3 ms·
>Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) a
by paulhebert 8y ago
>Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets.
Why do you think it's alright to regulate this at the state or city level but not the federal level?
How do you feel about the federal government regulating telecommunications carriers?
- benlorenzetti 8y agoI think any government involvement in telecommunications is bad, but there is no denying ISPs are monopoly businesses by nature. So then the question becomes, what is the appropriate level of state ownership? For example the wireless spectrum needs to be partitioned out at the national (even international) level to have value, so the FCC is a wonderful agency. But for ISPs the logical size is the entities which own the streets. I'd much rather have a budding authoritarian Mayor than President. I believe large parts of the various communications acts are unconstitutional and I don't see how light crossing state borders is construed as commerce.
- jonhendry18 8y ago"I believe large parts of the various communications acts are unconstitutional and I don't see how light crossing state borders is construed as commerce." The money crosses state borders also. ISPs are not state/local scale businesses.
- nc34ntoe 8y ago> ISPs are monopoly businesses by nature No they are not! Many other countries have a wide variety of ISPs to choose from. This is purely due to collusion in the US. (And it's blatant, well-documented collusion.)