FCC plan would give Internet providers power to decide how you use your internet

[Benton]

(12-01-2017, 06:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They covered this topic for about an hour on PNR today and they seemed to think that the biggest concern would be to small businesses that tried to advertise on the web. They too said it should be considered a public utility; as this is the only (firmest) grounds for regulation.

They said the consumer would suffer because Cable companies have zero reason to seem streaming services such as Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu thrive.

The conservative in me asks: Why should government be allowed to regulate private companies simply for consumer's enjoyment? I'm a free-market guy and there was talk of how this may push satellite Communications in the future. That would be the route I would love to see.

It sort of reminds me of the current electric company situation and the hurdles behind alternative sources. if the electric companies were deregulated do you thing alternate sources would suddenly become a whole lot more interesting?

The same could be said for electricity. 

If one giant electric company — with divisions handling everything from making cars to making movies — had the switch to turn people's electric off, or charge an 800 % markup, or only prohibited electricity to companies exploring other power options, would there be much competition? Profits dictate everything, so boosting the economy, providing for innovation, consumer interest, etc., would probably not factor into it. If big business mindset stays pretty consistent, the same folks who increased EpiPen costs 400% (it costs about $8 to make one, or about $300 to buy one) would be dictating what other businesses paid.

It's not just consumer enjoyment. Like electricity, a lot of businesses now require internet. They would either have to abandon their current models or pick a different business.

(12-01-2017, 06:56 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Unfortunately our tax dollars have been prepaid to these corporations for fiber infrastructure that has not been provided to date.  If these corporations were truly operating on within the free market, why do they need to lobby for tax dollars for infrastructure or to keep municipalities from creating their own networks?   Shouldn't they be so much better than other alternatives that any competition is seen as lesser than?  

Who owns the actual infrastructure our data travels across?

Somewhat related, I would suggest anyone here interested in this sort of thing check out one of the best biz docs I've ever seen.  Just recently uploaded to YouTube. 'Long distance warrior'.   It's the story of MCI's struggle to go up against ma bell.

https://youtu.be/qf2ox6imjzE

Can't embed on my phone unfort.

Man, this is something I hear about constantly in a rural community. In KY we've given state and federal money to mostly small companies to get X amount of people connected. Generally, the money runs out somewhere around half of X. Then city councils and fiscal courts get flooded with upset folks who've been on a waiting list for the last three months and told crews were 'almost in their area.'