry for over a decade, D and R in power alike have kowtowed to investment banks and limited oversight and badly needed regulation.

If you seriously believe that the banking crisis was caused by Fannie and Freddy you need to stop listening to the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Elios]

the robber barrens of the 1800s and 1900s is a good analogy for what we have now
if there was a time to learn from the past its now

with the ISPs(railroads) in bed with the content producers(oil co.s) you have the same issues

 

[Dreaz]

People don't even know what 'regulate' means. OOOOOOOOOO scary gubernment controlling our brain waves!

On another note, had people been asked this question about the housing market in 2008, they would have declined government regulation as well.

Look how great that turned out!

 

[jcollett]

All they needed to do was include "Porn" in the terminology and suddenly many "Free Marketers" clamor for controls. Sorry to interrupt the standard ideological stances ... please continue.

 

[dr.stevil]

unless you want this

lol reminds me of the communist propaganda posters of the 50's

again... until they start actually doing what a few paranoid people are claiming, I'm fine with the internet the way it is. A few images on the internet doesn't scare me into letting the FCC have their way with it.

 

[nutzo]

"Free" market without regulation (read up on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.) brought us the housing bubble, Maddof, Enron, etc. and we footed the bill. Correction our children's children footed the bill.

It wasn't the free market that brought us all this.

The main cause of the housing bubble was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with low interest rates also pushed down by the Government.

Maddof should have been caught years ago, but he had connection with people in high places (government again). They pressured the regulators to back off every time someone files a complaint or warned that there was something fishy going on with his returns.

Enron was breaking existing laws and should have been shut down earlier by the regulators, but again they where able to stall any investigations due to their political connections.


Simple basic regulations that level the playing field, and set the rules that ALL businesses have to follow are necessary, just like rule for a football or baseball game. The problem comes when the Government becomes too involved. When the government starts micro-managing what businesses can do, guarantying or bailing them out, or even running them, the system becomes corrupt and the consumer looses.

 

[Elios]

lol reminds me of the communist propaganda posters of the 50's

again... until they start actually doing what a few paranoid people are claiming, I'm fine with the internet the way it is. A few images on the internet doesn't scare me into letting the FCC have their way with it.

its happend in the past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act
this is what saved us for any that says govt regulation doesnt work

and if you think they wont go look at your cable TV bill and your cell phone bill

 

[nutzo]

Incorrect. Fannie and Freddie were saddled with these bad loans only due to private fatcats like Goldman-Sachs and whatnot offloading poisoned finance at a profit and their lackeys allowing them to do so due to a systemic lack of regulation. If there was oversight these assets would have been identified as toxic, but it served wall street to weave a wonderous tale that somehow millions of janitors were "somehow" pushing for home loans they couldn't afford, and that these loans were then "magically" traded away at a loss. The banks have been deceiving everyone and warping the industry for over a decade, D and R in power alike have kowtowed to investment banks and limited oversight and badly needed regulation.

If it wasn't for Fannie and Freddie, the banks wouldn't have anywhere to offload these "toxic" loans. Instead they would have been stuck with them or would have had to find private investors to buy them.
Most private investors would not have bought these toxic loans except at a steep discount, which would have removed any profit the banks would have made funding them, and limited the market for them.

These loans where only profitable because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.
If there where no Fannie or Freddie, there would have been very few of these loans.

 

[thyshallsmite]

Crush anyone? By force? No, they do so through use of economy or other tactics in which the other people have free reign to do so (and should plan on having to prevent).

"Buy out"? I'm sorry, but can they just buy out any company they wish or, in a free market, wouldn't it require the others free acceptance to do so?



You forgot to add that when regulation occurs, or one man is able to control or takeover another mans property, that it is ALSO not free market. Unless you prescribe to the "we must abandon free market PRINCIPLES to save the free market", which is a contradiction, then how do you explain the logic?

They crush smaller companies with lawsuits and bullshit practices, even if they have no right or no case at all dragging a smaller company into a huge expensive legal battle is enough to put most out of business. You remember those small towns that started its own ISP and comcast sued the shit out of em? yeah those are the kinda of tactics a monoploy can use to crush the competition.

Also i remember having several choices when broadband 1st came around, guess what they are ALL comcast now, every single god damn one of em and every single one of them got bought out.

