3 ms·

I think we're at a point where Internet access needs to be classified as a utility, like electricity and water. We are indeed in a situation where many compani

by delinka 16y ago

I think we're at a point where Internet access needs to be classified as a utility, like electricity and water. We are indeed in a situation where many companies have invested in their own infrastructure and maybe that requires consideration. I'm absolutely certain that jimktrains2 has a point: the U.S. taxpayers coughed up tremendous amounts of money to invest in infrastructure which makes those lines ours. (Sure, 'legally' AT&T et al own title and deed, but you and I still provided the money.) Ultimately the point is that it's time to classify access to the Internet as a utility and regulate it as such: separating ownership from operation, mandatory line sharing, various and sundry other mechanisms to make sure the consumer has choice amongst competitors. Then we can say net neutrality is not needed.

tptacek 16y ago
There is no company I have to deal with on a regular basis that is worse than the electrical company. This Internet stuff is not really a voting issue for me (health care and education are the big things that make me a Dem and not a Lib), but the candidate that tells me he wants to turn AT&T into Commonwealth Edison has secured a donation from me to his opponent. Be careful what you wish for.
- joelhaus 16y ago
  There is no company I have to deal with on a regular basis that is worse than the electrical company. Care to elaborate? Regarding electric co. service, mine has been reliable (far more than my cable internet service). Regarding customer service and price, can't really complain about these either and I've had a fair amount of experience on both a commercial and personal level. Full Disclosure: Personally, I'm an advocate of regulations that would treat the net more like a utility. By diminishing the profit motive for maintaining the infrastructure, I believe that we can better ensure equal access and adequate service quality (e.g. South Korea: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/tech/broadband.south.korea_1_broadband-plan-south-korea-broadband-internet?_s=PM:TECH http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/tech/broadband.south.kore...).
- pbz 16y ago
  If they would've built the entire infrastructure without public money sure, but that's not the case. Also, when dealing with limited resources, like spectrum, regulation is necessary. We put in money to build the infrastructure, we should have a saying in how it's utilized. And, by the way, I wish dealing with most companies would be as smooth as the power company -- ymmv.
- A1kmm 16y ago
  At least power companies don't try and tell me what to do with the energy I buy from them - they don't tell me I have to pay more to use / can't use brands of toasters unless the manufacturer paid them money. I think the ideal solution would be an act specifically about net neutrality - but where existing laws allow net neutrality to be regulated, I think that using those measures in the interim is not necessarily a bad thing. Prosecuting companies that aren't using net neutrality in the interim might be more of an FTC role than an FCC role in terms of current US government structures - especially if they can get a court to agree that non-net neutrality violates one of the anti-trust or consumer protection laws.

by delinka 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

There is no company I have to deal with on a regular basis that is worse than the electrical company. This Internet stuff is not really a voting issue for me (health care and education are the big things that make me a Dem and not a Lib), but the candidate that tells me he wants to turn AT&T into Commonwealth Edison has secured a donation from me to his opponent. Be careful what you wish for.

joelhaus 16y ago
There is no company I have to deal with on a regular basis that is worse than the electrical company. Care to elaborate? Regarding electric co. service, mine has been reliable (far more than my cable internet service). Regarding customer service and price, can't really complain about these either and I've had a fair amount of experience on both a commercial and personal level. Full Disclosure: Personally, I'm an advocate of regulations that would treat the net more like a utility. By diminishing the profit motive for maintaining the infrastructure, I believe that we can better ensure equal access and adequate service quality (e.g. South Korea: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/tech/broadband.south.korea_1_broadband-plan-south-korea-broadband-internet?_s=PM:TECH http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/tech/broadband.south.kore...).
pbz 16y ago
If they would've built the entire infrastructure without public money sure, but that's not the case. Also, when dealing with limited resources, like spectrum, regulation is necessary. We put in money to build the infrastructure, we should have a saying in how it's utilized. And, by the way, I wish dealing with most companies would be as smooth as the power company -- ymmv.
A1kmm 16y ago
At least power companies don't try and tell me what to do with the energy I buy from them - they don't tell me I have to pay more to use / can't use brands of toasters unless the manufacturer paid them money. I think the ideal solution would be an act specifically about net neutrality - but where existing laws allow net neutrality to be regulated, I think that using those measures in the interim is not necessarily a bad thing. Prosecuting companies that aren't using net neutrality in the interim might be more of an FTC role than an FCC role in terms of current US government structures - especially if they can get a court to agree that non-net neutrality violates one of the anti-trust or consumer protection laws.