Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/4/2015 5:13:49 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JennyDevine
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have not yet decided if I'm for or against "net neutrality." On it's face, sure, it sounds great. But, as we've all seen, the Devil is in the details, and I have yet to look into the details.
But, this path I'm on has gone on to speak about the utter lack of competition in your area.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/dont-blame-comcast-and-time-warner-for-cable-monopolies-20140305/

Sorry DS, both links are untrue when it comes to net-neutrality. One passes the buck to local govt. where now with 'ComWarner' or whatever...where are they supposed to go for competition ?
The other link trying to suggest this is Orwellian is more accurate because of the megamerger not because of the FTC ruling. The feds don't protect the market, leaving no alternative for the locals and the monopoly will rule the news, media and do the brainwashing...in cable.
We'll see prices for cable go up now with it. ($1 million for rights is less than peanuts)
Plus being about cable and not the Internet doesn't apply because the Internet is open to much wider competition if ALL levels of govt. refrain from being bought by the richest and seek oligopoly control.[/b

You're going to give government control over the internet, even though you believe government is for sale to the highest bidder (which I'm not disagreeing with)?!?

Yep, otherwise the biggies will have carte blanche to rape us some more. If Google can do the major cities for $25/mo. that will be a real blow for competition, even though it will be a few years.
Nothing the govt. did here will stop that or anyone else from coming in at less than the fucking $87/mo I am paying now for semi-slow shit from Cox.


Doesn't Cox have a government sanctioned near monopoly?!? How is it that government's answer is to add more regulation, rather than rolling things back so competition can come into the picture?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to JennyDevine)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/4/2015 9:39:14 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		[/quote]

Doesn't Cox have a government sanctioned near monopoly?!? How is it that government's answer is to add more regulation, rather than rolling things back so competition can come into the picture?

[/quote]

Government sanctioned is not the term I would use. Government allowed might be more the ticket as Comcast had gobbled up so many smaller cable companies they have the biggest footprint for sure. In many areas; yes a monopoly. But that is for cable television.

What is significant about classing internet service as a "common carrier" issue means that the FCC can enforce "net neutrality" and equal access to the last mile lines on the "common carrier" basis. i.e. You can get Earthlink cable modem service to your home and Comcast has to provide access to their last mile cable. Previously, Comcast would only allow their own internet service where they owned the last mile cable.

Personally I have mixed feelings on FCC regulating internet service as a common carrier but I will admit that it may prove to be a much better bargain for the end users. Only time will tell. Will it provide for increased competition?
The U.S. actually pays higher rates for internet service than most industrial countries and the providers have used the excuse of having to provide much more connection cable than European countries.
With the FCC regulating as a common carrier; large companies should no longer be able to block implementation of municipal internet service. The model used in Hampton, Virginia would be viable for many a small community with free wireless internet offered and paid for by advertising dollars.
Now the common carrier provision would apply to proprietary fiber optic networks as AT&T and Verizon have been installing in select markets. I'm sure that corporate boards are gnashing their teeth at having the FCC able to set tariff rates for third party providers using their networks.

A mixed bag of political fish bait. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out in the end.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 4:02:22 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Yes they sure as hell are making the rules.. which is why cities in 18 states cant set up their own community internet.. cuz the Comcasts have lobbied state govts making it illegal for cities to do that..


Whoops. Government regulation at it's finest, no?


only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it.. its the tail wagging the dog..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 4:32:22 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JennyDevine
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have not yet decided if I'm for or against "net neutrality." On it's face, sure, it sounds great. But, as we've all seen, the Devil is in the details, and I have yet to look into the details.
But, this path I'm on has gone on to speak about the utter lack of competition in your area.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/dont-blame-comcast-and-time-warner-for-cable-monopolies-20140305/

Sorry DS, both links are untrue when it comes to net-neutrality. One passes the buck to local govt. where now with 'ComWarner' or whatever...where are they supposed to go for competition ?
The other link trying to suggest this is Orwellian is more accurate because of the megamerger not because of the FTC ruling. The feds don't protect the market, leaving no alternative for the locals and the monopoly will rule the news, media and do the brainwashing...in cable.
We'll see prices for cable go up now with it. ($1 million for rights is less than peanuts)
Plus being about cable and not the Internet doesn't apply because the Internet is open to much wider competition if ALL levels of govt. refrain from being bought by the richest and seek oligopoly control.