A totally unregulated free market does not work, we have seen time and time again of what a corporation does if left free and wild. Wage slavery, child labor, human flesh in meat, feces flooded streets, oil barons, railroad barons, bank runs, stock crashes, etc. In theory a totally free market should be great, but in actuality all it does is create a survival of the fittest anarchy where rich get richer and everyone else is slaves.

We need a limited free market, to far in either direction causes the consumer to lose out no matter what. The FCC needs to keep the leash on the ISPs, because if no one is holding the leash we've all seen their plans for their "customers".

 

[Lorien]

That's a contradiction, they could not continue to use our money if we didn't give it to them, so they could only last against a boycott temporarily.

When any company has a monopoly on a service or product that is essential for the functioning of an economy they are in practice immune to boycott. See Standard Oil Company.

Incorrect, banks were threatened and forced by politicians (see: regulation or force) to create a sub-prime market because politicians deemed it a "right" for cheap and affordable housing.

Nice try. Banks are not defenseless sheep being manipulated by "scary government politicians". They are the ones who pay for the campaigns of politicians and if the one they picked didn't get elected they'll simply throw lobbyist money at the one who did.

Banks have their hand in how they structured the packages, but the real catalyst was government involvement and force in the housing crisis.

Banks controlled the whole process. There was no regulation hence they could dictate whatever terms they saw fit to benefit their bottom line.
When whistle blowers started making noise about credit default swaps and asset backed securities the banks cried that they were being stifled by government intervention. The administration caved in (having a former colleague and ex CEO of Goldman Sachs as the United States Treasure Secretary helped) and completely shut them out and went as far as castrating the regulatory agency in charge of regulating them.

You blame the mob henchmen with no dignity instead of the Godfather himself.

There is no godfather in this mafia, there has never been one. What we have is a cartel with many Dons (i.e. Banks) with temp hired henchmen (elected officials) with money to hire more henchmen ad nauseum. I can change an elected official with my vote, but I can't change what he does once in office because I (we) will never have equal monetary power as banks and companies do to influence their careers

 

[Parmenides]

I have an idea, let the FCC hold the local areas with noncompetitive monopolies on a tight leash and leave the free market portions (if they exist) alone. ... see what happens

 

[Lorien]

Forgot to add. Even those politicians who dare to go against the status quo to "do the right thing" do it for selfish purposes (i.e. gain notoriety in order to advance their political careers). But I'll take that son of a bitch any day rather than the one willing to sell himself before he was elected into office. Hell I'd be willing to have my taxes fund the campaigns of politicians as a way to balance out the power companies have to buy their own candidates.

 

[freeloader1969]

For all my American friends, look up the CRTC and Usage Based Billing to see what effect that has had on our smaller ISPs here in Canada. UBB will allow companies such as Cogeco and Bell (equivalent to your Comcast and AT&T) to kill smaller ISPs. We have our government agency, the CRTC, to thank for that. Bastards.....

 

[dr.stevil]

its happend in the past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act
this is what saved us for any that says govt regulation doesnt work

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that government regulation doesn't work when it's applied properly. What people are saying is that it's not broken and they shouldn't focus on 'fixing' it until it actually needs it, especially given their recent track record.

 

[Derangel]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it. On one hand we let the FCC have control and take the risk of them over-stepping their bounds and censoring the hell out of the internet. On the other hand we let the ISPs do what they want and run the risk of them over-stepping their bounds and turning the internet into another version of the cable system. Pay for basic access to a few select services (basic cable), pay more for a few more services (expanded cable), and then pay an additional fee for specific sites you wish to visit (premium cable channels). Neither of those is out of the realm of possibility and they both have an equal chance of happening. Anyone that is 100% gung-ho for either situation is delusional. We're in a bad place and we need to figure out which of the two is the option we want and need.

 

[schizrade]

There is no freedom without rule of law, and the rule of law must be constrained by rational boundaries. The FCC can and should regulate the internet providers from clamping service or profiteering, but they should have no say or hand in what is transmitted or communicated, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY WILL DO GIVEN THE CHANCE.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I don't want the ISP's to regulate the internet either.

 

[schizrade]

Imagine the FCC becoming the media pitbull for each administration. Fun.

