What do you think about that ? Not being content with a gvt takeover of healthcare ,he now wants to turn the internet into a public utility . He sees a problem in the internet and as usual thinks only the government can fix it . Oh and btw ...he won't wait for Congressional action. He instead will reclassify the net as a utility subject to the regulatory control of the FCC. Not to worry . The emperor assures us that if we like our internet provider we can keep our ISP .

Not a valid interpretation of what he did. In fact, his announcement was to protect the freedom of the Internet. He took this action to prevent cable companies from giving preference to certain content. The idea being that a 500mg file from site A would take approximately the same time to download as a 500mg file from Site B. The regulation that he asked of the FCC was to insure that this "Net Neutrality" is maintained and no content providers given preference over others.

It's OK Tom there isn't a red under every bed. Obama is correct to prevent the use of monopolistic power and keep the internet open, there should be more of it

The FCC has no business in regulating the internet other then the frequecies that are used to transmit the product over the airwaves. If the FCC gets its fingers into it then look out because they will seek to censor the internet.

That's the whole point of net neutrality!

the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.The emperor lusts for the power over the net that the Chinese have.

The whole point is to prevent censorship by large monopolies that provide internet service.

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)


Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle) that Internet service providers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider) and governments should treat all data on the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University)media law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_law) professor Tim Wu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu) in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-kraemer-def-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-berners-lee-def-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-nn-for-google-users-4)Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards) allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-5) A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards), artificially degrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping) some services, or explicitly filter out content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship).

Of course it doesn't help the debate if you have a mistrust of government, which while I can understand, I wouldn't trust the large cable providers to play by the rules either. Didn't the banks, and oil companies teach you that?


A number of net neutrality interest groups have emerged, including SaveTheInternet.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_Internet) which frames net neutrality as an absence of discrimination, saying it ensures Internet providers cannot block, speed up, or slow down content on the basis of who owns it, where it came from, or where it's going. It helps create the situation where any site on the Internet could potentially reach an audience as large as that of a TV or radio station, and its loss would mean the end for this level of freedom of expression.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-savetheinternet.com-30)

So if you are defending the rights of providers to discriminate and limit access of data, then that's a form of censorship wouldn't you agree?

Chairman Wheeler's Stmt on President Obama's Stmt On Open Internet | FCC.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheelers-stmt-president-obamas-stmt-open-internet)

Tom trusts corporations, he doesn't trust government. He has made it abundantly clear he thinks money should rule and make our decisions for us, after all capitalists have brought us the benefit and dignity of unemployment, the export of industries, the collapse of the financial system

Thats not the whole point of net neutrality. The point of net neutrality is a busines model. It is not about censorship. It is about trying to take over what is suppose to be equal and segment it into a captive audiance.

This is something that should be handled by the internet commision and not the government. They have the power to revoke the IP slots for major ISP's and if they do that the whole ISP goes down. Most ISP's wouldnt chance it. It would mean the end for them if their online access is revoked. By allowing the FCC into it you will shut it down.

It works great here in China. There is no porn, there is no complaints about the government, so all we read is how wonderful and happy life is here.

Marvellous you live in a socialist utopia and like it and are bored out of your brain

in the emperor's perfect world that is exactly how it would work. They have already floated the "fairness doctrine " as a threat to any regular media that doesn't toe the line . They have in a few cases went to direct intimidation of individual reporters .

Take away the threat of free speech from "pajama people" and life is good.

The added bonus is that it opens a whole new avenue for the taxing authority for the leviathan .

Tal you are being disengenuous . Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .

the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.The complete opposite. Where the hell do you get your news from??
Obama is on the right track here.

Para, I saw the sarcasm in Chuck's response, didn't you?


Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .

There is a reason for this. Wiring an area is expensive. If the cable companies were not assured of a virtual monopoly, they would not have made the investment. The other way to go would have been for government to fund the wiring and lease it to content providers. In your ideal of a free market, companies would only invest where there is the opportunity for profit. In the case of cable, the opportunity for profit only exists if there is a control on competition.

Of course I understand irony amd sarcasm, but either way China is not a shinning example of anything. Look they have agreed to cap their emissions by 2030 which basically means they expect their economy to downturn around about then, it is a nothing promise and all this idea that capitalists have to have a monopoly to invest is a nothing promise too. Utilities in any form compete and they will make investments it is just that they are not going to rush in the less profitable markets unless government makes it convenient. Either you have a market mechanism or you don't. Sooner or later the poles and wires business will go the way of the dinosaur, it is just a matter of time and in the case of cable a question of available spectrum

Scott that was the same excuse they used for decades of monopoly by Ma Bell. We suffered over priced services for years until the market was opened up.

That's right tom, it was a natural monopoly. The government came to the rescue of the consumer by allowing interconnection. That was before big biz started owning politicians.

I get it that you love government sanctioned monopolies.

I said the exact opposite. I like that the government broke up the monopoly. In the same vein that I like the fact that the government is preventing the wire owners from screwing the consumers in this net neutrality issue.

Scott that was the same excuse they used for decades of monopoly by Ma Bell. We suffered over priced services for years until the market was opened up.

Its not an excuse, it's a fact of life. The monopoly was broken up because the investment had been recouped by that time. In the case of cable entertainment, technology advances have allowed for competition (i.e. Satellite, use of already installed phone lines).

So let me ask you. Lets say you have a product to sell. But for consumers to use that product, you have to make a significant investment in infrastructure. Would you make that investment if others could use your infrastructure to sell their competing product without compensating you?

I don't believe in monopolies. That doesn't mean that other competing companies gets a free ride either . I would charge them a fee for the access. Transmission lines for electicity was strung all over the country . The power company here at least is forced to carry electricity generated by other providers ,especially so called 'green ' energy producers . But providers of the net are not subject to a single transmission vehicle . You can get your service through fiber optic lines ,through your cable provider ,by satt .etc. The service I use does not own the phone line to my modem.

The problem is that the US (and by some extent Canada as well) does not have true competition in the internet access field. Let to their own devices the handful of providers would (and do) collude to offer less services for higher fees. An example of this is their wanting to mess with net neutrality to further increase their revenues.

or maybe companies like Netflix wants to demand unlimted capacity without having to pay for that capacity . Makes for a great business model when someone else invested in the infrastructure that makes your business run.