You're going to give government control over the internet, even though you believe government is for sale to the highest bidder (which I'm not disagreeing with)?!?

Yep, otherwise the biggies will have carte blanche to rape us some more. If Google can do the major cities for $25/mo. that will be a real blow for competition, even though it will be a few years.
Nothing the govt. did here will stop that or anyone else from coming in at less than the fucking $87/mo I am paying now for semi-slow shit from Cox.


Doesn't Cox have a government sanctioned near monopoly?!? How is it that government's answer is to add more regulation, rather than rolling things back so competition can come into the picture?


Again, per the OP, my understanding of the FTC ruling is, it does not add any regulations. It merely sets the regime under which it 'could be' regulated.

As for Cox and my local Internet...the competition either uses 'follow-the-leader pricing' (CLink) or must use Cox WiFi infrastructure...Dish, and DirectTV being the three major players. So...they all charge the same. Don't know about JD's.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/5/2015 4:35:39 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 5:37:44 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Yes they sure as hell are making the rules.. which is why cities in 18 states cant set up their own community internet.. cuz the Comcasts have lobbied state govts making it illegal for cities to do that..

Whoops. Government regulation at it's finest, no?

only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it.. its the tail wagging the dog..


"only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it" = "yes"






_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 5:44:07 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Again, per the OP, my understanding of the FTC ruling is, it does not add any regulations. It merely sets the regime under which it 'could be' regulated.
As for Cox and my local Internet...the competition either uses 'follow-the-leader pricing' (CLink) or must use Cox WiFi infrastructure...Dish, and DirectTV being the three major players. So...they all charge the same. Don't know about JD's.


My point was that the reason there aren't a lot of companies competing and keeping prices down is because of government "gifts" to Comcast, CLink, etc. Now, to make up for all the gifting of near monopolies, they have to make new laws to prevent it. That's pretty fucked up, imo


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 6:29:26 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Again, per the OP, my understanding of the FTC ruling is, it does not add any regulations. It merely sets the regime under which it 'could be' regulated.
As for Cox and my local Internet...the competition either uses 'follow-the-leader pricing' (CLink) or must use Cox WiFi infrastructure...Dish, and DirectTV being the three major players. So...they all charge the same. Don't know about JD's.


My point was that the reason there aren't a lot of companies competing and keeping prices down is because of government "gifts" to Comcast, CLink, etc. Now, to make up for all the gifting of near monopolies, they have to make new laws to prevent it. That's pretty fucked up, imo


My understanding of the reason there is little competition is that of the lack of WiFi infrastructure. That's why the Google construction is very important.

To be an ISP, you must be able to have the hardware to handle every IP address (modem) that could seek a hookup with your network. That's takes a lot of equipment. The Comcasts, Coxs' and Time Warners' of the world didn't build it all, they acquired it from smaller dial up and WiFi networks over the years.

It was the national govt. that allowed that vast consolidation of networks across the country that then allowed them to dominate. While there are many ISP's, as far as I know they all rely upon the network of Comcast, Time Warner, ATT, Verizon etc. and they are all on this together and have no reason to compete against each other.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 6:37:45 PM   
KYsissy


Posts: 781
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline 		Fr,
Maybe this has been posted but what this ruling will do is allow Google access to the utility poles. This has been a major impediment to google fiber rolling out faster. This rule will bring in a major competitor who is willing to spend lots of money to upgrade the network. I just hope the FCC keeps a the hands off policy they are proclaiming.