 

[schizrade]

I don't want the ISP's to regulate the internet either.

Agreed. ISP's are in it for profit. They would create a nightmare scenario if left to their own vices.

There has to be a balance where the FCC does not become the new SA for the ruling party and the ISP's are not allowed to profiteer.

 

[ferrisnox]

This is farking stupid. It is not a free market, and frankly there is no such thing anymore. I cannot start up my own isp business. I can't even choose to have any other cable service other than COX coming to my house, condo, in my town.

These are limited monopolies operating with little to no oversight. They should either be broken up and dissolved or well regulated to protect the consumer.

 

[Lorien]

For all my American friends, look up the CRTC and Usage Based Billing to see what effect that has had on our smaller ISPs here in Canada. UBB will allow companies such as Cogeco and Bell (equivalent to your Comcast and AT&T) to kill smaller ISPs. We have our government agency, the CRTC, to thank for that. Bastards.....

That is already starting to happen here in practice and without the need for any government intervention. There have been cases where entire cities have been blocked from building their own independent fiber networks.
Municipal fiber would be a pretty amazing source of long term revenue and great for consumers. It would create jobs in the first place and once the project is completed cities could lease the lines directly to businesses and ISPs to resell the service and compete for our consumer dollars. Maintenance costs would also be split among all of them. Win win for everyone. Instead we have these monolithic dinosaur companies blocking it all to preserve their monopolies.

 

[Denki]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it. On one hand we let the FCC have control and take the risk of them over-stepping their bounds and censoring the hell out of the internet. On the other hand we let the ISPs do what they want and run the risk of them over-stepping their bounds and turning the internet into another version of the cable system. Pay for basic access to a few select services (basic cable), pay more for a few more services (expanded cable), and then pay an additional fee for specific sites you wish to visit (premium cable channels). Neither of those is out of the realm of possibility and they both have an equal chance of happening. Anyone that is 100% gung-ho for either situation is delusional. We're in a bad place and we need to figure out which of the two is the option we want and need.

See this is part of the problem, people keep saying the FCC wants to regulate the Internet, but that's not what net neutrality is about. It's about regulating the way we access the Internet.

The FCC really just wants to tell the telcos they are dumb pipes, without actually saying that. The solution here would be to re-regulate the telcos back to Title 2, telecommunication services, rather than letting them stay at Title 1, info services. Being Title 2 would require telcos to line-share thus reintroducing competition into the system, which is of course exactly why the telcos DON'T want this. This is, of course the FCC's fault, because in 2003 the (Republican controlled) FCC de-regulated to Title 1, most likely due to corporate pressure to remove line-sharing--thus ending competition in this market.

And for whoever said that monopolies are not possible in a free market system, you need to go back to econ 101. Monopolies are the direct outcome of an entirely free market system. It is the natural state in which corporations would like to exist as it equates to maximum profits.


And for those who think that banks were not directly responsible for the housing bubble bursting you need look no further than the de-regulation of the Glass-Steagall act. Glass-Steagall came about after the Great Depression because it was ascertained that part of the problem then was that investment banks and commercial banks (the ones who hold your money) were allowed to be under one roof. In 1999 Glass-Steagall was repealed by Congress after hundreds of millions of dollars were used to lobby against it by, you guessed it, banks.

Here is the timeline of Glass-Steagall's life:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

Even before total repeal you can see that banks were chipping away at the law for it's entire life. And almost at the moment it was repealed we had our first investment bank + commercial bank merger forming Citigroup.

It really does need to be made entirely clear that nearly everything wrong with our country can be laid at the feet of our corporate overlords. Anyone who thinks we don't live in a kleptocracy is a fool. And with the Citizens' United decision ruled in favor of the corporations we'll only see more of our freedoms and choices eliminated unless we seriously rein in how we allow corporations to interact with our government.

We need term-limits on our politicians to remove the concept of career pols whose only interest is their self, we need to limit funding for political campaigns. I think a general campaign fund paid for out of taxpayer money makes a lot more sense than just allowing anyone to throw money at these people. It would also vastly level the playing field in terms of economics (rich candidates almost always win due to their ability to vastly increase their exposure). But this is all logical stuff, and that kind of thinking doesn't fly in the USCA.