Yes I agree there is a gray area here whereas one application uses up a larger percentage of the available bandwidth. There hasn't been any proof yet that users are experiencing a degradation of service due to Netflix's success. But it's no reason to instituted a tiered approach for access to different kinds of content.

so then if that is so,who exactly is complaining about access ? I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem . The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back. It has been one of the most innovative industries in recent decades exactly because the major companies have put the investment into the infrastructure that makes the industry work.
I don't see a problem with startups paying to piggy-back on that ;and they should indeed pay based on their usage . That would be the fair solution.

You keep going back and forth between a business model for carriers, and providers, but ignore the consumer in this deal. Don't they at least deserve a minimum requirement of service for their payments? Of service choices? The FCC can only set a standard for that requirement no matter the lease agreements between carriers and providers, very similar to what the regulations are between utility company providers and carriers.

You can blur the lines between them all you want but the reality is that the consumer is the one who returns investments from revenue. You either are for an open internet with no technical censorship,or you want the internet to sell a product that makes profit for less censorship.

The law has to keep up with the technology, whether you like laws or not. An example of the form of censorship you are facing is a boss firing you for content you post on Facebook, or even making your Facebook accessible to the company as a requirement for employment. If they can circumvent your right to privacy, what makes you think they wouldn't use censorship to drive more revenue streams through a tiered system of access to content, data, and information?

Make ISP's and carriers, under one umbrella, telecommunications, and protect consumers rights to no censorships, at a minimum. They can pay for more movies channel bundles, but NOT data and content. You are against monopolies Tom, but there can be NO competition unless you have a level playing field for the smaller competitors.

It may not fix the broken business model manipulated by larger businesses, but does set a minimum standard that CONSUMERS don't get raped by.

You have never been for consumers though have you?

I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem . You are correct.

The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back.Again correct. The problem today in the U.S. is that the oligopoly of internet access businesses are trying to mess with that. The government regulation to keep the status quo. You really need to read up on this subject, you're all over the map.

monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other means. .I contend that the very providers that people are complaining about (the oligopoly ) is already a defacto gpvernment supported monopoly . The pols give the absurd argument that natural monopolies exist because it would be too inconvenient to duplicate the infrastructure . That is nonsense .
Tal the cable companies you are complaining about could not operate under their model except that the governement allows them exclusive territory of operation. I guarantee that even as few as 2 or 3 competing for the business would greatly benefit the consumer because they would not get away with their packaging policies. They can belly ache about duplication of infrastructure all they want to .It would be better that our utility poles to have 2 or 3 cable lines snaking through our communities than for us to be hostage to their service .Service would be better and cheaper just due to the increase in the option. The level playing field you seek is the free market.

LOL, government never stopped the investors from creating cable companies or running lines or even leasing their uses to others Tom, nor did it stop bigger companies from expanding by gobbling up smaller ones creating the monopolies. My own ISP included. No doubt yours either.

As you have done many times before, bellyache about regulations and then use the free market capitalists system to justify screwing consumers and minimize the demand in the supply and demand business equation. That's the BROKEN business model that favors profits before people, and subjects ordinary people to less service for a higher fee.

The free market ain't free, it's manipulated, but you are free to worship it all the same.

monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other meansThere you are wrong. Monopolies exist for several reasons, some being a natural monopoly and another being collusion among businesses that result in an oligopoly. The situation here is a little of both.

Natural monopolies do not exist by definition without government approval . That's why they started the so called public utility system in the 1st place. I see no benefit at all in natural monopolies.
I'll let Uncle Miltie explain the rest .
Milton Friedman - Monopoly - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU)

"Corporations own the government .They need to be regulated" "by whom " ? "BY THE GOVERNMENT " lol

I know that you have a constant need to bash anything that has to do with the government, especially when a liberal one is power, but you've proven that you've lost any objectivity in these matters. In this case the government is going to bat for you, the consumer. You don't like monopolies, no one does, is it good when the government breaks them up?

yes of course ;especially the ones that have grown "too big to fail " because of their relationship with the government . The breakup of Ma Bell was a great move by the government on behalf of the consumer . But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqgmUURct4I

But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .Ok, so?

AT&T Divestiture - What Killed Ma Bell? by Melvin D. Barger (http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/whatkilledmabell.html)

Ma Bell is back. Should you be afraid? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/01/bellwether.html)


The enduring danger is that AT&T will instead be the evil giant who uses its power to mess with everything attached to the AT&T system. Today, that would mean messing with search engines, slowing down your cousin's blog, degrading YouTube or voice-over-IP, and so on. Guarding against those dangers are the milestone network-neutrality rules—the most important rules the FCC has made AT&T agree to. But those rules will last only two years, and it is now clear that Congress needs to make those rules into enduring law.

Thought I would dig these out before Tom blathers about the free market and unspecified government regulations... AGAIN!

Weird, Tom must learn to live in the present

the present is government nationalization of industry . no thanks .

Many nations have lived through such eras Tom, but nationalisation in the US, well it is hardly widespread

Rules and guidelines (Okay... REGULATIONS) are hardly nationalization of industry. Given the profit motive of private business, why can't consumer interests be served while those profits are being made?

Because capitalists want super profits

who says consumer's interests aren't being served now ? What site can you not log onto ?

Until you educate yourself this conversation is over. You sound very ignorant on the whole subject.

The pot calling the kettle black again we always know when you run out of constructive argument Karma

Ask me any questions on the subject clete. I work in this field.

that's alright . Didn't really want a conversation with you anyway. If you mean I am ignorant because I don't agree that greedy capitalists are ruining the net and the heavy hand of government is the solution then indeed we have nothing more to say .

Control of the Net is but a small part of the overall puzzle of profit seeking capitalists. A capitalist who isn't greedy is like saying a snake won't bite. They both do what they do.

I think that snake analogy should reflect the nature of capitalists as a python, squeezing the life out of the economy

ummm no . The fall out has begun. Investment by providers is taking a pause .

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,"
AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-at-t-regulations-internet-idUSKCN0IW1JC20141112)

Cisco says the same thing. My answer is: don't care.

