Obama weighs in on Net Neutrality . . . is automatically wrong

[ksen]

The President weighs in:

Obama says FCC should reclassify the internet's regulatory status

In a rather dramatic development, President Obama today announced that he wants the FCC to reclassify internet service providers as telecommunications services. This is a huge deal for network neutrality advocates.

Doing this is well past due.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Let's see, I'll get the ball rolling:
This interferes with free enterprise, what's next the government force us to watch Murder She Wrote?
This quashes free speech. If they big companies are FORCED to take huge losses, nobody can use the internet.
Another Obama giveaway for the Takers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Power grab!!!!

Obama is only doing this so he can launch the new e-Bola virus online.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The President weighs in:

Obama says FCC should reclassify the internet's regulatory status

In a rather dramatic development, President Obama today announced that he wants the FCC to reclassify internet service providers as telecommunications services. This is a huge deal for network neutrality advocates.

Doing this is well past due.

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

 

[ksen]

It's a short term issue on the net

What do you mean? Because the evidence is in that the more we leave the ISP companies alone the more consolidated they become, the less competitive they become, and the less they spend on infrastructure.

and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

Other than the fact that the places where the government is more involved get faster and cheaper internet services I guess you'd be right.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The President weighs in:

Obama says FCC should reclassify the internet's regulatory status



Doing this is well past due.

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest. Are people that upset over slotting fees that grocery stores charge vendors to get their products shown in better areas. Netflix is relying on their competitor to provide their product. Netflix can build it's own infrastructure to deliver its product at the fast speed possible.

 

[ImGod]

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest. Are people that upset over slotting fees that grocery stores charge vendors to get their products shown in better areas. Netflix is relying on their competitor to provide their product. Netflix can build it's own infrastructure to deliver its product at the fast speed possible.

So could the cable company. They'd end up like AOL though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest.

Funny, I thought that the ISPs were providing access to the internet not "goods". Who is Comcast's competitor in areas where it holds a monopoly? Especially where it has successfully lobbied the state to forbid municipalities from setting up municipal networks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest.

And not a dime was made over the phones?

Are people that upset over slotting fees that grocery stores charge vendors to get their products shown in better areas.

I'm paying x dollars for Internet at a relative speed. Not x dollars for certain services to be throttled.

Netflix is relying on their competitor to provide their product. Netflix can build it's own infrastructure to deliver its product at the fast speed possible.

Actually, Netflix is probably paying a mild fortune for the bandwidth they use at their home bases. This then travels mostly on fiber not owned by local ISPs... then the local ISPs want to throttle the bandwidth for the last 10 miles.

I suppose this proves that free market doesn't actually mean anything, when one market can prey on another.

 

[ksen]

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest.

Which is a good reason in support of making ISPs a public utility just like our highway system.

Are people that upset over slotting fees that grocery stores charge vendors to get their products shown in better areas.

Other than the grocery business being absolutely nothing like the ISP business that's a great point!

Netflix is relying on their competitor to provide their product. Netflix can build it's own infrastructure to deliver its product at the fast speed possible.

And anyone not satisfied with his employment should just run out and start a competing company . . . huuuuurrrr!

 

[Jarhyn]

You of course know that this is not about providing movies and porn at the fastest speed, but about control of content. Companies like Comcast want to bring the cable TV model to the internet where both customers and content providers pay premiums to the ISP for delivery of their product. Comcast can also dictate that if a company like Netfix wants to provide movies over their network they mus slow them on other ISPs.

And if you don't believe they will, get a smartphone with "unlimited data" and watch what happens when you cross the magic monthly data limit for high speed and they intentionally slow it down.

The issue has become that we have an unique situation where companies are relying on their competitors to provide their goods and they are getting into a pissing contest. Are people that upset over slotting fees that grocery stores charge vendors to get their products shown in better areas. Netflix is relying on their competitor to provide their product. Netflix can build it's own infrastructure to deliver its product at the fast speed possible.

Except that in the context of the user and the service they wish to buy, the services are not competitive at all. I do not contract with Comcast for a given dataset. I contract with the intent that they ship arbitrary data between endpoints. I do not want to be forced into a world where I am only given an option between limited forums of data. If Comcast wants to claim they are competing with Netflix, they should stop claiming they are an ISP.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that's good. If Obama didn't take a strong stand in favour of net neutrality now, it would be far less significant when he folds on the issue a few months from now.