 

[Derangel]

See this is part of the problem, people keep saying the FCC wants to regulate the Internet, but that's not what net neutrality is about. It's about regulating the way we access the Internet.

The FCC really just wants to tell the telcos they are dumb pipes, without actually saying that. The solution here would be to re-regulate the telcos back to Title 2, telecommunication services, rather than letting them stay at Title 1, info services. Being Title 2 would require telcos to line-share thus reintroducing competition into the system, which is of course exactly why the telcos DON'T want this. This is, of course the FCC's fault, because in 2003 the (Republican controlled) FCC de-regulated to Title 1, most likely due to corporate pressure to remove line-sharing--thus ending competition in this market.

And for whoever said that monopolies are not possible in a free market system, you need to go back to econ 101. Monopolies are the direct outcome of an entirely free market system. It is the natural state in which corporations would like to exist as it equates to maximum profits.


And for those who think that banks were not directly responsible for the housing bubble bursting you need look no further than the de-regulation of the Glass-Steagall act. Glass-Steagall came about after the Great Depression because it was ascertained that part of the problem then was that investment banks and commercial banks (the ones who hold your money) were allowed to be under one roof. In 1999 Glass-Steagall was repealed by Congress after hundreds of millions of dollars were used to lobby against it by, you guessed it, banks.

Here is the timeline of Glass-Steagall's life:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

Even before total repeal you can see that banks were chipping away at the law for it's entire life. And almost at the moment it was repealed we had our first investment bank + commercial bank merger forming Citigroup.

It really does need to be made entirely clear that nearly everything wrong with our country can be laid at the feet of our corporate overlords. Anyone who thinks we don't live in a kleptocracy is a fool. And with the Citizens' United decision ruled in favor of the corporations we'll only see more of our freedoms and choices eliminated unless we seriously rein in how we allow corporations to interact with our government.

We need term-limits on our politicians to remove the concept of career pols whose only interest is their self, we need to limit funding for political campaigns. I think a general campaign fund paid for out of taxpayer money makes a lot more sense than just allowing anyone to throw money at these people. It would also vastly level the playing field in terms of economics (rich candidates almost always win due to their ability to vastly increase their exposure). But this is all logical stuff, and that kind of thinking doesn't fly in the USCA.

The problem is that no matter what they say the risk is there of them going beyond that.

 

[wizdum]

Where do you get this idea that the free market is some kind of utopia, and everything would be grand if we just had a perfect free market?

The free market model has NEVER worked when you have a limited amount of something (wireless spectrum). Just look at how it worked out for the paper industry. No regulation meant every company out there clearcut as much as possible, as fast as possible, to prevent their competitors from getting the trees. The companies were then left with no more trees to cut, and almost all of them went out of business.

We need regulation to bring in competition at this point. When we have ISPs pulling bullshit like this:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...-Wholesalers-Doesnt-Bother-To-Tell-Them-92915

 

[vortican]

Just chiming in here, but the idea that a monopoly can only exist because of governments is absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. In fact, a "free market" will tend towards monopoly more than a properly regulated one. Why? Here goes..

EVERY TIME a console video game is produced they send it not just to the rating board but to WalMart. If WalMart says no, the game is edited or trashed because due to WalMart's reach, it isn't worth putting out a game that WalMart won't sell!

Without regulations, its entirely possible for a monopoly to form - it happened tons during the lassiez-faire period where Standard Oil and whatnot would simply buy or bribe away all the crude going to an area because they have the money and power to do so. It was functionally impossible to go up against all the trusts and robber barons until the government regulated them and said that you can't pay people in company store money alone, 5 year olds aren't allowed to work etc...

"Free Markets" always trend towards monopoly because if there are no "cops", then the biggest baddest robber is going to form a criminal syndicate that not only plagues the good of society as a whole, but puts lesser criminals out of business.

It's widely understood now that even Standard Oil was already on its way down when the government busted it. Monopolies simply can't last in the marketplace without some kind of government support. Practices like what you describe are not inherent to monopolies, or even the biggest competitors and can be addressed without attaching strict regulations to control the business practices of corporations. Exploitation and human rights abuses are intolerable in any sector of society and don't have a direct and exclusive relationship to monopolies.

