Anti-Competitive Behavior Is A First Amendment Right > Can't Help But Agree with This

Can't Help But Agree with This

But, the 1st amendment only applies to freedom from the government limiting speech against the government or practice of free religion, or limiting of the press's ability to talk freely.. still, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

[blockquote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/blockquote]

While I actually am split on this one myself, I tend to side with the industry that the government IS in fact making a law establishing and controlling speech. But, if the Feds DO want to control the speech or transport thereof, then they're also going to have to back down on the fact many of them want to adapt to the changing times, when it involves the internet, and give up on trying to limit how the internet is being billed to consumers.

Like consumers, and BBR's, say all the time, "The ISPs need to adapt and go with the times when it comes to the internet.. it's not 1999 any more"... and I agree... and that argument is more than one sided.. then, if this is the case, the internet HAS changed, dramatically, since we first really met it. We're not just looking at the dancing Jesus and dancing baby on a web page any more.. we're watching TV, videos, making phone calls, we use it for almost anything now.. and that to me constitutes a major change.

When we got our TV over cable or satellite, and we got our phones over copper lines and wireless, the internet wasn't AS robust as it is today. People want the internet to take on so many different roles, right? I agree with that, as it should be able to.. with that also means some consumers ALSO need to adapt to the changing times and not expect that the ISPs are going to remain the same too. If the Internet IS replacing other medium, that makes the internet "worth" more, and more valuable.. not to mention, it WILL cause other product lines to phase themselves out.. that revenue has to be replaced by other revenue.

I think it's only fair that the internet is charged differently moving forward.. The average consumer pays about $100 a month for phone, internet, and cable.. I don't see a problem with the internet being charged at $99 a month, solo. If people want to bundle and choose to continue to get their other services over copper or other means, then fine.. offer a discount.. again, only fair. And, the argument by some of "well, I'm getting my video, and paying others for it, and I don't think I should pay more for internet.. " well, again,.. that's not a reasonable case.. then they can pay for their internet with a cap and overages.. or they can simply pay a flat rate higher price.

The "fairness" has to go all around to all parties involved.

I have no problem with ISPs charging higher flat rates for those that want it with a virtually unlimited amount of data,....bundling as we do now for lower rates, or simply going base price with a per byte charge model.. but one thing for sure, the consumer HAS to get their heads out of 1999 the same as those very consumers are wanting the ISPs to do..

Again, fair is far..

I dont even know where to begin with you.

First off, lets get this clear because this seems to be overlooked way to often: ISP's are dumbpipes. Plain and simple. They don't want to be dumbpipes because they can make more money being the pipes AND providing content. Especially if they can discriminate and charge more for discriminated packets. But the simple truth is that they are in fact dumbpipes.

Second, ISP's are free to charge what ever they want for the service of the dumbpipes. One of your last argument imply they don't. If they want to charge $100 just for internet, then by golly charge $100 for internet. Just don't come crying when nobody signs up for it.

Third, companies being required to carry packets (because that is their core business) regardless of where it originated or where it is going has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment and is simply ass backwards thinking by a bunch of corporate sheep that are digging deep to come up with something because they can't legitimately come up with any other good reason. By this argument we can say that virtually any business regulation removes the 1st amendment right of the businesses it effects and take it even more broad to say that they remove the rights of those people that want to use that service as well.

Lastly, you are absolutely correct in that the internet has changed and will continue to change. However, the role of the ISP has not changed and will not change. The sooner these ISP's realize they are dumbpipes and begin acting and investing their resources like it, the sooner all of us in this country will be better off and the internet will be able to begin thriving again.

You're making a LOT of inaccurate assumptions.. who says that ISPs are "dumbpipes"..." What "LAW" has established it?

NONE of my arguments implied that they are not allowed to charge anything.. open your eyes and read.

Third.. your post makes no sense to what I said.. so I won't reply..

Lastly.. no one has "established" what EXACTLY an ISPs "duties" are.. so once again, we're coming off with Utopian thoughts and dreams again..

You say "in this country will be better off and the internet will be able to begin THRIVING AGAIN"... um.. when did it STOP thriving?

Seriously.. where do you get these ideals from? What are you basing ANY of what you just said from, other than your own vision?