AT&T, whose $48.5 billion bid for DirecTV (DTV.O (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=DTV.O)) is under government review, said on Friday that it would also pay $1.7 billion to acquire Mexican wireless operator Iusacell. It trimmed its 2015 capital spending outlook to $18 billion from $21 billion.

So after buying its wireless and satellite competitors out for $50 billion bucks, Ma Bell willchill its expansion by 3 billion next year.


At the same conference on Wednesday, Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=VZ.N)) Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo struck a somewhat lighter tone but also said the FCC could restrict "paid prioritization" deals, where content companies pay for faster downloads of some websites or applications, without pursuing utility-style regulations.

Still no definitions of the regulations they feel hurt them. Its always soaring rhetoric followed by regulations. Well which ones? And what the hell is utility style regulations?

Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is. Or the country he hides his money in that he never pays taxes on.

Poor AT&T.

And what the hell is utility style regulations? 1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.
You want the nation to have a network of fiber optics ... you expect the industry to construct the infrastructure ,and then you want to screw them so that you can get your Netflix cheap. (while they conversly absorb up to 40% of the entire commercial internet virtually for free, after paying only a small flat fee. )
But then again ,Netflix and other Silicon Valley companies are huge Dem donors ...so of course they are doing their share of 'rent seeking " in return . The Dem liberal cronyism machine at it's best. Title II will be a defacto government price setting . Hugo Chavez is smiling from his grave .

“The growth of the Internet and the rapid adoption of mobile technology have been great American success stories, made possible by a light regulatory touch,” “This approach has freed innovators to develop and sell the products people want—and create jobs in the process—without waiting around for government permission.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell

You worry about consumers . Let me ask you .....do you pay more for higher speed access ? Of course you do . It's logical you should .It's your choice . No one is forcing you to buy that modem .
But under your system,if I'm a Verizon customer and don't use Netflix ,Youtube ,or other high usage streamers ,then I have to subsidize other users with my fees for usage. (oh wait ,you don't think those "greedy "providers won't pass on the costs ? You are full of contradictions . )Ask yourself why should ratepayers absorb the transmission costs of companies like Netflix if they don't use the service ?


Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is. Or Warren Buffett who complains his taxes are too low and then doesn't pay them at all.

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US? (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383)

You already pay the highest access rates in the world for the lowest bandwidth.

exactly my point .

"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.
Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.




And what the hell is utility style regulations?



1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.

Show me how a private enterprise is prevented by the government from building a network from scratch to compete with the big boys. Links to regulations would be great.

You want the regs for every municipality in the country ? The fact is that many municipalities have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom and cable providers . As an example ;for NY, it's cable provider is exclusivelyTime-Warner . With kickbacks and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo. So yes if you looked at the US as a whole you would think there is plenty of competititon. But the truth is that exclusive franchising is written into local laws .

Nah, it's not. It's a combination of those kickbacks, industry collusion, and just plain overwhelming barriers to entry. It's right for the gov to protect their citizens from predatory practices.

You want the regs for every municipality in the country ? The fact is that many municipalities have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom and cable providers . As an example ;for NY, it's cable provider is exclusivelyTime-Warner . With kickbacks and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo. So yes if you looked at the US as a whole you would think there is plenty of competititon. But the truth is that exclusive franchising is written into local laws .

Must be wonderful to live in a "free" country

aint nothing 'free ' about living here in the people's Republic of NY .

Well leave but you think things are bad wait until the illadvised TPP is in place

Well that's a subject worthy of it's own OP ...but here it is :
TPP is a free trade agreement considered the “cornerstone of the Obama Administration's economic policy in the Asia Pacific,” that is neither about trade nor freedom . Would you expect anything else from the emperor ? The mouth piece of the adm ,the NY Slimes endorses it... so that raises my warning radar right there .

The fact that it is on 'fast track' and is being negotiated in secret is another reason for alarm. Although it is called a “free trade” agreement, the TPP is not really mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 points , only 5 deal with trade issues. Most would set rules on non-trade matters that affect our daily lives ie food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation etc. It's about bigger government, stricter laws, and less accountability.Our domestic policies would be required to comply with the TPP rules.

The kicker is that we already have trade agreements with 6 of the nations in the group . The only one of any major economy that we don't have an agreement with is Japan. The other 4 nations have economies the size of Pennsylvania combined.

The emperor plans on using the unconstitutional procedure called 'Fast Tracking ;'(which expired in 2007),to bypass much of Congressional authority regarding powers to pass trade treaties(The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur).
In fairness ,this has been the defacto means of getting trade agreements passed since Nixon. Regardless ,Fast Tracking should not be renewed ,and any treaty the emperor makes using it should be challenged and declared unconstitutional .

Now if the emperor were to submit this to the Senate under the 2/3 rule ,he possibly could get it passed anyway. The Dems still hold the majority through the end of the year ,and I suspect there are enough Repubics willing to surrender sovereignty to international authority .
It's very simple ......if you want real free trade ,make reciprocal agreements to lower tariffs. That doesn't take a 29 point agreement to accomplish.

We can agree on the prudence of examining TPP more diligently, but since repubs have the Senate, fast tracking is up to them isn't it? I mean if they holler about everything else the Prez has wanted, why aren't they hollering now?

Just asking.

I believe I addressed that in my comment . and I suspect there are enough Repubics willing to surrender sovereignty to international authority .

Big statist crony socialism is the only thing bipartisan in Washington

You mean to say Tom there is a trade agreement where america doesn't come out on top and bleed everyoneelse, but you initiated your buy in to this agreement, you wanted in, like there was a market you didn't control and you couldn't keep your grimey hands off it or just maybe you wanted to beat China

I told it like it is . It may be an agreement ;but most of it is not about trade . Nor is it free trade. It is big government imposing itself in the market . Let me ask you ;why is your country involved ?
On this issue here there is bi-partisan opposition.

Radical lefty Sen Elizabeth Warren said :
“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

Tea Party conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul have also voiced opposition to 'Obamatrade ' . Unfortunately I think the Repubic beltway majority will allow a fast track.

Why is my country involved? Why wouldn't we be involved, one of our major trading partners is involved and yet we are a small nation linking with other SMALL nations, why is your country involved? To dominate markets?