_____________________________

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
Will Rogers, 1897-1935

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/5/2015 7:14:06 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy

Fr,
Maybe this has been posted but what this ruling will do is allow Google access to the utility poles. This has been a major impediment to google fiber rolling out faster. This rule will bring in a major competitor who is willing to spend lots of money to upgrade the network. I just hope the FCC keeps a the hands off policy they are proclaiming.

I see no reason to expect that they will.

(in reply to KYsissy)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/6/2015 8:36:01 AM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Yes they sure as hell are making the rules.. which is why cities in 18 states cant set up their own community internet.. cuz the Comcasts have lobbied state govts making it illegal for cities to do that..

Whoops. Government regulation at it's finest, no?

only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it.. its the tail wagging the dog..


"only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it" = "yes"


The govt is supposed to work for you, not corporations.. They should not be allowed to lobby for anything.. But these laws are only in certain states which restrict cities from setting up community internet, its the contracts that prevent competition and access for Google and others, its not govt regs that prevent that..


< Message edited by tj444 -- 3/6/2015 8:37:11 AM >

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/8/2015 2:00:19 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Yes they sure as hell are making the rules.. which is why cities in 18 states cant set up their own community internet.. cuz the Comcasts have lobbied state govts making it illegal for cities to do that..

Whoops. Government regulation at it's finest, no?

only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it.. its the tail wagging the dog..

"only cuz the Comcasts lobbied for it" = "yes"

The govt is supposed to work for you, not corporations.. They should not be allowed to lobby for anything.. But these laws are only in certain states which restrict cities from setting up community internet, its the contracts that prevent competition and access for Google and others, its not govt regs that prevent that..


It's still government action. Why can't Google access the telephone poles? Could it be government regulation?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/9/2015 6:58:30 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's still government action. Why can't Google access the telephone poles? Could it be government regulation?


Usually state government and sometimes local government as the poles are installed in a "public easement" or "utility corridor" (terms change from region to region).

Most areas where I have resided; the local government controls the easement where the utility poles are located. The ownership and maintenance burden for the poles and wired belongs to the company that installed the poles and may charge a tariff for other companies to use their poles.
Where I live; the electric company owns the poles and pays a fee (tax) for using a public easement where their poles are located. Then the power company charges the phone company and cable company for use of their poles. And, you better believe it, the companies pass on the cost of keeping up the infrastructure to their customers in their rate structure.

The sticking point for Google Fiber to access the poles in a given area is that existing users don't want to grant access to a competitor. With internet access classed as a type of public utility; it allows use of existing infrastructure by a common carrier at a reasonable tariff rate.
A bunch of gobbledygook terms that comes down to "nya nya you can't keep me out of the public park and Uncle Sam says you have to let me play ball".

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/9/2015 1:25:19 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's still government action. Why can't Google access the telephone poles? Could it be government regulation?

Usually state government and sometimes local government as the poles are installed in a "public easement" or "utility corridor" (terms change from region to region).
Most areas where I have resided; the local government controls the easement where the utility poles are located. The ownership and maintenance burden for the poles and wired belongs to the company that installed the poles and may charge a tariff for other companies to use their poles.
Where I live; the electric company owns the poles and pays a fee (tax) for using a public easement where their poles are located. Then the power company charges the phone company and cable company for use of their poles. And, you better believe it, the companies pass on the cost of keeping up the infrastructure to their customers in their rate structure.
The sticking point for Google Fiber to access the poles in a given area is that existing users don't want to grant access to a competitor. With internet access classed as a type of public utility; it allows use of existing infrastructure by a common carrier at a reasonable tariff rate.
A bunch of gobbledygook terms that comes down to "nya nya you can't keep me out of the public park and Uncle Sam says you have to let me play ball".


Who gets to define "reasonable tariff rate?" Shouldn't that be the market that makes that decision?

In your case (I think in most areas, it is the power company that owns the poles), why would the power company not want google to go up on their poles?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. - 3/9/2015 1:33:18 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		No, there is no 'market' capable of deciding anything.

Nobody wants google on their poles unless they are paying. Google got the internet and is in the poles already.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 94
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: FCC votes 3-2...Internet is a utility. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.102