As for the whole "If they want to charge $100 just for internet, then by golly charge $100 for internet. Just don't come crying when nobody signs up for it." Um... that's what they're trying to do.. they want to charge MORE for a resource that is taking prominence to the communication world and MANY people, here of all places, are crying that they are trying to do just that.. and the argument in return is that it's "Anti-consumer"... people WON'T just not sign up for it.. they want to bitch their way to lower prices.. ain't going to happen, AND when all the providers as an industry try to make these changes, the people cry foul and collusion.

So.. how do you respond to that?

reply to fiberguy

reply to fiberguy
Wow, for someone that wasnt replying you certainly had a lot to say. And my reply to that is boo hoo to you corporations. So you think the value of your product is greater than the people are willing to pay. That's so so sad.

There is no law saying they are dumbpipes moron. However, there should be and hopefully by the time this is all said and done there will be. We can sugar coat dumbpipe and call them internet service providers if it makes you feel better. But really what does an ISP do? Let me give you a hint: They take a packet, they send a packet. That is pretty much a dumbpipe isn't it? AND that is exactly what they should be doing.

They want to get into the content business? Then let them form a company that is separate in every way to be a content provider. They should not be the content providers as well as dumbpipes because they are greedy bastards and can't control themselves when it comes to doing what is right (pass packets of competing providers) and doing what earns more money.

By thrive again I meant that without allowing them to create walled AOL gardens the people of the world will be able to continue to produce content that other people of the world want without the worry that ISP's won't sign off on it or give them "permission" to have their packets delivered. Nothing can thrive when there are major barriers in place. It can move forward as the internet is, but it can't thrive.

Of course prices are not going to get cheaper. Their goal is always to make more money, not less and being in an industry that has great barriers of entry and there are only a couple players in a vast majority of ALL markets why would prices ever come down? Their own actions speak for them self and the ONLY reason we probably don't have a full walled garden approach now is because the FCC got involved during the baby steps of this approach which scared the hell out of them.

The government needs really to just do one thing to settle this whole thing - Create one nationwide fiber network (one big dumbpipe) that connects all users and businesses that can be serviced by any ISP that elects to lease the line to service those people. Let Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, and whoever else wants to become a POP compete for every user and business in this country.

Otherwise they need to establish the below 2 rules:
1.) ISP's can't be content providers and content providers can't be ISP's nor may either enter into an agreement giving one or the other preferential treatment over any others.

2.) ISP's are to accept any and all legal packets and send any and all legal packets regardless of content, source, or destination in the most efficient and timely manner possible without discriminating the priority of one packet over another because of it's content, source, or destination.

reply to fiberguy
You do have a good point, but on the other hand this change is more akin to the introduction of roads and railroads where at one point the providers were extorting users and damaging the economy as a whole which did result in government intervention. What this all does boil down to is that most of these wires are being laid on, over and under public land which ISPs do not own and are given rights to by national, state and local governments.

So if it really comes down to a pissing contest of rights all you need is a simple bit of contract law which states that you if you want to be able to thread fiber through public lands as an ISP you need to follow a certain set of rules, and if not you can't keep it there.

I don't think I could have said it better myself. Who needs the FCC to change the "Rules-of-the-game", just mandate that fiber crossing public land or on public lands must follow these rules.. or go somewhere else.. Maybe space..

reply to Skippy25
I believe in the freedom to make money.. I have YET to see anything so over priced or unreasonable that people can't afford it.. I assume that you think everyone should be able to have everything.. and in this society, this isn't true. you have to make choices and live with in your means.. if someone can't afford fast internet, full on cable tv, fully featured phone service, iPhones or expansive cell phones, then you have to make a decision that allows you to live with in your own means..

And as for being content providers.. they already are.. and as for their own cable TV services, since we're on the lines of cable, I have NO problem with them doing what they can to protect their own content.. and so far they are.. they instituted a 250gb cap, comcast has, and everything falls into that.. so what's your problem? .. I suppose they're just greedy bastards.. to be honest, your posts make you, yourself, sounds like a "greedy bastard".. you think? Being greedy works both ways.

There is NOTHING wrong with making "more money"... our economy and businesses have to have growth.. be VERY careful about talking about by how much

and the LAST people I want creating a dumb pipe is the government.. THAT statement of yours, alone, speaks VERY loudly of your intention.. the government is not the solution.. they are the problem...

And I hate to tell you.. cable TV companies were providers before they offered internet..

I'm sorry, I just can't agree, or even see your side, of any of your arguments.. they are WAY too dangerous.

reply to Oxygen69
Don't forget, the airwaves are also considered public space as well and as such subject to government regulation. So even satellites can't get around this.

reply to fiberguy

reply to fiberguy