dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-05-02 12:25:48: In the wake of the government's latest cash-drunk stumbleabout on net neutrality, most consumer advocates are urging the government to solidify FCC authority over broadband by regulating ISPs as common carriers (essentially utilities). ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

mixdup
join:2003-06-28
Alpharetta, GA

2 recommendations

mixdup

Member

Uh

Ok, so the cable goes out the same time the power does because they're on the same pole. Public regulation isn't why the power goes out when the weather is bad, physics is. And aren't most electric utilities private corporations as opposed to government-owned? I know my local utility, which is highly regulated, is a publicly traded corporation, and they make TONS of money. In fact, they essentially have a license to print it. Ask Southern Company if they'd like to be "deregulated" like California or Texas.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Uh

said by mixdup:

I know my local utility, which is highly regulated, is a publicly traded corporation, and they make TONS of money. In fact, they essentially have a license to print it.

And that's what you seek in a Broadband provider,? In fact the sole provider, as a utility they will have exclusive right to provide that service in your area.

mixdup
join:2003-06-28
Alpharetta, GA

mixdup

Member

Re: Uh

said by tshirt:

said by mixdup:

I know my local utility, which is highly regulated, is a publicly traded corporation, and they make TONS of money. In fact, they essentially have a license to print it.

And that's what you seek in a Broadband provider,? In fact the sole provider, as a utility they will have exclusive right to provide that service in your area.

Well, just classifying broadband as a utility wouldn't mean enshrining any monopolies into law. You could regulate both MSO-provided and RBOC-provided broadband as a utility, and in the areas that the RBOCs haven't gotten rid of DSL, have competition but still have a regulated market. Airlines and railroads were once heavily regulated (and I'm not arguing for that level of regulation in the broadband market) yet they still had competition.

Electricity is the type of utility where it's inherently difficult to have actual competition unless you have weird constructs such as separating the delivery (the physical infrastructure) and the "energy company" that you buy the power from. Also, FWIW, my local electric utility is printing money and has a monopoly, but our rates are lower than than the national average. Not perfect but not horrible either.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

2 edits

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Uh

How many of each true Utility reach your home? Gas? Electric? phone? sewer? water?
One of the carrots for utilities is to have sole access because the cost of the plant, and RoW spacing make multiple providers prohibitive. The broadband industry already does have the "railroads" in the backbone/tier1 transport, what is lacking in some places is the local freight/UPS/FedEx that move the goods between the railroad and the end user residences.
In some areas electric "deregulation" has separated the delivery from the production>provider so you pay X to the "utility" which owns the poles/transformers and wires, and than pay one of several separate entity for providing the actually kilowatts used. While this mimics a competitive environment due to the inefficiency of those multiple middle-man power brokers(literally) has actually caused higher prices everywhere I've seen.
and the wholesale power market was still just as susceptible to manipulation as ever ---Enron

I certainly not defending Powell's silly argument against making but I do believe their are other factors that don't support it happening...At least not yet.
And remember even if it's a utility, that does not make it a "lifeline" service, ie something REQUIRED everywhere.

Many of the "Utilities" city dwellers must have to survive (gas, sewer, water, even electric service) are often up to the rural user to provide for themselves.
even indoor plumbing isn't a "Necessity" or even possible in a surprisingly high percentage of homes.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus

Member

Re: Uh

How is it I can have a choice of gas company using the same pipes but not ISP using the same pipes? Natural gas is a bit more substantial to move than 1s and 0s.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Uh

said by ieolus:

How is it I can have a choice of gas company using the same pipes but not ISP using the same pipes?

Assuming you don't mean Propane, do you think they actually remove the gas from one company from the main line and switch it over to another if you change your mind who you pay for it?
when they changed to this system, did it actually make it cheaper? more reliable? or as I described above did it just add 1 or more layers to the distribution and regulation chain and all their expenses.