Tell me Tom why is Obama touting climate change? Kowtowing to China now? We have an independent point of view and yet we are not allowed to have it, we must be pushed back into the fold but if we take a leaf out of america's book we will promise everything and deliver nothing and china is allowed to go on polluting without even a whimper

the last thing you should do is ask me to defend the emperor . His climate agreement with China is absurd. It's like the Popeye character Wimpy .
hamburger - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA)

We have to produce immediate results and China ......some time in the future.

the last thing you should do is ask me to defend the emperorThat's why you are a fanatic and all your comments are tainted with fanaticism.

Fanatical | Define Fanatical at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatical)

glad you are sticking to the issue instead of cheap seat Ad hominem

China was doing nothing before, but now they have agreed to try, and that's a step in the right direction as we have seen many countries commit to carbon reduction, and exceed goals once they got the ball rolling. I find it interesting those that decry the Chinese agreement also obstruct the presidents effort here at home too, and even push for more dirty stuff to be brought here from Canada and refined and sold to the world markets with no benefit to American reserves, supplies, or even prices.

I am not even sure at this point if the TPP countries involved are all in with this deal, just the rich guys who will benefit from it are pushing it.

cheap seat Ad hominemYou mean like using "emperor" all the time?
BTW you went off your own OP topic LOL.

so Tal what side do you come down on ? The emperor and his fellow crony socialists ,or Democrats like Elizabeth Warren (even Harry Reid opposed it ) .

As for China ,talk is cheap ... The US corporations have already done a good job at pollution reductions . What the emperor is committing us to is standards that only we will comply with while China makes empty promises to comply at a future date . Listen again to what was said ... The emperor pledged additional reductions to up to 28% in the next decade . In contrast Xi Jinping, did not pledge any reductions but instead set a target for China’s emissions to peak by 2030.

I am for process and procedure Tom, not fast tracking mystery legislation, nor subsidized companies making profits without the risks, and bearing responsibilities, while they pass costs onto consumers, and write off the losses.

That requires rules and regulations, fair to consumers and business and all the people. FAIR markets not the scam of free markets.

We will see what Chinas learning curve is despite the apparent wiggle room, as we know we can't make China do a damn thing in the first place. If they want to choke on their own atmosphere who gives a rat's patoot! But fact is if you look at the way the Earth spins, others are adversely affected too!

Simple SCIENCE.

nor subsidized companies making profits without the risks, and bearing responsibilities, while they pass costs onto consumers,
you see...that's where your side don't get it . Corporations are owners ,workers share like Solyndra ?Like Ivanpah ,owned by Goggle ,among other corporations favored by the emperor ? You know the company that is asking for a $540 million grant to pay off their $1.6 billion Federal loan ?

Can 1 Power Plant Clean Up Coal and Make Money? - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-1-power-plant-clean-up-coal-and-make-money/)


Gas prices are too low right now in the United States for many places to meet that criterion, he said. And many other countries that have a similar type of coal that in theory could use Kemper's gasification technology may not have the financial resources to consider a similar facility, he said. The Southern Co. plant benefited from $270 million in Department of Energy funding.

INVESTMENT TOM!

I have some thoughts on the matter that the elders of AMHD may or may not find interesting. I would like to clarify, I am not taking sides or following the big business branch the conversation has since taken.

First of all lets assess the OP. Obama wants to turn the internet into a public utility, in reality he has sent out a message to the FCC "urging" them to reclassify the internet, under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf), as a public utility, much like other telecommunications companies. Currently it is classified under Title I which governs information exchange, which according to the New York Times, "the Internet had a better chance to thrive if broadband were classified as an 'information service.' (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/obama-and-scalia-united-on-broadband-as-a-utility/?_r=0)" This also allows it to be loosely regulated, regulation on information services borders on infringing on free speech. Where as Title II deals with the carriers rather than the information carried.

I would like to point out here, that the FCC has broken types of information to be carried, down into classes such as, but not limited to "day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government" thus applying charges "just and reasonable" as seen fit, and written in a way that the list is not all inclusive. Furthermore, it is written in that the FCC can request "physical connections" be made among carriers to other carriers as seen fit to the public interest. This also specifies that carriers will not be forced to force general circulation without a nominal charge. It is however written in such a way that it is very open ended so that the "Commissioner may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest."

It also covers both wire and radio services, not limiting the communication to one type of media, which with fiber and other advances are sure to be specified. On the consumer end it also protects our rights in that it ensures no "unreasonable... preference or advantage" against any type or class of person or any type of locality by any device or means. I might mention that Google (especially YouTube) in Oklahoma City sucks due to high bandwidth requests being unfulfilled.

It also calls for open books among the carriers so that its costs may be assessed by the public and the FCC itself. It also calls for review by the FCC for new costs and charges among providers. This also allows the FCC to prescribe just and reasonable charges overriding the companies themselves.

The rest of Title II deals with recovery of damages, complaints against the commission, liability, paperwork, securities, property of the carriers, etc. There is a clause that deals with laying new lines, in that carriers must first inquire the commission for using other existing lines or laying new ones, to be in the public interest and some exceptions for emergency situations. The following hundred pages or so deal with telephone specific regulations and equipment regulation among providers.

Currently ISP's are only regulated by Title I as said before, which deal mostly with the organization of the FCC itself, the basic rights that none shall be discriminated against, and the dissemination of AT&T itself. It also deals with fee schedules, and budgets of the FCC etc.

Not a bad idea in my opinion, broadband in the U.S. is overpriced and with low quality at that. ISP's (carriers) would no longer be able to slow traffic based on content or random urges, rather only offer what is fair and just to all. But this is neither here nor there. Moving on past the legal bs...

Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T all complain about the idea; Comcast particularly citing section 706 that in times of war, the president can have a "Preference with any carrier he chooses." They all cite an open internet, however they are more than willing to have you pay for such services, provided you pay whatever they are asking, deal with their advertising campaigns, and comply with their own individual "Fairness" policies. The rest of the time they screw you, and don't think twice about it.

A lot of the fuss is surrounding the mobile market. The bandwidth over the mobile waves is significantly limited compared to the wired systems, needless to say the new systems that are up and coming. The FCC is currently working on a "hybrid" legal approach that encompasses the now and later without overlaying on one individual market.

