FCC Defends Its Open Internet Decision

[atavax]

The idea that local governments would block ISPs request to upgrade lines doesn't hold up, in my opinion.

First problem is the US has some of the most expensive and slowest internet in the world. Every country that has cheaper and faster internet has greater government involvement. So logically you can deduce that if the US wants cheaper and faster internet, that is the most likely method to achieve it.

2nd.. There is not a history of this, municipalities haven't been blocking companies from upgrading their lines and municipality ISPs currently exist.

3rd, Comcast and Time Warner have orders of magnitudes more capital to use to legally fight a municipality not allowing them to upgrade lines.

4th. local governments are actually held accountable to their citizens. If a local government denies them the right to upgrade lines, comcast just makes it public, citizens hire new officials that promise not to block upgrade of lines. This isn't the federal level, where local votes don't matter.

 

[atavax]

This fight is definitely not over.

Actually, I think the fight may be over although the big ISPs are pretending it is not. Wheeler thinks it is over because the courts told the FCC to do exactly what they just did - reclassify ISPs under title II. The courts gave him the key, and he used it.

What could screw this up is the politicians that are in the pockets of the big ISPs.

Even if congress tries to pass a law, you have you imagine Obama would veto it. I don't see it being overthrown in Obama's presidency. However i can imagine Obamacare placing enough stigma on the Democrats where they lose the next presidency and then with control of both houses and the presidency, republican shills overthrow it.

 

[atavax]

one more comment, sorry if you consider this spam.

For everyone against municipal ISPs. That believe an open and competitive market is good. At the very least, shouldn't Comcast and Time warner be split up? That would create more competition. More private companies competing against each other is a good thing. Infrastructure is too expensive for small companies to build. So by splitting up the 2 largest companies, you would create small companies with the infrastructure to compete against one another. Perfect solution, right?

 

[rluker5]

What's to defend? It was the right rulin... Oh WAIT.. I guess the Oligarchs/Plutocrats are still annoyed because it wasn't just another transfer of the commons into private hands for profit.

An oligarchy is a government by the few, lumping them in with the plutocrats kind of matches since the wealthiest area of the country is Washington dc, and transferring "commons" into private hands from where they came for the good of profit all sounds like you oppose net neutrality and think it didn't happen. But I fear you misunderstand what it, he fed gov is, and a judicial ruling is.

Judging from your reply, I am almost positive I have a far better grsp on what the Federal Govt is and what a Judicial Ruling is.

Also, I support net neutrality and the Title II classification.

What ruling was right?

 

[Draven35]

The idea that local governments would block ISPs request to upgrade lines doesn't hold up, in my opinion.

First problem is the US has some of the most expensive and slowest internet in the world. Every country that has cheaper and faster internet has greater government involvement. So logically you can deduce that if the US wants cheaper and faster internet, that is the most likely method to achieve it.

2nd.. There is not a history of this, municipalities haven't been blocking companies from upgrading their lines and municipality ISPs currently exist.

3rd, Comcast and Time Warner have orders of magnitudes more capital to use to legally fight a municipality not allowing them to upgrade lines.

4th. local governments are actually held accountable to their citizens. If a local government denies them the right to upgrade lines, comcast just makes it public, citizens hire new officials that promise not to block upgrade of lines. This isn't the federal level, where local votes don't matter.

It isn't just local governments involved.

 

[demonhorde665]

"The United States Senate and House of Representatives have debated if the FCC has the legal right to make these changes." this has to be the most asinine stuff I've ever read. This is EXACTLY what the FCC exist for. to handle how communication technology is classified.

 

[mblazer78]

I don't understand the need for government to "save" the internet. It's been growing and evolving just fine without the government sweeping to to save it from itself.

As for broadband access, I think those that argue that there just aren't enough competitors are missing all the potential options out there. Sure you have Comcast, AT&T, etc, offering DSL/Cable. But you also have Google now offering fiber, AT&T expanding their fiber, Comcast just announced a massive fiber and gigabit internet upgrade. For those in areas without these options, there's still the options of satellite and cellular networks. What about all the new stuff that's coming down the pipe as well? Like low earth satellites, li-fi, laser/radio wireless, etc? You also still have the "business" options like T1s, DS3s, ATM, and others.

When people complain and compare the US to other countries like South Korea, they are conveniently forgetting how small and concentrated that access really is. How big is South Korea compared to the US? How much broadband access is there in Russia outside of Moscow (e.g. siberia)?

I don't get it...