I'm not opposed to the single pipe idea IF the pipe builder is fairly compensated for providing it, that the entire public recognizes and agrees to the extra cost "Utility" status brings,
and that the market is not so curtailed that the pipe provider finds it no longer worth building out/reaching the rest of the people.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
Netgear R6400

ieolus

Member

Re: Uh

No, I don't mean propane. I have the choice of natural gas providers to my house, and I don't have one pipe for each provider... just one gas line into my house.

Good, I am glad you are not opposed to splitting up the infrastructure from the content. It really is the only way that makes sense going forward.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Uh

It does at some point, I think we are still in the build and consolidate phase. Cable HSI maybe close to being THE nationwide plant.
The other question is the cost of compensation for those businesses disrupted by the change, and who pays.
There are still a huge % with little to know interest in having internet service, leaving those that do to shoulder MOST of the transitional cost. and a lot of the "cheaper, cheaper, cheaper" crowd upset at the end starter cost (this system would advantage the heavy- MUST have user more then the casual user, with each paying and equal cost for a equal sized pipe, , plus usage on top, plus regulator fees.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to ieolus

Member

to ieolus
You have access to the non-regulated companies. Those are different and can be cheaper than the regular company. they don't also have the same costs of maintaining the lines,etc.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop to ieolus

Member

to ieolus
"Good, I am glad you are not opposed to splitting up the infrastructure from the content. It really is the only way that makes sense going forward."

This is how Muni's should be run. It's like city streets. The city builds and maintains them and then private companies use the roads to deliver their goods and services to the citizens of the community. Provided you are qualified to do such a business (and it already exists in all 50 states) you can buy a connection it to the Muni network and deliver services.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Uh

While the last-mile pipe is often a natural monopoly or duopoly, the government is the last entity that should be nominated to operate it. Every single one of our government-run utilities here is a costly train-wreck, used for political purposes far outside their basic charge.

If we're to revert to a regulated last-mile pipe, and I do support such for truly non-competitive last-miles, it should be in the form of a cooperative or private (regulated) utility, but the usual whiners here need recognize that the current owners of that plant have the right to be compensated at FMV for the taking, which may very well result in much higher, regulated rates, with no competitive options.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to ieolus

Member

to ieolus
And that is exactly how moving 1's and 0's should be done.

1 line to every home and business that any bit passer can utilize to reach any consumer that wants to hire them to push their bits.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
He is talking about the deregulation of certain utilities.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
We have that in Ohio where we pay company X for billing/poles/meters, etc for power and gas, and then company XX for the service itself. on average the bills are higher than going direct to that company for everything. You're not saving anything up front nor long term with using another provider.
TCS
join:2013-03-26

1 recommendation

TCS to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
Right, but you've got it all wrong. The UTILITY should only provide the PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. My *ISP* should be whomever I choose. It would PROMOTE competition, not eliminate it. Or have you already forgotten the myriad options we had once upon a time picking and choosing an ISP? When I had DSL in 2003 I had a choice of literally 12 different ISPs - Qwest simply provided the physical connection. Or maybe you just aren't old enough to remember.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
That is you assumption.

You can classify them as a utility and force line sharing. Then you don't have the "exclusive" provider you speak of.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to mixdup

Member

to mixdup
First Energy Corp is a highly regulated company as well. But they are also deregulated. They answer to the States they operate in, but to avoid their tariffs they own a non-regulated "reseller" of power- First Energy Solutions. They're the company that all of the cities/counties use in their service areas for bulk power deals.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Uh

I think he remembers, it just wasnt profitable enough for the companies he comes here defending day after day.
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

6 recommendations

biochemistry

Premium Member

Trust

Why should anything he says be trusted? He manipulated things into cable's favor which got him the cush job he enjoys today. The only thing that would break down under common carrier status is the maneuvering he did to get his job.
masterbinky
join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

1 recommendation

masterbinky

Member

Silly argument.