Net Neutrality is not an entirely different concept. In 2003 Tim Wu came up with the idea as an extension of the "Common Carrier" principle discussed previously. It does guarantee some more rights, but that is the whole issue being debated right now. It focuses on equal treatment of data without any specification as where it is from. Fantastic idea except where it can be abused, again where the FCC's policies of classification come in handy, maybe with a more revised modern version that may or may not exclude day and night usage, etc. As of April the FCC was considering a new set of specifications that would target ISP's traffic directly. I guess the biggest hit would be to the ISP's. They would have a legal duty to not sell their own services but rather treat all services equally.

There are always loopholes of course and Verizon has warned that there will still be "fast lanes" of traffic for certain content, but the FCC specifies that to be for emergency channels (911 calls, real time medical information transfers, etc.) Of course a business will receive a higher class than me, I don't pay as much for the bandwidth, nor can I justifiably use as much. Their biggest complaint is that there will still be fast lanes. So doing nothing is better?

I'm not a huge fan of regulation, but the idea that it should only fall into the hands of the select few giants is not my idea of success either.

Anyway... my own ideas of potential laws that would support many sides of the Rubik's cube.

In the old days the world had "Internet Nodes" now called "Exchange Points" or "Principle Data Routes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone)" that handled much of the internet traffic (Beginning with ARPA). They hosted millions of sub-networks that in turn provided and used bandwidth on a cost per unit basis. In turn the nodes allocated bandwidth to other nodes on a quid pro quo basis; they offered and used more or less equal bandwidth. The costal carriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_communications_cable#TAT_cable_route s) began collaborating with other international telecom companies to lay cable across the Atlantic and eventually around the world (http://www.submarinecablemap.com/).

I think the internet should be offered among carriers and on a quid pro quo basis. This would create a new market for bandwidth on the upload and download markets. Netflix and Amazon would have to team up with consumer carriers to balance the upload and download streams. You may find some of the commercial giants venturing into their own telecom companies much like Google has in recent history.

Furthermore, is there any reason why the internet cannot be more or less free for consumers. Google Fiber (https://fiber.google.com/about2/) offers free internet, you pay to have it set up, it pays their costs, and you now have some of the best internet in the world. Users who are classified as business, organizational, educational, etc.(according to the FCC classifications), would have to offer a peer to peer exchange of data, major network contribution (much like the first T1 lines in the old days), or pay a premium that offsets the costs for providers.

Another applicable idea I think could dominate a new internet would be pure peer to peer networking across very complex virtual sub-networking. There are many paths on the network, an many routes that may be taken in any given request. I propose a virtual encrypted network that would lie within the bandwidth and storage of any connected device, modeled after the torrent protocols. Everyone receiving and contributing little chunks of information to the greater whole. As an extension of this idea all modems on the utility network would be required to offer an open hotspot or wired repeater for the surrounding area, a private and public network application which has proven safe to enterprise scale networks. I believe Bright House/Time Warner already do this in some areas.

These principles would not only reduce load on any one given provider (increasing competition/reducing demand/increasing supply/lowering costs) would also cause immediate growth, you now reduce load on all forms of communication, especially with the advent of smart devices that understand the TCP/IP protocols. Even antiquated devices would be easily adaptable to such a network.

Going on a limb, an idea I read in a book once, was cellular devices that piggy backed off each other creating an adaptive network of their own. Sharing bandwidth and broadcasting costs among the subscribers to minimize dead-zones and load. Newer and older technologies including all forms of optical, radio, and copper, could be adapted in such a way that everything shares the whole internet equally, more or less.

I wanted to post a couple of days ago before everyone had been sidetracked and arguing different topics, but it took a little while to put this together with my work schedule.

Thanks for listening to my rant guys.

One sure way to kill a debate is to post a page at a time

II thought it was a refreshing change from the opinionated babble generally spewed here. Sorry you couldn't keep up. I totally agree with why leave the rules up to the companies?

"mazing" way your mind works, for a socialist that is. Tal the point of government is to regulate, the point of enterprise is to innovate and invest, government should only get involved in infurstructure when the market won't take the risk or the capital required is too big or the public interest must be protected, it doesn't take a page to say that. Where I come from government acts to ensure monopolistic power isn't exercised to the detriment of the consumer and I see nothing wrong with your government acting in that manner, but the nervious nellie's don't like that

Sorry , the bottom line is that power concentrated in the hands of Federal Bureaucracies is a dangerous thing be that agency the NSA ,the EPA ,or the FCC. The court decision against the FCC in the Verizon case not only set the path to future enforcement of so called Net Neutrality .... but it also gave the FCC the power to regulate almost all aspects on the net . It won't be long before they dabble in price setting of rates for services connected to the Internet . How long will it be before they are regulating the content itself ? You hear politicians calling for a return of concepts like the 'fairness doctrine' in other areas the FCC regulates . Would they try the same doctrine on the Internet ..... you betcha !

I'm not one to complain usually, but it is you paraclete that has killed the debate by posting nothing constructive nor providing any useful or cited information. Rather, you prefer to bash anyone's opinion that is not the same as yours. Leave now and stick to accounting advice and cold war debates.

Sorry , the bottom line is that power concentrated in the hands of Federal Bureaucracies is a dangerous thing be that agency the NSA ,the EPA ,or the FCC. The court decision against the FCC in the Verizon case not only set the path to future enforcement of so called Net Neutrality .... but it also gave the FCC the power to regulate almost all aspects on the net . It won't be long before they dabble in price setting of rates for services connected to the Internet . How long will it be before they are regulating the content itself ? You hear politicians calling for a return of concepts like the 'fairness doctrine' in other areas the FCC regulates . Would they try the same doctrine on the Internet ..... you betcha !

You are right tom.

Any centralized power only favor's those who contribute to it, the rich. You are %100 correct in saying that the FCC has the power to regulate all aspects of the net. The DMCA decisions made in the last couple of years support this. Even Google says that more than1/3 of DMCA complaints they have had to comply with (http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/483729/google_submission_hammers_section_92a/) are non copyright issues, and further indicate that they put the burden of proof on the indicted, rather that on those placing the blame. My point is not against centralized power but rather a re-envisioning of the regulations placed in effect. All business has been regulated in the U.S. and other countries throughout history aside from pure anarchy, my point is that regulation should support innovation and growth not lining the pockets of the powers to be.

