[tomder55]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

but you do like the service they provide

[paraclete]

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?

[smoothy]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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

You should stick to topics where you have some knowledge.

[Catsmine]

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.

[tomder55]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[paraclete]

Colour me disinterested. This is a beatup.

[tomder55]

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

[paraclete]

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

[Catsmine]

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

Oligarchy, according to some Professors
Is America an Oligarchy? - The New Yorker

[NeedKarma]

I agree.

[talaniman]

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.

[paraclete]

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