4 ms·

"Politicians must think the tech community is a frustrating beast to work with." Smart people are less predictable than those they have been marketing to previ

"Politicians must think the tech community is a frustrating beast to work with." Smart people are less predictable than those they have been marketing to previously. The biggest downside to this decision comes from the following line: "But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pricing decisions." To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs (which is not surprising), yet it seems they're claiming to do this for the benefit of the country. I'm not sure I believe that what benefits the massive ISP/entertainment conglomerates is by proxy beneficial to the rest of us. The state of the video broadcasting industry, for example, would be one piece of evidence to my skepticism of this theory. Over-the-top linear broadcasting via the internet has been possible, at least technically, for a long time now. And we have the bandwidth in this country to pull it off. The roadblock are the major cable companies who are making far too much money in their complete dominative ownership of the infrastructure to deliver video (currently), as they do not want to lose that business. So even if television stations wanted to move to deliver completely over the internet (and apps), they would not be able to due to contractual obligations. Plus, the cable companies have so much money they can literally buy out anyone who tries to compete with them. It's not enough of a monopoly to be illegal, because these companies don't own each other (yet), but there's definitely a lot of collusion and back-room deals happening. So, while it's not surprising to me to find this little difference in the laws between electricity/gas/water delivery and internet service delivery, it does make me feel a bit sad inside. Because I know, deep down, this law is made for the Comcast/Cox/Charter's of the world, not the people who use the service. Again, we are reminded that the loudest voices in politics are that way because they are the richest. That said, the idea is correct...the Internet should be a utility, something you definitely need to have but also need to pay for. It's the next logical step to allow the government to provide more services over the Web, which is cost-effective for them, a better experience for us, and ultimately makes the government a much cheaper beast to run. Almost everyone wants the government to cost less, especially with the debt we accrue every year as a country...

mariodiana 12y ago
> To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs The established players are quite often in favor of regulation, since it stifles up-and-comers who might out-compete them.
- MCRed 12y ago
  This is really the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Liberals think that somehow the regulation will never be tainted by economic forces. Libertarians realize it is, and that the best regulation is the itchy feet of a free market where you can just choose to not do business with companies whose policies you don't like. By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation, those advocating for its complete nationalization will have forgotten that their ideological brothers are the ones who advocated its destruction. You have seen this happen recently with obamacare-- the government regulated the healthcare industry into the ground, and now nationalized health insurance as a "solution", which is already not working. Thus we have the old cliche: If you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when older, you have no brain. Have a heart, protect rights, libertarians agree with you, but learn from the history. IT has never worked.
  - rqebmm 12y ago
    > By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation There's a huge difference between "the internet" and "the internet delivery business". There is no free market in the ISP business as it hasn't been a competitive market since the days of DSL.
  - modfodder 12y ago
    Or Liberals believe that regulation tainted by economic forces is preferable to a free market in a society that already allows corporations to essentially ignore regulation by paying minuscule fines that pale in comparison to their daily profit. If consumers haven't already moved on from these corporations then maybe regulation is our only protection. The idea that deregulation would suddenly allow good citizen corporations to destroy evil actors is laughable in most circumstances.

mariodiana 12y ago

> To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs The established players are quite often in favor of regulation, since it stifles up-and-comers who might out-compete them.

MCRed 12y ago
This is really the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Liberals think that somehow the regulation will never be tainted by economic forces. Libertarians realize it is, and that the best regulation is the itchy feet of a free market where you can just choose to not do business with companies whose policies you don't like. By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation, those advocating for its complete nationalization will have forgotten that their ideological brothers are the ones who advocated its destruction. You have seen this happen recently with obamacare-- the government regulated the healthcare industry into the ground, and now nationalized health insurance as a "solution", which is already not working. Thus we have the old cliche: If you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when older, you have no brain. Have a heart, protect rights, libertarians agree with you, but learn from the history. IT has never worked.
- rqebmm 12y ago
  > By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation There's a huge difference between "the internet" and "the internet delivery business". There is no free market in the ISP business as it hasn't been a competitive market since the days of DSL.
- modfodder 12y ago
  Or Liberals believe that regulation tainted by economic forces is preferable to a free market in a society that already allows corporations to essentially ignore regulation by paying minuscule fines that pale in comparison to their daily profit. If consumers haven't already moved on from these corporations then maybe regulation is our only protection. The idea that deregulation would suddenly allow good citizen corporations to destroy evil actors is laughable in most circumstances.