Of course there would be no need for this if U.S. providers acted like all other providers in the western world and treated net neutrality as the default position.

Infojunkie no one appointed you the thought police and I have been here much longer than you so take your own advice

no one appointed you the thought policeBut you did just that with your comment.


I have been here much longer than youThat means nothing at all, all input is appreciated regardless of tenure.

all input is appreciated regardless of tenure.

Exactly my point go take the other fellow to task for his non inclusive comments,

Other point was please be succinct not all of us have a great deal of time

Just thought I would translate those for you in case you are having difficulty with the accent

Take the time to read or just gloss over the comment. Now go get yourself a Fosters. If the technical threads confuse you then stay out of them.

Even Google says that more than1/3 of DMCA complaints they have had to comply with (http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/483729/google_submission_hammers_section_92a/) are non copyright issues, and further indicate that they put the burden of proof on the indicted, rather that on those placing the blame.
Sec 92 A is a part of New Zealand's copyright laws.

But there are similar issues with takedown requests in the US.
I do recall that was an issue when the music industry was suing individuals and peer to peer share sites . I do see that Youtube routinely takes down content at the request of the 'owner ' but do not know what role the government plays in these decisions over an agreement between the parties .In one case the courts ruled in favor of Google's 'safe harbor '(DMCA Section 512) over Viacom's claim that Youtube was providing Viacom's copyright content ;but the 2 parties settled . More recently a jury found MP3Tunes liable for copyright infringment ( 'Capitol Records Inc v MP3Tunes ') . http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The law is in place already in the US for issues regarding violations of copyrights . The takedown upon request on the surface seems to be reasonable ;with the courts intervening in disputes . The New Zealand law puts the burden of proof on the indicted . I can't get a firm reading on how the provision works according to current US law. Sounds like it's an issue CONGRESS should review and amend if necessary .

Indeed that is how it is intended, to seem reasonable. The major issue in the US is not that copyright laws are unjust or unfair, but rather how they are carried out. Your privilege to use the internet can be remanded by your ISP if they receive a DMCA complaint. I have personally received these warnings. They can remove your content from public places if they receive a complaint. They can put pressure on large organizations to comply with a set of laws that are very close to breaking free speech, due process, and fair commerce, even now they are trying to ensure government forced censorship, last year the SOPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) law was introduced to congress. It was never voted in, however was supported by some of the largest media organizations. They do not care about what Americans want but rather how to protect their own interests and hold the world hostage. You will find that the MPAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America#Accusations_ of_copyright_infringements_against_the_MPAA)sponso rs many such laws across the globe and is not afraid to break them when they see fit.

They are legally stripping fair use, and free speech. Everything said, sung, written, etc. can be trademarked, copy written, tracked and controlled.

Seems reasonable to have a procedure that leaves allegations, and presumptions, in the hand of an "impartial" court system rather the judgements of monied interests. Misuse of the net for profits by illegal means is a very high possibility and the law need to keep up with abuse of technology.

Complaints should be addressed by a court, expensive and time consuming as that may be.

yes and not by government agencies that have not been empowered to make these calls.
What will come with reclassification as a public utility will be the surcharges ,excise taxing authority and other related fees associated with every other public utility ...and the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) . btw ,I have no issue with copyright protection.

Its already been that way for years or haven't you been ready your cable bills?

Something most people don't realize when they compare to physically much smaller countries for costs etc... is the astronomical costs to string fiber, and the sheer size of the USA compared to the population. If anyone thinks the Telcos are making money hand over fist right now on this... they are mistaken. Most of their profits are being made on wireless right now... and even wireless most of this relies on landlines for the long haul and for the data services specifically. Speaking as someone who is in this field and sees all the briefings, and Internal news, some of which doesn't get released.

Most of them are losing money right now on the landline end of things... and if they are lucky, breaking even or making a precious few bucks. Most are laying off lots of people in the landline side of the house.

Its already been that way for years or haven't you been ready your cable bills?
actually no . I do not subscribe to the net through my cable service . The taxes and fees on my cable bill relate to the purchase of their cable tv services .

But we agree you would pay state taxes if you did?

no I do not agree at all .
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ277/pdf/PLAW-105publ277.pdf

47 U.S. Code § 151 - Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151) 47USC 151 imposes a moratorium on internet taxes (except on sales taxes from purchases made on the net ).And most local governments do not tax internet access. Ironically ,the law is up for renewal this month. Is it a coincidence that the law is set to expire at the same time the emperor proposed this net move ? I doubt it.

Opportunist, Tom? Or convenient timing. I hadn't noticed how do you handle collecting taxes on items purchased outside the US? It may not be a problem for you but it sure is for us. If the item is purchased locally it attracts a tax if purchased on the net cross border it doesn't.

Yes smoothy, size and population have a big impact, we have been stringing fibre with an estimated cost of $30B or maybe $1,500 per person. Doing the same thing in the US would have an entirely different dynamic both in the number of customers and the length of fibre required

What is needed is one basic protocol that is universal in nature and that all ISP's must adhere to. And as far as access the IANA can deny service to block IP's if some company decides to violate the protocol and tries to create fast tracking. In the begining the internet was never meant to be a commercial venture. In todays world it is over commercialized. Now instead of printed ads at the sides of pages many have videos running in them that are pure spam. Its becoming nonsense. Also the only reason Google wants to give out so called "fee internet" is because people are very stupid and are willing to give up every piece of information they transmit to give to the google collective. If they couldnt collect the data they wouldnt be giving it away.

With the FCC involved then they will become more powerful then many can imagine. They can and will sweep the internet for hate speech and whatever else they can find and make Russia and Chine look like amatures. The internet has given enough of its life and its fast coming to an end. There are as we speak many that already segment the internet into intranets and use it against the public good. With technology comes responsibility but as I see it now many cant even comprehend what is happening already in the world around us and quite frankly they just dont care so long as its free.

In China, the firewall is by province (like US states) and what is blocked in one, may not be blocked in another (although Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and a few sites are blocked nation wide.

Here, around time when political things are happening, the blockage gets higher, This site has been blocked a few times here in China.