Did he just suggest that the more data that's transmitted along fiber and copper, the more it breaks it down? So they are already fighting the equivalent of potholes caused by moving large data across the network? Then he followed it up with leaky lines flooding the ground with packets? Never heard of a house being eaten by a data sinkhole, but hey he suggested it could happen. Power lines do go out in winter, when MILES of power lines go down in massive winter storms because they are hanging on poles above the ground. Which is kinda odd how alot of ISPs ALREADY use (and have no intention to stop using)those same poles that he's pointing a finger at for causing people to be powerless. In my experience though, power seems to be the most reliable of the utilities, and being that ISPs share the most in common with that utility, it isn't anywear near a bad outlook that he proposes. In fact, I'd be really happy if my ISP was as reliable as my electrical service.
YDC
join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

2 recommendations

YDC

Member

Re: Silly argument.

If Powell said something, it is obvious. They do not want this to happen as it will slow the gravy train down too much. Government can be controlled as we all know, but it makes it a little harder to get away with some things. It definately slows them down. That goes for anything the government is involved with. I would rather pay the increases to the government than to the new ISPs. Once I was the network engineer for an ISP (not a telco or cable company) until that was taken away from us circa 2002. That was the end of the dot-com bust of 2001. I have since focused on computers, network services and Internet products like web hosting in general. I no longer sell or maintain the pipes. I have done quite well, but I was much happier when I did. You may notice things in technology about to snap, just like in 2001. Twitter makes no money but got a huge IPO out. Others preceded and followed with similar stunts. Wall street has finally caught on and is becoming more cautious now. The next dot-com and probably the first dot-tech bust is near. If we can just get the telcos and cable companies to become dumb carriers once again this all can be fixed. If not, we will ALL be priced out of innovation and the Internet will go the way of the CB radio. If it becomes too expensive or too complicated to have, people will leave it, and then.. Poof! Gone!
countscabula
join:2010-03-09

countscabula to masterbinky

Member

to masterbinky
He is taking advantage of the fact that as you drive around your state you cannot see the actual speeds people get written on their houses. Comparing potholes and emergency recovery outages to the broadband infrastructure of America? If you put this guy in a debate with anybody of normal intellegence they will eat him alive. I'm glad to see the cable companies waste money on this loser. Slowly but surely internet speeds will be become another component in the haves-have nots equation. Already it affects home values. See which neighborhoods get the FTTP
Papageno
join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

1 recommendation

Papageno

Member

He's fat and happy

Ugh, I just want to punch this guy in the face just to wipe that smug smirk off it, not to mention his shilling for the cable monopolies and his argument that we should just trust that we're somehow really better off when our fixed line internet is becoming an embarrassment among first world countries.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958

Premium Member

Re: He's fat and happy

said by Papageno:

Ugh, I just want to punch this guy in the face just to wipe that smug smirk off it, not to mention his shilling for the cable monopolies and his argument that we should just trust that we're somehow really better off when our fixed line internet is becoming an embarrassment among first world countries

Couldn't have said that any better!!
masterbinky
join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

2 recommendations

masterbinky

Member

Argument REALLY falls apart...

When you note that the dial-up days of the internet that the regulation he says would ruin the internet is what protected it and prevented it from being crushed by telcos. Also when regulations are protecting consumers and NOT a companie's profits, you shouldn't ask companies what their opinion of regulations are.

Probitas
@206.248.154.x

3 recommendations

Probitas

Anon

Pretty obvious what should be done.

The questions is, do people have the fortitude to force the change. The incumbents, and their lobbyists in and off the Hill will fight tooth and nail to protect their bosses, or their cushy after service tenure on the Hill. They aren't protecting anyone but themselves. You the elected person is so far down the list on what they care about I bet the fact their kid wants an iPod rates higher than you wanting consumer protections from predatory monopolies. But they have no issues paying Apple hundreds for that iPod since the taxpayer pays them the money for their work on behalf of the industry. Pretty odd optics on the whole thing from where I sit here in Canada. It's obvious what is happening but nothing ever changes....I guess the average peon on the street thinks someday he'll be just like Michael Powell. Dream on....
wkm001
join:2009-12-14

wkm001

Member

To regulate, or not

We can't decide to regulate just because we don't like the amount of money the ISPs are making / charging us. There has to be more need than that.