 

[Jarhyn]

And anyone unsatisfied with traffic regulations on the highway should just build their own highways, and anyone who doesn't like the cycle rate on their AC current should just build their own power plant and distribution grid. Anyone who doesn't like their trash pickup times should put together their own landfill and recycling center.

Some things, communications networks included, are not suited to multiple providers in an area. Such networks require municipal assistance and approval. They get municipal approval, they should be forced to provide neutral services.

 

[Valjean]

The goal of a public utility is to serve the public by providing the service the public wants at wholesale prices. A public utility provides the degree of service the public wants and is regulated by those it serves.

A private company is there to make money. They charge what the market will bear and maximise profits cutting expenses and services. They regulate themselves and their books and organisation are not open to public scrutiny as public companies are.

Nice Squirrel
Let's see, I'll get the ball rolling:
This interferes with free enterprise, what's next the government force us to watch Murder She Wrote?
This quashes free speech. If they big companies are FORCED to take huge losses, nobody can use the internet.
Another Obama giveaway for the Takers.

So how is it that other 'common carrier' countries manage both cheaper and better internet than we -- plus more choice of carriers?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The goal of a public utility is to serve the public by providing the service the public wants at wholesale prices. A public utility provides the degree of service the public wants and is regulated by those it serves.

A private company is there to make money. They charge what the market will bear and maximise profits cutting expenses and services. They regulate themselves and their books and organisation are not open to public scrutiny as public companies are.

Nice Squirrel
Let's see, I'll get the ball rolling:
This interferes with free enterprise, what's next the government force us to watch Murder She Wrote?
This quashes free speech. If they big companies are FORCED to take huge losses, nobody can use the internet.
Another Obama giveaway for the Takers.

So how is it that other 'common carrier' countries manage both cheaper and better internet than we -- plus more choice of carriers?

So the complaint is that these companies are a monopoly but a public utility that has no competition will be constantly improving things without any competition?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The goal of a public utility is to serve the public by providing the service the public wants at wholesale prices. A public utility provides the degree of service the public wants and is regulated by those it serves.

A private company is there to make money. They charge what the market will bear and maximise profits cutting expenses and services. They regulate themselves and their books and organisation are not open to public scrutiny as public companies are.

So how is it that other 'common carrier' countries manage both cheaper and better internet than we -- plus more choice of carriers?

So the complaint is that these companies are a monopoly but a public utility that has no competition will be constantly improving things without any competition?

Comcast is constantly improving?

 

[Valjean]

The goal of a public utility is to serve the public by providing the service the public wants at wholesale prices. A public utility provides the degree of service the public wants and is regulated by those it serves.

A private company is there to make money. They charge what the market will bear and maximise profits cutting expenses and services. They regulate themselves and their books and organisation are not open to public scrutiny as public companies are.

So how is it that other 'common carrier' countries manage both cheaper and better internet than we -- plus more choice of carriers?

So the complaint is that these companies are a monopoly but a public utility that has no competition will be constantly improving things without any competition?

It does sound counter-intuitive the way you put it, but yes, that's been the general experience.
Moreover, it seems to result in more competition; more choices of carriers.

 

[Nexus]

So the complaint is that these companies are a monopoly but a public utility that has no competition will be constantly improving things without any competition?

It does sound counter-intuitive the way you put it, but yes, that's been the general experience.
Moreover, it seems to result in more competition; more choices of carriers.

Actually it's not that counter intuitive unless you have some religious dogma about free markets and government.

 

[ksen]

The goal of a public utility is to serve the public by providing the service the public wants at wholesale prices. A public utility provides the degree of service the public wants and is regulated by those it serves.

A private company is there to make money. They charge what the market will bear and maximise profits cutting expenses and services. They regulate themselves and their books and organisation are not open to public scrutiny as public companies are.

So how is it that other 'common carrier' countries manage both cheaper and better internet than we -- plus more choice of carriers?

So the complaint is that these companies are a monopoly but a public utility that has no competition will be constantly improving things without any competition?

Who said the municipal ISPs won't have any competition?

The current ones certainly do so I see no reason why future ones wouldn't as well.