For example, ( while stupid) there was a large demonstration about a week ago, they picketed and blocked major roads in the city here. I happen to get caught in the middle of it. (although I quickly got out of it) But before long, police and most likely military came and the people blocking the roads all were gone

But the news will not ever mention it happening. Even some of the major terrorist activities we have in southern China is either barely mentioned or not at all.

But on a good note, my home internet, costs me less than 100 USD a year for unlimited service and that includes a home phone.

My wireless internet for my Ipod, using a sim card, costs me about 300 USD a year.

I hadn't noticed how do you handle collecting taxes on items purchased outside the US? It may not be a problem for you but it sure is for us. If the item is purchased locally it attracts a tax if purchased on the net cross border it doesn't.
sales taxes are a different challenge. These are rules for access ;much like the various creative fees and taxes associated with telephone and cable services . Currently there are no national taxes .(but I suspect some locals have charges related to the infrastructure ) . What I am referring to will be national fees and taxes ;and the justification will be to pay for the FCC's expanded role .

NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein has an interesting editorial published at the Hoover Institute .
Hands Off the Web | Hoover Institution (http://www.hoover.org/research/hands-web)

Yes interesting indeed comparing the internet to Fedex and justifying higher service for higher cost. Thing is corporates have the ability to constuct private networks and cut out the middle man, so this is just about regulating the middle man

Epstein is wrong on a bunch of points. He uses Fedex as an example of prioritazation of services but that market is very competitive - users have a choice. Not so for internet access.

Also he says:

But rejecting net neutrality does not let ISPs pick winners and losers by offering different tiers of service. Any customer can buy what he or she wants. That is also patently false. The ISPs would indeed prioritize whatever service pays them the most. There is NO customer choice of picking what the he or she wants, witness TV "packages" instead of choosing the individual channels.
Telco and cable have a bad track record of bundling services to extract the maximum revenue, the internet should not be part of that.

witness TV "packages" ... which the cable networks would NOT get away with if there weren't exclusive areas of service .

And that's not going to change due to the enormous barrier to entry, so let's protect the consumer from price gouging.

You know how business works (Any business). They will use any means necessary to maximize profits, and that includes manipulation, and destroying the competition. Implying they should make there own rules, or have no rules is plain crazy.

They work hard at getting exclusive areas of service Tom, like I say, any means necessary. They need rules of how they get money. Hell even then no matter how strict the rules they still find ways to make more profit. They broke up Ma bell but she came back even bigger as AT&T. So did the banks.

Same with cable companies. You haggle about regulations and they make MO" MONEY!

They work hard at getting exclusive areas of service Tom no they don't... they are awarded the quasi public utility status through cronyism . The same public utility model that will happen on net .

So if that market opens up (telco/cableco), no regulation, no protectionism, how do you envision what will happen? What's the most likely scenario in your opinion?

Good Question, it just sounds like the old anti regulation argument to me

no one said "no regulation " .There are obviously activities on the net that should be regulated ,or outright prohibited . I think professor Epstein did a good job comparing the net to Fed Ex tiered fee system. Had the USPS adopted a similar system I believe they wouldn't constantly face funding issues. When you say "He uses Fedex as an example of prioritazation of services but that market is very competitive - users have a choice. Not so for internet access." I say why not ? If it is not competitive ,it's because governments at the local level prevent competition. It would seem to me that exclusive zones are in fact against the very concept of net neutrality . I would think that the government having the ability to set fees is against that concept too. Even a quasi-government service like AMTRACK has a tiered fee structure depending on the time you board their trains. If I'm a net customer who only uses the net to check my email ..and has no use for high speed access to watch video ,then why should I be forced to pay for the higher level of access ? Conversely ;if my business depends on the high speed ,then why shouldn't I pay a premium for it ?

Of course the great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry .In the effort to achieve parity you stifle innovation ....as witnessed by the ATT announcement .

Further , regulatory capture more likely will ensure that your greatest fears will come true . Has all the new regulations in the banking industry broken up banks too big to fail ,or has it cemented the concept into the American system ? This is 1930s government cartel creation all over again. It gave us Ma Bell for decades ,which stifled innovation in phone service until a judge finally broke it up .

great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry The government doesn't want to organize the net (whatever that means), it wants to keep the status quo (net neutrality) which the U.S. carriers are trying to screw up for their financial gain.

Tom, I have to agree with NK here. Im not quite convinved you know how the net works or how access to the internet actually occurs. For the person that just wants to check email there are many "free" internet providers already. But the bigger question is why many markets lack competition. It is because large coporations dont want everyone to have internet service. If they did they would branch out into areas where it is virtually nonexistant. As far as banning activity on the internet that goes against the very priciple of the internets creators. The internet was always meant to be free and open. The only regaurds to regulation were those of protocal so everyone can speak to one another through the network.

As far as high speed goes incase you havent noticed th spam that clutters the internet and closes it down is yet another creation of big business. Ads have moved from static pictures with links to now videos that you may be forced to watch while you surf any one of millions of sites. It causes pages to load slower and mucks up the whole thing in the process. Im not for creating fastlanes. I would rather see a free and open internet then one that is controlled and regulated out of existance.

Of course the great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry .In the effort to achieve parity you stifle innovation

The great conceit is that the market is the panacea for everything, the market cannot be trusted not to engage in monopolistic behaviour and business will always exploit opportunity. The place for business is in innovation, in creatively working within regulation. The place for government is to set the boundries to ensure equality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNTNqNizFs

Well what is that pixilated message about?

Propaganda

I gather Obama did a speech on something he has been chasing for a long time

Look at the date on this Feb. 25th 2015. They probably edited the word together but couldn't match the video with the audio.

It's political satire

The FCC votes on the take over of the internet on Feb 26 .

Its not a takeover, its rules of how they can make money. You wouldn't want them to get greedy or succumb to temptation would you? We know there is no FREE market, but we can make it a fair one can't we.

True capitalism depends on FAIR. Of course I want no government takeover, but I also don't want any unbridled money extractions by big corp either. The quest for profits tends to end up that way at the expense of consumers.