Free markets don't inherently trend towards monopolies. Wal-Mart may be the biggest, but they have competitors which are able to survive and make a profit. The fact that some manufacturers seek Wal-Mart's advice on game ratings is an impressive reach of power, but it doesn't stop the game from being sold elsewhere.

Free market doesn't mean "no regulation". The same rules which apply to personal freedom, property and human rights, fraud, deception, and theft, all still apply to free markets. Even during the housing crisis, fraud and theft was a huge problem that is just now being understood, which means that even in a heavily regulated economy such as we have, these crimes are still not being detected and punished properly. I fail to see how adding MORE regulations for the same crimes will add any benefit. If anything, adding more reporting requirements, audits, and cops on the job will not only NOT cure the problem, but will add more compliance costs, a heavier regulatory burden, and make it easier to hide these crimes behind walls of paperwork and accounting gimmickry.

Even the biggest banks were incentivized by government policy to offer uber-cheap loans which could then be bought, sold, traded, insured, and dealt in secrecy, for which the banks should have paid the price, but were bailed out by the Fed and Treasury Dept. That incentive led them not only to dump these bad assets on the American taxpayers but provides a future incentive to try again, and thus leaves us vulnerable to the same scams. The stupidity of government regulation is that the bureaucrats think that if they keep tweaking and tinkering, they'll eventually get it right, an impossible fantasy in a marketplace of billions of individuals, each with their own desires and unpredictable actions. Trying to outthink illogical people is a losing exercise.

 

[Lorien]

It's funny people keep preaching this free market mantra as if it was the holy grail without realizing that's what we've had for the past decade+. Ayn Rand pupils (Greenspan, et al) were given full discretionary powers by both Democratic and Republican administrations to change things according to that ideology and look where it got us.

 

[Denki]

The problem is that no matter what they say the risk is there of them going beyond that.

I don't think so. The government is regulated against regulation of our free speech by the 1st Amendment. We have legal recourse if the government tries to regulate what we say.

And when corporations do it? We have nothing. There is no avenue by which we might gain recourse. They may censor us when and where they will.

Believing that the FCC has the power to openly regulate what we see and access on the Internet is a falsity that corporations would have us believe so that they may gain more power as we grow more apathetic about our government.

Not to say that our government is incorrigble, they are as susceptible to corruption and base human instincts as the next person. That's why we need more limits as to how government and corporations interact and fund one another. We need more limitations on how long politicians can serve in office.

 

[Exitwound]

AT&T U-Verse Raising Rates
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/ATT-Raises-UVerse-TV-Rates-112018

DirecTV Raising Rates
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/DirecTV-To-Raise-Rates-4-In-2011-111982

Cell Phone Carriers to Start Charging Higher for Data
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=135512&catid=2

Video and data downloads for smart phones have doubled this year alone, and it shows no sign of slowing.

NBC-Comcast Merger Could Raise Cable Rates
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...r-nbc-comcast-merger-could-raise-cable-prices

Rockefeller also complained that "too much of our news and entertainment is in an ugly race to the bottom" and said he worries that companies that control both content creation and distribution, such as the new entity that would be created by the merger, have less incentive to provide quality programming.

He noted that Comcast and NBC have made commitments to support the production of local news, public affairs and other public interest content and asked the FCC to ensure the companies follow through on those pledges.

Your Time Warner Cable Bill's Going Up (Local to Dunkirk or Widespread?)
http://www.observertoday.com/page/c...me-Warner-cable-bill-s-going-up.html?nav=5047

When does it become too high? I'm being bombarded by Comcast ads trying to get me back to their services after I dropped them for DirecTV. I have DirecTV hounding me to buy into higher promotional packages. They'll be hounding me even more when I drop my movie packages in February to offset the increases. My electric bill is going up 3% in January due to expiring caps.

I can drop any service at any time, sure. But for those working paycheck-to-paycheck, I'm sure it's hard to weather the 3% hikes here, and the 2% hikes there, the added fees, with very few new features justified by the cost increases.

 

[singe_101]

+10
Absolutely correct.
Every time the Government decides to regulate something for the good of the little guy/consumer, they actually end up making it worse for most people. Using the existing laws to limit the semi-monopoly ISP's would be helpful. Having some bureaucrats back in Washington, who know barely know how to turn on a computer, design a law to regulate the internet would be a disaster.