I would love to take a "let's wait and see what happens" approach. But we all know it is harder to stop something already happening rather than plan for it ahead of time.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: To regulate, or not

said by wkm001:

I would love to take a "let's wait and see what happens" approac

That is what we have been doing for the last couple of decades and it is not working. What we have now is a situation akin to the early days a century ago with telephone and electric. Private companies only built out where it was the most profitable and refused to interconnect with competitors.

It is time to regulate the bit delivery business as common carriage. ISP are free to offer other value add services as long as they are decoupled from basic carriage.

/tom

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA

1 recommendation

spewak

Premium Member

When Powell speaks...

lies and b.s. come out of his sewer hole! What an a--hole!

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

1 recommendation

newview

Premium Member

We want promises to be kept

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· WbVXeXlU
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

3 recommendations

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

He has it backwards

"the shiver you feel in a cold house after a snowstorm knocks out the power and the water main breaks along your commute should restrain one from embracing the illusory virtues of public utility regulation."

That shiver you feel is due to the utility companies behaving like public corporations instead of utilities. If they operated like utility companies, the power would have been restored considerably faster after Sandy and people wouldn't still be waiting for dial tone.

This is exactly the kind of lie I would expect from a cable company lobbyist.

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

2 recommendations

WHT

Member

Utilities Are Often Franchised

Utilities are often franchised meaning there is one and only one provider of a related incumbent service. An unusual exception decades ago was in Lubbock, TX where there were areas on outskirts of town you had three electric utilities and three sets of outside plant.

If ISP become turf protected utilities, that could very well shut out consumer choices of better services, lower costs, and higher speeds from new innovative companies.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Utilities Are Often Franchised

It certainly would limit the likelihood of changing technology, ie If the cable provider was THE broadband company for your area, the fiber over builder would have little incentive to even seek a franchise to overbuild.

for the most part you would be stuck with whatever is the most pervasive technology in your area today.

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT

Member

Re: Utilities Are Often Franchised

said by tshirt:

for the most part you would be stuck with whatever is the most pervasive technology in your area today.

You would be stuck with whatever is the most pervasive invasive, perverted technology in your area today.

MarcoA
@68.87.42.x

1 recommendation

MarcoA

Anon

Marc Andreessen says more net neutrality laws are not the answer

Click for full size
Utility?

»gigaom.com/2014/02/24/ma ··· -answer/

wizardry
@164.107.103.x

wizardry

Anon

Haha he is getting nervous

"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then you fight, and then you win." The fact that he claims that some reasonable regulation would crater the industry and customer service quality shows that they are getting scared. Which is funny in a second way: the FCC is totally captured by lobbyists. What are they afraid of?

On the subject of regulation, can we discuss some specifics? What exactly would a common carrier declaration entail? What would be the benefits and costs? Are there any non-obvious problems with net neutrality? Personally, I'd like to see the FCC cultivate competition but I don't want to see the government replace Comcast et al. as the gatekeeper to the Internet. (ex. obscenity regulations on broadcast media).
tabernak4
join:2013-08-10

1 recommendation

tabernak4

Member

My power and water has always been more reliable than my internet

Bring it on.

I easily average under 1 day per year without power and that's just because of an icestorm a few years back. Public water has been even more reliable, current house is well/septic and therefor corresponds to power availability. It took me a month to establish internet here and the last several years my internet has easily averaged a total outage time greater than 1 day/year (Cox, Comcast, At&t). These assessments come form having living in Arkansas/Alabama/Mississippi the last 8 years.

If the deep dirty poor south can provide more reliable utilities than ISPs can internet, that tells you something.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD
Ooma Telo

devolved

Member

Re: My power and water has always been more reliable than my internet

In October 2013, we had a huge snowstorm blow through western South Dakota, dumping several feet of snow in many places and knocking out power across much of the region. My power was out for about 90 minutes. Where in some outlying areas the power was out for about 10 days. So, on the whole, I would have to say, despite that massive snowstorm, my power is pretty reliable. But I can't say that about my internet or TV.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

1 recommendation

WhatNow

Premium Member

Separate transport and content.