True capitalism depends on FAIR no no no get your talking points in order . It's not 'fair' capitalism or 'free market ' capitalism . What you will here from the Dems this campaign season is "Inclusive Capitalism " . They will still talk a good socialist statist game .But they will try to coopt capitalism by using the above name for it . They will call that a "new model " for a capitalist system that is broken. But the only model that is broken is the statist system they have imposed on the country for decades.
The internet takeover is their grab of one of the few remaining markets that was not over burdened by government control.

The government doesn't want to organize the net (whatever that means), it wants to keep the status quo (net neutrality) which the U.S. carriers are trying to screw up for their financial gain.

So, in effect... you don't WANT more bandwidth on your broad band?

Without the US carriers, you would not have broadband... in fact much of the world wouldn't ( we built and own a lions share of the undersea cables that connect the world). Fiber is extremely expensive to build out. More bandwidth means more fiber and more investment.

No business is going to invest tens or hundred of billions of dollars to buidl out that high bandwidth... or build it out through sparesely populated areas because the cost is significantly higher than the return. Reduce that return in even the denser populated areas and you further reduce the ability to even upgrade what's in place now.

Instead of blaming the existing carriers... start your own company and build your own. There are no laws anywhere that grants a monopoly to the existing cariers. Not in the USA anyway. You will find out what so many other companies did when the Dotcom bubble burst. Hype doesn't pay the bills for very long, eventually revenue has to exceed costs.

I troubleshoot global Telecom networks for a living (made a change from what I was doing a few months ago which was more regional in nature) While I'm not in the finance side of the house... I'm around enough people that are to know the profit margins aren't very big. In fact right now profit on the landline side of things as it is is so thin most telecoms right now are losing money on that side of things more often then it turns a profit. No profits means its not getting built out or upgraded in general besides normal end of life equipment replacements. WIreless is where the profits are right now and what keeps most of them out of bankruptcy.

My heart bleeds for these telecoms who aren't making money

but you do like the service they provide

It's a competitive market, I've seen them come and go. Essentially regulation is necessary to stop misuse of monopoly power in the cable business but as to pricing and level of service this is where they compete. Governments are increasingly trying to have unfettered access to the data stream because the present crisis warrants it they say. I observe that they seem to be able to detect these terrorists without a broadening of their powers. I get by with the level of service I receive, I doubt an upgrade would make the experience much better. What we are talking about is data transfer rates.Why do individuals need access to commercial level systems?

You want to stream video, don't you. DO you have anything Like Amazon prime, HULU or NETFLIX down under. That's a good reason why you want at a minimum broadband speeds. Even if you alone use the internet in your house. The more people the more you need.

The FCC votes on the take over of the internet on Feb 26 .You should stick to topics where you have some knowledge.

Essentially regulation is necessary to stop misuse of monopoly power in the cable business

The only monopoly power in any industry is created by Government regulation, normally purchased through lobbyists hired by the company seeking monopoly status. The best historical example is when AT&T lost its designation as a "utility" and protection of its monopoly status. The result: cordless phones, cellular phones, and the disappearance of "long distance" charges, always the largest fee to consumers.

You should stick to topics where you have some knowledge.


FCC commissioner Ajit Pai calls it a takeover . Does he have knowledge of the topic ?

Comm. Pai's Stmt on President Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet | FCC.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet)

He has considerable knowledge having worked on both sides of the track, private, and government. He is but one opinion of 5 though. Obviously he uses typical republican language.

A bureaucrat fighting against increased power for his bureaucracy? Color me impressed. And a hardcore Republican who was nominated for one of the positions that were required to be Republican (only three positions can be the same political party). Before he went into government Pai was the Associate General Counsel for Verizon.

Colour me disinterested. This is a beatup.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler refused to testify before the House Oversight Committee today on the eve of the FCC’s vote on the government takeover of the internet . AGAIN, just like with Obamacare ,the details will not be made public until the decision is reached.

“We are deeply disappointed in Chairman Wheeler’s decision. As Chairman Wheeler pushes forward with plans to regulate the Internet, he still refuses to directly answer growing concerns about how the rules were developed, how they are structured, and how they will stand up to judicial scrutiny. After hearing from over four million Americans on such an important topic to our economic and cultural future, it's striking that when Congress seeks transparency, Chairman Wheeler opts against it. The last time a rule of this magnitude was voted on by the FCC, then-Senator Obama was motivated to call for transparency at the commission. We continue that call today."
Upton and Chaffetz Statement on Chairman Wheeler’s Refusal to Testify | Energy & Commerce Committee (http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/upton-and-chaffetz-statement-chairman-wheelers-refusal-testify)

Secret this and secret that, is this a democracy or an autocracy

Secret this and secret that, is this a democracy or an autocracy

Oligarchy, according to some Professors
Is America an Oligarchy? - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy)

I agree.

Rich people have more money to buy what they want, and right now they can buy a politician instead of paying a worker. Cable companies are always figuring out how to create more revenue streams, and raise prices for that very purpose. Now all of a sudden after a few years, the politicians want hearings on net neutrality when they have ignored the whole subject while the cable companies were gouging both the networks, and consumers, and expanding their monopolies by buying and selling each other.

The hearing was nothing more than a big show. Like every other republican hearing. They were bought by the donor class to get them what they want. NO RULES that restrict their ability to make money.

The time of capitalism is over, even your bankers admit it

The issue here is the bloated and over powerful Federal Bureaucracy . Changes of this magnitute should not be made by bureaucratic decree. That is why we have elected branches .
As for the "oligarchy " we shall see. It the 2016 race is between Evita and Jebbabubba then I'll be more inclined to agree. If it is a race between Scott Walker and Elizabeth Warren then that will be one worthy of our attention.

If it is a race between Scott Walker and Elizabeth Warren then that will be one worthy of our attention.

If Walker gets the nomination I'll be shocked enough to look at Republicans again.

No elected leader from any party will reduce the size of your government. I think you need to accept that as a given.

I would be happy if they reduce the time elected officials got paid for NOT working.

I would be happy if they tied their pay to productivity

No elected leader from any party will reduce the size of your government. I think you need to accept that as a given.

as the doctor said "I can prescribe the cure . I can't force the patient to take the medicine" .

All of us can carry on about panaceas that will never happen, that's easy. After a while though it sounds like http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

Which dead horse is that, I would have thought you have a president desperately seeking a legacy since whatever he has done will be torn down when he leaves