At the very least, suggest a feasible bogeyman, like a former Comcast executive now in the government.

The FBI is pretty much bureaucracy, yet they have no functional knowledge of computers? The Pentagon? CIA? Absolutely no one from these entities would work in internet law enforcement?

 

[Spewn]

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that government regulation doesn't work when it's applied properly. What people are saying is that it's not broken and they shouldn't focus on 'fixing' it until it actually needs it, especially given their recent track record.

Yeah, exactly. It's like when you have a levvy holding back the ocean; There's no need to go mucking with it if it's still holding the ocean back! Just wait until it breaks, THEN go and fix it.

 

[/usr/sbin]

In a poll like ten years ago something around 39% of Americans opposed "Womens Sufferage" as well.

Most americans are dolts who work off of key phrases "Suffer" is bad! "Free market competition" good!

They don't tend to understand the dymanics of things or what they even are. We don't have free market competition in high speed ISPs. We have locally granted monopolies/duopolies. competition won't sort ti out, simply because there literally can't be any competition.

 

[bastage]

After working for a TV Provider, 1 Wireless Phone provider & 3 Wireless Phone providers doing customer service... Hell no I dont want the FCC involved... With the FCC trying to make shit equal it also eliminates competiveness amount providers. What you end up with is whoever spends the msot on advertising is the winner. Rather then who has the best product.

 

[singe_101]

There has to be a pretty big problem for people to want government regulation. Bought people were supposed to not "want" seat belts, or wearing helmets on motorcycles, etc.

Imagine the FCC becoming the media pitbull for each administration. Fun.

What would they do, use ex-military talking heads to deliver Pentagon talking points? Push unpleasant occupations off of routine coverage or scrutiny? Have them send out letters with the softball interview questions listed out? Too late.

 

[SamuraiInBlack]

I like not paying the equivalent of a new car lease for consistently fast broadband internet. K thx.

 

[Project_Nightmare]

Why would the democrats want a regulated internet? Its the republicans should want the internet to be regulated since its better for business and they can claim its protecting people from kiddy porn like Australia.

 

[nutzo]

And for whoever said that monopolies are not possible in a free market system, you need to go back to econ 101. Monopolies are the direct outcome of an entirely free market system. It is the natural state in which corporations would like to exist as it equates to maximum profits.

You are correct in that most corporations would love to have a monopoly; however it is not the natural state of the free markets.
The only way a company can amass a monopoly in a free market is by delivering a significantly better product/price than their competitors. The problem with a monopoly is that the company then tends to get too bureaucratic and lazy, which opens up opportunities for new companies. To protect their monopoly (or even to build one) these corporations turn to government by passing laws and regulations to limit competition. It's much cheaper to buy a couple politicians that to actually compete in a free market.

 

[vortican]

When does it become too high? I'm being bombarded by Comcast ads trying to get me back to their services after I dropped them for DirecTV. I have DirecTV hounding me to buy into higher promotional packages. They'll be hounding me even more when I drop my movie packages in February to offset the increases. My electric bill is going up 3% in January due to expiring caps.

I can drop any service at any time, sure. But for those working paycheck-to-paycheck, I'm sure it's hard to weather the 3% hikes here, and the 2% hikes there, the added fees, with very few new features justified by the cost increases.

Much of that is supposedly infrastructure improvements for next-generation technology and upgrades for existing tech to support stuff like more broadband video and on-demand services, etc. That is, the stuff that people supposedly want. However, the marketplace already has mechanisms to work out these things and is inherently self-regulating when it comes to supply and demand. When the price is too high or the quality unacceptable, people switch services. Perhaps there is a monopoly in terms of the kind of services one can get but as you indicated, you switch to a different tech for basically the same service. I've read about people who have dropped cable TV completely and fulfill their desires for TV content with online services. I'm sure more will follow if Crapcast continues to raise their rates, and electric companies continue to hike fees, etc.

In regards to monopolies, if there's a local monopoly in an area due to a contract with the local government for utility, broadband video or internet services, on whom should we blame that? I'd think the first entity we'd look to is the government that signed the contract. We've had basically local monopolies on energy for generations now, and there's absolutely no reason for it other than it generates money for both the utility racket (I mean, company) and the government agencies which oversee it.