The only way a utility ISP would work is for the transport to be separated from the content. That is how the power and telco systems got built. In the beginning you had all kinds of competition in telco but it was expensive because every company had to place their own lines. The networks were also ugly because of the duplication and the first builds were iron wire on glass insulators.

AT&T had the best POTS network not because it was a local monopoly but because it was almost a monopoly in long distance. GTE and other networks covered large areas but their networks did not bring in the revenue because the more rural and they did not have the long distance revenue.

Just take a street with 10 houses and 3 ISPs that also provided TV and each ISP served 3 houses and 1 house was empty. Three times as much money was spent then if one company provided a dark fiber with just a connection on each end. I bet you may get more then 3 content providers if they did not have to cover the cost of building the fiber network. Do you think Netflix would have gotten off the ground if they had to build a network. Just like the cable companies would have had a hard time if they had develop and produce all their programing.

Just keep the transport a monopoly utility and separate from the content.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: Separate transport and content.

Agree bit-delivery should be regulated as common carriage, ISPs should be free to offer additional value add services as long as they are independent of carriage.

Services that only the ISP can provide should fall under common carriage.

Everything else should play out in a competitive environment.

/tom
steevo22
join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA

steevo22

Member

But the easements they got for free were for regulated services.

As long as those utility companies want to use the same easements on both my private property and on public property, they are supposed to be regulated.

Those easements were given to them for regulated services. Not for unregulated services.

I am against them getting a free ride on those easements to sell their "unregulated" services.

I charge $6,000 a month for easements to operate unregulated services on my property. I recommend all my neighbors charge the same.

This is something you don't hear them wanting to talk about.

••••

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT

Member

The Unmentioned Comparison

Everyone talks brags about how most areas are covered.

Verizon brags how 4G LTE can replace wired internet - an about face from three years ago when they said to the effect it wasn't' meant for a complete replacement, rather a means of last resort.

But no one points out the cost comparison. A 10 Mbps DSL line with 250 GB cap averages $90 per month (which includes the forced bundle of a POTS line).

250 GB for a mere $90 per month. Let's price out cellular wireless. That same 250 GB will cost you over $3,000 per month past the 10 to 15 GB cap.

Even when you look at cable, the cost for at least 10 Mbps service is at least $60 per month in most areas. Enter the Wireless Internet Service Provider.

A WISP is fully capable of delivering 10 Mbps with a 250 GB soft cap for under $40. 10 Mbps will satisfy most needs, even Netflix. When you start pushing 20 Mbps, the bottle neck is upstream at higher transport peers - so when cable offers 50 Mbps plus, the value is diluted.

10 Mbps (with an upgrade path to 20) for under $40 will get me 20% of the market...and that's all I need.
lancguy
join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA

lancguy

Member

Why common utility won't work

I live in PA, and we recently de-regulated electric. In my specific locality, PPL has the transmission lines. Prior to de-regulation, PPL was both our supplier and transmission. They owned the plants, the lines, the poles, the meters etc. They were highly regulated, and rate increases had to go through the PUC. We were promised that deregulation would save all the state citizens money. Now, in post regulation, PPL still owns the lines, the poles, the meters etc, but we can buy power from any provider registered with the state. At first, it seemed to work out well. People could buy electric from ABC Inc and save considerable money.

The problem was, those cheap rates were a promotion. After that promotion ended, they went on to a variable rate that fluctuates wildly. We have had reports where it fluctuates by as much as several hundred dollars a month. I really don't see how it is cheaper for some third party to offer services such as electric (read internet in this context) for cheaper then the incumbent utility when the third party has to pay transmission fees to the incumbent utility to get service to your house.

