dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Tuesday Morning Links
by Revcb 07:05AM Tuesday Nov 08 2011

view:
topics flat nest 

anon6

@comcast.net

regulate internet

there's good ways to do it and then there's bad ways to do it. knowing that the government is bought and paid for, I'm guessing the internet can only get worse from here on out. they won't stop until they turn the internet into a controlled medium just like they did with cable tv.

asdfdfdfdfdf

@myvzw.com

Re: regulate internet

On Cleland's first point certainly net neutrality requirements are a regulation. This much is true. It isn't, however, an agenda to unleash a bunch of regulation upon the internet or a government lockdown of the internet or any of the other dark plots that people like cleland try to imply.

On cleland's second point
" Does anyone really believe that the FCC would write a 135 page order, that the order would be one of the most politically contentious FCC issues in memory, and that the House and Senate would bother to take the highly unusual action to vote on disapproving an FCC order – if the order only maintained the status quo?"

Yes one can believe that because this fighting is about companies like ATT and verizon wanting to lay the groundwork for a radical change in the nature of the internet in which one pays extra to have their content prioritized over others. We are seeing the development of this in things like verizon's turbo api. The incumbents have made clear for years where they intend to take us and they have to power to do it. This is very much about imposing boundaries to maintain the internet that we have known. The contentiousness of the issue isn't because the fcc wants to radically alter the internet but because the telco/cableco duopoly wants to radically alter the nature of the internet and the fcc wants to put boundaries upon these companies that keep them from abusing their power. Note they want to radically alter the internet not by creating innovative new technologies but by using their increasing control to extort additional revenue from everyone using the internet.

I consider the third issue irrelevant because the goal should be crafting sound boundaries, not creating "certainty". In a capitalist market, which is supposed to be endlessly innovative, there can never be anything approaching certainty anyway. Nothing will create certainty unless the government gives the telcos/cablecos everything that they want. Anything else will lead to years of court battles and attempts to subvert even the most reasonable of rules. This is an unavoidable result of the intransigence of the telcos who will not give an inch on anything. It isn't an argument for doing nothing and giving free reign to the duopoly.

"what kind of tortured logic can assert that a previously-unregulated Internet market that is now regulated by the FCC for the first time, somehow preserves openness?"

This ties in with the first deception. Firstly we are talking about control of the pipe, not regulating internet activity. This is not, in any way, the first time the fcc has regulated the pipe. In fact regulating the pipe has been the key purpose of the fcc since its inception. It isn't some radical new play for power as opponents claim. Secondly, it is very much the case that regulation has a long history of maintaining openness in markets and without government regulation many markets would long ago have collapsed into monopoly. The logic only appears tortured to those who define openness as a lack of any regulation. But this isn't the definition of an open market. The wiki he linked to doesn't even define open market as simply a deregulated market, but as a market which is not tightly controlled by a limited number of actors and which has minimal barriers to entry:

"an open market refers to a market which is accessible to all economic actors. In an open market so defined, all economic actors have an equal opportunity of entry in that market."..."In reality, few markets exist which are open to that extent, since they usually cannot operate without an enforcible legal framework for trade"

anon6

@comcast.net

Re: regulate internet

Its kinda hard to believe the FCC has consumers at heart when they do closed door meetings with the very same isp's who want to take our internet freedoms away. that's what i was trying to say.

asdfdfdfdfdf

@myvzw.com

Re: regulate internet

My post wasn't a criticism of yours, I was just continuing the thread on the subject. I can understand some of the cynicism about the fcc but I think we need to keep a couple of key points in mind.
1. Whether the fcc has the interests of consumers at heart is largely a function of the political forces that control it at the time. When those whose primary agenda is defending corporate interests are in control then it isn't going to have much concern for consequences to the consumer.
I think the present fcc does have consumer interests at heart, or rather I think that the preponderance of political influence at the fcc right now has consumer interests at heart. The problem is that they have to exist in an environment of very powerful interests and they only have so much room to maneuver when those interests are doing everything possible to subvert their authority. The fcc doesn't exist in a vacuum but within the broader political battles taking place in government.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

re:Republic Wireless Officially Unveils $19/Month Service: Unlim

Now here is a truly disruptive plan that could make cell providers sit up and take notice. And this is using bandwidth.com(used by Google Voice) and Sprint to provide the underlying infrastructure. Anyone looking for voice, text, & data and a very low price and on a smartphone should check it out.

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Re: re:Republic Wireless Officially Unveils $19/Month Service: U

said by FFH5:

Now here is a truly disruptive plan that could make cell providers sit up and take notice.

I'm sure they'll be watching it closely. As for how disruptive it'll be: Hard to say. You'd be surprised how often WiFi is not available. Take it from somebody who has a WiFi-only tablet.

said by FFH5:

Anyone looking for voice, text, & data and a very low price and on a smartphone should check it out.

I may. At $200 down and $20/mo. I could probably justify it for the sake of experimentation, but I have my doubts.

I wonder... I wonder if it'll work in Europe and elsewhere, on WiFi?

Jim

HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

Re: re:Republic Wireless Officially Unveils $19/Month Service: U

said by jseymour:

said by FFH5:

Now here is a truly disruptive plan that could make cell providers sit up and take notice.

I'm sure they'll be watching it closely. As for how disruptive it'll be: Hard to say. You'd be surprised how often WiFi is not available. Take it from somebody who has a WiFi-only tablet.

said by FFH5:

Anyone looking for voice, text, & data and a very low price and on a smartphone should check it out.

I may. At $200 down and $20/mo. I could probably justify it for the sake of experimentation, but I have my doubts.

I wonder... I wonder if it'll work in Europe and elsewhere, on WiFi?

Jim

Read the article, for a limited time it's $99 down
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Re: re:Republic Wireless Officially Unveils $19/Month Service: U

said by HotRodFoto:

Read the article, for a limited time it's $99 down

I read the article. I never base my costing plans on "for a limited time" or "introductory pricing" things.

Jim