5 ms·

Like all questions of regulation, it comes down to who you trust more - the FCC, or the telecoms. One of those two is going to end up dictating policy, since th

Like all questions of regulation, it comes down to who you trust more - the FCC, or the telecoms. One of those two is going to end up dictating policy, since the current ISPs are a de facto if not natural monopoly or, at best, oligopoly, depending on where you live. No matter how cynical you want to be about the FCC, Comcast, Verizon, et al. have already proven themselves to be actively harmful. Anything restrictions the FCC creates can hardly be worse than the "fast lane" plans. The FCC is also answerable to elected officials, for better or for worse - even at worst, I think that's better than being answerable to no one but a pocketbook.

cheald 12y ago
I "trust" the telecoms more, because it's illegal to start a competitor to the FCC if I don't like how they're doing their job. That's not to say that the current batch of telecoms are trustworthy, but at least there is recourse in the form of competition (see: Google Fiber), while if the FCC goes off the deep end we're irrevocably pooched. And...we have immediate history demonstrating that the FCC is corruptible for external agendas. I don't know why people think they would suddenly become above reproach if net neutrality legislation were enacted.
- GeneralMayhem 12y ago
  Google Fiber - and any competition, for that matter - do not exist in the vast majority of the country. My point is the FCC regime is not guaranteed to be better in the long run, but it can hardly be worse, and has the potential to be excellent.
  - johndevor 12y ago
    >it can hardly be worse I'd check that assumption. There's plenty of evidence to show that government does a poor job regulating companies. Often times it's the companies that control the regulations.
fleitz 12y ago
Umm... Isn't Title II regulation of these providers what produced the current cell phone and cable market? Have you ever used a telco or cable company in the US? It's not exactly 'free and open'
- quanticle 12y ago
  Lack of Title II regulation is what produced the current cell phone and cable market. Cable companies and cellular phone companies are explicitly not regulated as Title II utilities. That's how they're able to get away with traffic discrimination - they're free to treat different classes of traffic (e.g. traffic from Netflix) differently. With Title II regulation, they would be classified as a common carrier and would have many more restrictions in how they could discriminate among the various kinds of traffic that passes through their network.

cheald 12y ago

I "trust" the telecoms more, because it's illegal to start a competitor to the FCC if I don't like how they're doing their job. That's not to say that the current batch of telecoms are trustworthy, but at least there is recourse in the form of competition (see: Google Fiber), while if the FCC goes off the deep end we're irrevocably pooched. And...we have immediate history demonstrating that the FCC is corruptible for external agendas. I don't know why people think they would suddenly become above reproach if net neutrality legislation were enacted.

GeneralMayhem 12y ago
Google Fiber - and any competition, for that matter - do not exist in the vast majority of the country. My point is the FCC regime is not guaranteed to be better in the long run, but it can hardly be worse, and has the potential to be excellent.
- johndevor 12y ago
  >it can hardly be worse I'd check that assumption. There's plenty of evidence to show that government does a poor job regulating companies. Often times it's the companies that control the regulations.

fleitz 12y ago

Umm... Isn't Title II regulation of these providers what produced the current cell phone and cable market? Have you ever used a telco or cable company in the US? It's not exactly 'free and open'

quanticle 12y ago
Lack of Title II regulation is what produced the current cell phone and cable market. Cable companies and cellular phone companies are explicitly not regulated as Title II utilities. That's how they're able to get away with traffic discrimination - they're free to treat different classes of traffic (e.g. traffic from Netflix) differently. With Title II regulation, they would be classified as a common carrier and would have many more restrictions in how they could discriminate among the various kinds of traffic that passes through their network.