I don't think common carrier is the answer. If you really want to make your internet a dumb pipe, then fine, go to a per-byte billing scheme. Enact laws that prevent prioritized routing and force transparency on the true cost of delivering each byte to a location. At the same time, you will also need to account for the delivery of video and voice services over the internet (your old cable service will eventually be delivered by internet instead of sending all the channels down the coax as it is today). Will IP video from your cable provider be included in your data traffic, or will it be included in your video service? And, should that be prioritized over your other internet traffic?

But we know what happened when TWC tried to do something like metered billing. The days of unlimited internet usage are quickly fading away regardless of how cost keep decreasing to deliver those bytes. It will always cost something...

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Why common utility won't work

said by lancguy:

The days of unlimited internet usage are quickly fading away regardless of how cost keep decreasing to deliver those bytes. It will always cost something...

When we reach the point of metered Internet, I will not be streaming videos. I remember how to use offline mail and news readers, and will revert. Stand alone PC games, and limit my connect time to limit my bill. Welcome back, 1995!
steevo22
join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA

steevo22 to lancguy

Member

to lancguy
said by lancguy:

I live in PA, and we recently de-regulated electric... In my specific locality, PPL has the transmission lines. Prior to de-regulation, PPL was both our supplier and transmission. They owned the plants, the lines, the poles, the meters etc. They were highly regulated, and rate increases had to go through the PUC. We were promised that deregulation would save all the state citizens money.

We have had reports where it fluctuates by as much as several hundred dollars a month. I really don't see how it is cheaper for some third party to offer services such as electric (read internet in this context) for cheaper then the incumbent utility when the third party has to pay transmission fees to the incumbent utility to get service to your house.

This is almost exactly what happened in California. They deregulated the generation, but the transmission and distribution was still regulated. The problem came when the bill arrived, and the transmission and distribution turned out to be 90% of the bill, so even if you got your electricity for free you could only save 10% on your overall bill. The electric utilities packed all the charges into the part they were guaranteed as the incumbent utility. We had no where to go and no way to save any significant money.

Believe me, I would never have let that happen, but our government did. It was just ridiculous.

This is what the CLECs found when dealing with the ILECs, they ended up paying 95% of the cost of a whole phone line to get a dry local loop from the local TELCO, so they had no way to compete with them.

As long as this is allowed to go on the local regulated utilities need to remain highly regulated. Unregulating any part of their services which use those free easements is not reasonable. I want to charge AT&T $5,000 a month for the boxes they have on my property if they want to sell unregulated services through those.

If they want to be unregulated I want the same thing.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

w0g

Member

Look at it like this:

The corporations are "meddling" with society, and that either way effectively as the government created corporations and allowed such business to occur, we are regulating them to be what they are which is to be able to do whatever they want at the expense of society.

To balance this we need to realize that society is what matters and not a corporate or government entity. We need to regulate the corporations to take back society, and make them understand the rules.

For example. The internet is not a corporations tools for delivering content. It is a system that connects every man, women, and child together, and allows each person to communicate.

The internet should be regulated, and maybe a public option built. One which is bazillions of times faster than the slow ass "unregulated" internet, and nearly completely free to every citizen. Sort of like a public highway, except for data and communications, and transmissions over a cable to one another.

By having something like this, society will succeed. By allowing the corporations to do what they're doing now, we will continue to be at their mercy, enslaved to them and have no control over the processes in place.

It is truly our world, and their money and power doesn't mean shit. Only the laws actually recognize their power and wealth, but we can also make laws that do not recognize their power and wealth, effectively making all people equal, taking away all the voice and power of companies and rich people and giving it back to each person as individuals instead.

plk
Premium Member
join:2002-04-20
united state

1 recommendation

plk

Premium Member

Common carrier not all or nothing

Just because they classify the Internet as a common carrier they do not have to enforce all the rules used for pots. They only need this classification to keep control and authority to defend net neutrality. Under the current rules, once this cat is out of the bag it will nearly impossible to stop.
competition: why don't we see the Bells required to divest the areas where they have both landland and cellular services. This should be required before they are allowed to bid on spectrum for the area. So we can assume the Competition panacea is just smoke up our azz.
page: 1 · 2 · next