dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
27
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

1 recommendation

jcremin to pandora

Member

to pandora

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

Who the hell really gives the FCC or other Government entity ANY right to tell a privately owned ISP how to run their business?

If I want to open up a shoe store with my own money, nobody has the right to tell me that I have to sell every color shoe (not discriminating against different types of traffic) or tell me that I have to charge the same price for big shoes or little shoes (metered billing/caps) or tell me that I don't have the right to not stock every shoe that might be needed (minimum speeds).

If I used government funding or got huge tax breaks to build or expand my business, then I can see regulation being perfectly fine, as long it was understood that I was giving them that right as part of the process.. Otherwise it just isn't right for them to tell me how I can and can't run my business as long as I follow the rest of the laws like paying taxes and obtaining permits, etc...
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

said by jcremin:

Who the hell really gives the FCC or other Government entity ANY right to tell a privately owned ISP how to run their business?

Maybe because a business, instead of remaining private and a sole proprietorship, goes to society to receive a corporate charter? A "fiat person" created by the legislative stroke of a pen? A legal, yet fictional "person" who stands as the fall guy for officers and investors? Shielding their personal assets from losses incurred from their business decisions (and/or choices to co-own a business by capitalizing it through publicly-traded shares)?

You're arguing like property rights and the right to conduct business are absolute. Like "free markets" is an absolute principle. But, that seems to be contradicted by so many businesses relying upon society to assist their business risks through the creation of a fiat "person." An entity that willing buyers and sellers wouldn't freely negotiate amongst themselves.

If you open your shoe shop and remain a private business, I might agree with you that you have a much greater freedom against regulation. But, when you accept a corporate charter and use public rights of way to avoid negotiating (free-market style) with private property owners to conduct your business's property needs, then it's hard to argue that you're immune from responsibility to the public.

You can't have it both ways.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

said by amigo_boy:

when you accept a corporate charter and use public rights of way to avoid negotiating (free-market style) with private property owners to conduct your business's property needs, then it's hard to argue that you're immune from responsibility to the public.

That's my whole point. Myself (As a 100% privately built, owned, operated, and funded business) should not be subject to any regulation as to how I run my network. It is MY network, end of story.

On the flip side, any ISP that receives government assistance SHOULD be subject to regulation since they have been relived from a portion of the costs and burden of building their networks.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

1 recommendation

pandora to jcremin

Premium Member

to jcremin
said by jcremin:

Who the hell really gives the FCC or other Government entity ANY right to tell a privately owned ISP how to run their business?

Most ISP's in the U.S. inherit rights of way, and those incumbent rights of way preclude real competition. Our government has mandated a duopoly for most wired internet in the U.S. (cable and iLEC). Any company that may want to run wire to a home will be prevented from doing so by our governments (federal, state and local), the iLEC and cable company.

When a company wants to enjoy government enforced monopoly or duopoly status, some regulation / oversight comes with it. However, the regulation voted by the FCC today may be beyond their authority (litigation will decide) and is inherently very flawed (my own opinion).

I do agree, IF the rights of way were opened to anyone who wanted to string cable or fiber, subject only to the ability of the right of way to hold the cable or fiber, and if the iLEC and cable company were required to bid on a equal basis for access to the rights of way with other companies, that then, yes, the government shouldn't have much to say.

For better or worse, that will never happen. Our best hope is moderate regulation by government that encourages an open internet and reasonable rates to consumers.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

1 recommendation

jcremin

Member

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

said by pandora:

Most ISP's in the U.S. inherit rights of way.

And I can understand regulation of those who get the benefit of using public easements... but only that portion of the network an only if others aren't allowed to run their own wires in those same areas.
said by pandora:

I do agree, IF the rights of way were opened to anyone who wanted to string cable or fiber, subject only to the ability of the right of way to hold the cable or fiber, and if the iLEC and cable company were required to bid on a equal basis for access to the rights of way with other companies, that then, yes, the government shouldn't have much to say.

And that is probably a lot better solution than regulating how to manage traffic on their networks. Open things up to competition and if someone is screwing the customers, another company will step in to do things right.

There have been countless stories about some organization trying to bring competition into an area and being shut down. If those practices were outlawed and competition was actually encouraged, I think we would see so much more benefit to consumers than any of this stupid net neutrality junk that they are wasting their time with. They want to put band-aids on everything, but they'd be a lot better off fixing what causes the problem in the first place.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

You and I agree, competition for the last mile (or so) of cable / fiber would be a better solution in the long run. Creating a model that allowed that, and was economically viable and vibrant could take a long time. Our government would have to resist the urge to constantly tinker with the rules. I don't know our government as it exists in the early 21st century is capable of keeping its hands off stuff.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to jcremin

Member

to jcremin
totally agree!