28 Feb 2015 – The FCC Voted for Net Neutrality

Home Forums The Poll Discussion 28 Feb 2015 – The FCC Voted for Net Neutrality

This topic contains 7 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Christian Christian 2 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #3236
    Nick Francesco
    Nick Francesco

    The FCC has decided that Internet Service Providers are Title II providers, which means they have to obey the same rules as phone companies.




    I think this is a case of the FCC trying to solve a problem. The problem was the ISPs wanting to squeeze more money out of various users. That money, liked in all cases, would come out of the end user.

    So now, the FCC is going to step in and fix a system, a global system at that, which had been working OK. The ISPs are upset over the extra controls they have brought upon themselves.

    In my estimation, when the government gets involved, things get complicated, and the expense of controlling things gets passed on to the end user. And, down the road, the government is going to see this as additional source of revenue — and again that is eventually going be heaped on the end user.



    I agree completely with HotDawg.

    It all sounds good, but govt are, as we all know, masters at making things sound good, that actually are overwhelmingly “not.”

    Funny how it almost always works out that way.

    “Patriot Acts” and “Affordable Health Care” neither of which are patriotic or affordable.

    The Poll: I chose that I would wait and see. As stated, things are working just fine right now. And normally I’m about 99% against govt interference, however, we have a lot of stupid people/organizations on the planet that just beg for big brother to step in so as to stop that same stupidity (I could go on rants relating to pollution, toxic food additives, etc, but I’ll refrain).

    Again, govt will use this as a source of revenue, just like they do everything. The over-pasteurization of milk destroys its healthy enzymes and amino acids…all the govt need do is mandate a slightly lower temperature, that both preserves the healthy components while destroying the potentially harmful bacteria…but they, like so many people/organizations, are just more of the same “stupid.”

    So who knows what will happen. But I’d put money on it right now: It ultimately will negatively affect the end user. When does govt interference NOT?

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  ScreenScream.


    Anytime our government puts there dirty hands on something, I worry. Considering the government we have in place right now, it is even more of a concern.



    Government does very few things well at all. As ScreenScream mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was antipatriotic (by limiting essential rights, primarily but not limited to Amendment IV) and the PP&ACA turned out to be anything but affordable. All I can say is, ironically the Internet provides a much easier means (rather than say going to a library) of researching exactly what happened to get us in this mess to begin with, yet citizens still elect politicians who SOUND like they’re in the best interest of the citizens, but long term they really aren’t.

    Many economists relate that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, that they’re government-created, and that market solutions in virtually all cases are better. This is demonstrated fairly well by AT&T. After Bell’s patents expired, numerous competing phone companies sprang up in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. They had to provide the best services at the best prices in order to have the most customers. However, (primarily) AT&T President Theodore Newton Vail convinced the government that allowing all these competitors was duplication and hindered having nationwide phone services, and what was needed was one consistently built out phone system. Just look up/read up on the Kingsbury Commitment, and read how it sounded great that it should have controlled the extent of the AT&T monopoly, but had the exactly opposite effect of strengthening it. The exchange was being able to establish a government-sanctioned monopoly for being heavily regulated. But that didn’t help much because shortly after being established, competition dwindled and prices rose. So basically it was government mucking around with business which caused the problem in the first place, and now they’re trying more regulations to fix it.

    If there were healthy competition, any perceived poor service from any one ISP can be remedied by simply switching to a provider with better policies, services, and prices. But as-is, the typical choices are the telco and the cableco, and many would argue two choices (the supposed natural monopolies for phone and cable TV) is barely any choice at all.

    The pity is that like so much regulation and legislation, it’s framed in a way that sounds really good to large portions of the (voting) public (the Internet should be free (as in freedom,not cost) and unadulterated by the carriers), but they don’t go beyond politicians’ slogans and do research and long-term thinking. Then when things actually turn out to be worse, it’s often too late to undo what was done. Look at how long the phone monopoly has had a stranglehold on the public. It’s that phone system which provides one of the two major Internet connection methods (xDSL).



    I haven’t yet voted, still thinking, but leaning towards “I’ll wait & see”; I agree with everyone who has already posted here, & the broad sentiment seems to be mistrust of government. The pols will say anything but then do either nothing or the opposite of what they’ve said. In any case, we eventually get stuck with higher costs to pay the overhead for a new layer of administration.



    The government has been trying to establish the precedent for government control of the ‘net for a long time now.

    Government is not to be trusted.Mark my words; It won’t be too long before posting anti-government data or opinions is banned or censored in some way.


    Not much I can add. IMHO it makes sense for ISPs to be in the same class as other utilities, especially in light of Verizon v. FCC. Edit: they’ll now be classed as a ‘telecommunications service’ not an ‘information service’ which makes sense. An ISP provides a pipe; the data/information comes from elsewhere.

    I agree that the perceived free-market ISPs are actually the result of government action on behalf of those ISPs. Rather than advocate for the free market, most industries lobby for favorable government intervention (e.g. the DMCA, laws granting exclusive rights to provide cable or phone service to a single company). While a pure market solution might be desirable in theory, as long as there is going to be regulations of some type, there might as well be some that favor the consumer. I hope they don’t screw it up.

    Regarding internet content, ISPs don’t (or shouldn’t) have anything to do with that, so this doesn’t have anything to do with it. The US is the only country without any form of mandated internet content blocking and I hope it stays that way. In fact, making ISPs semi-public could be one way to ensure it, since free speech applies more strictly to the government than private enterprise. For example, “speech codes” at public universities have been struck down every time they’ve been challenged in court, and a major factor was that free speech cannot be restricted on public property. Of course, there’s other ways to restrict content than the ISP level:

    ScreenScream, I buy raw milk.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.