Obama Wants the Internet Treated Like…a Utility?

What could go wrong?

President Obama's call for net neutrality could drive the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers' ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled.

That could mean a new set of regulations for Internet service providers that oppose such a development, saying it could stifle innovation.

Comments

[Harvey_birdman]

It will result in censorship. Full stop. There is no doubt about this.

[timbo]

BO gets dumber by the day. How can he compare regulation to protecting freedom of information flow on the internet? Because war is peace.

The internet is one of the last bastions of unfettered capitalism left. This is one for all to get up in arms about.
Dems and Repubs will all support net neutrality, however, because they know they can extort millions from lobbyists.

Obama is a Marxist moron and a bumbling idiot.

[toolkien]

And shows that regulation is about control, not consumer interest.

[Stickler Meeseeks]

FASCISM

[ElDuderino]

I posted a direct response to Obama's call to arms on net neutrality on Medium.com. See it here:http://goo.gl/1VwGGt

The basic gist is something most libertarians get almost instinctively.

1. Regulation slows innovation and costs money.
2. Govt. cannot be trusted to protect free expression on the internet, it can't even do it with the IRS and they have even less to do with free expression than the internet.
3. Govt. regulation is unnecessary because of market forces and contractual obligations.

But sheep just follow because they don't bother to read or think so my post on Medium is much more in depth. Enjoy.

[Flaming Ballsack]

do you have citations for any of that that dont come from people who wear tinfoil hats?

[Migrant Log Picker]

Poor attempt at trollind Sadsack.

[ElDuderino]

#1 - It is based on logic. If a company needs to spend time and money on regulatory compliance, they are not spending it on innovation.

#2 - NIPPLEGATE and Louis Learner... need I say more?

#3 - People want fast and reliable internet and because of this demand, we have gone from paying by the minute for dial-up to high speed broadband that can stream 4k video. Also, when you sign up with an ISP, both parties have a contract so if the ISP doesn't live up to their end of the deal, there are already legal instruments in place to deal with it, so why does the FCC need to be involved?

[Brochettaward]

But don't you people get it? Making it a utility will make it work for everyone! Public utilities are totally efficient.

[ElDuderino]

Exactly! $355 is a perfectly reasonable amount to pay to heat a 870 sq ft apartment in CT for the month of January. I'm sure the folks down at the EPA were there making sure my bill didn't exceed $360....

[Rusty 5hackleford]

I support the concept of net neutrality, but am wary of letting the government take action to protect it.

As a matter of necessity, all a government to do is to pass laws on a certain issue. But if the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed, does the true power for net neutrality lie in the hands of the people?

If support for net neutrality is what the people demand that what prevents them from direct consumer action to effect their desires?

[Anon Smith]

The government gave telecoms money in the mid 90's to update infrastructure which the telecoms didn't do. The internet itself was developed with taxpayers money.
People speak here about "innovation" being stifled,we already have zero innovation because of the telecoms monopoly and stranglehold on the internet.
You aren't going to see any mom & pop internet start ups with the way things are going right now.
Currently you have very few choices in a given area for internet access.
Would net neutrality change that? I honestly don't know. I do know we can't keep going with things the way they are though.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

You mean handing out taxpayer dollars to corporations doesn't lead to innovation that improves outcomes for consumers? Surprise!

Innovation within an industry requires something other than a government cartel. All this initiative does is further institutionalize state control of private services while tossing Netflix the bone it wants, which is just going to create more stagnant service until we get a decentralized web started.

Tom Wheeler spent his career as a leader in the cable/telecom industry, and now he's suddenly going to turn his back on that cartel? I don't think so. Net neutrality is just inviting the camel to insert its nose under the tent, and once it does, you can expect the state to begin treating the Internet with the same heavy hand it does network television and radio.

Seeing progressives and BHO advocates praise an effort that amounts to a state-created cable cartel inviting government regulation that they will then control via the corporation/regulatory revolving door is a reminder of how naive they are about rent-seeking. They honestly believe that a corporate insider wants to stick it to rent-seeking companies just because he has a desk in Washington for a few years.

[JCubed]

Yeah, the government has really been throwing its weight around with those telecoms. I mean, remember how it put a stop to that big Comcast/Time-Warner merger? BOOM! Iron fisted.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

If you understood what regulatory capture was, you might understand why established cartels would welcome a regulatory apparatus that could be controlled by industry insiders within a few years via the revolving door between the executive and industry.

You don't, so instead you make silly comments on the Internet.

[Harvey_birdman]

Can't keep going with things the way they are? What the fuck is wrong with the way things are? I have unlimited internet for like $50 a month. I have no trouble viewing porn or reason.com or any other website I want to visit.

Things are just fine, stop making problems where none exist.

[Anon Smith]

So you like paying inflated prices for shitty speeds, data caps, and being able to only "choose" from a couple of companies because there is zero competition? If you like those things I guess the current system is perfect for you.

[JeremyR]

In the US, internet providers have basically formed a cartel. They won't expand into other markets to compete with each other. With no competition, the price is high and service is crappy.

Only in places where Google is installing fiber are the telecom companies forced to compete, but that's only a tiny portion of the country.

Will this solve anything? No. But the trouble with free markets is that big companies don't like them either. They are often content to collude with other companies to screw over consumers.

[JCubed]

This is spot on. This is pretty much EXACTLY what has happened in Portland with Google announcing plans to set up shop here. Suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, Comcast has decided to speed up service for many of its PNW customers. http://www.oregonlive.com/sili.....ed_stories

What was stopping them from doing this before now? A complete lack of competition perhaps?

On a larger note: Why is it that government, with all its inefficiencies and problems, is the source of all evil and cannot be trusted, despite being run by people we vote on (of course that's a whole different issue), but multi-national corporations that are solely out to make as much money as possible are our saviors? Do we still somehow believe that they have our best interests at heart? Or that they aren't hiring the smartest people to help them figure out how to get that money by whatever means necessary?

[Old Man With Candy]

Adam Smith.

[deepspeed]

I hate to break it to you, but no one has your "best interests at heart" other than yourself. The reason corporations are preferable is because they rely on voluntary transactions to exist, whereas government only functions through the threat of force.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Just this once, I agree with the president. Companies like Comcast and TimeWarner don't want to tinker with the basic principles of what makes it work so well for us to make the lives of their consumers better. There's nothing wrong with the Internet that we need the government to fix- but we also don't need powerful, politically connected businesses fucking us over either.

[Harvey_birdman]

But, the government and the businesses are the same. They both want to fuck you over. The only winning move is not to play. And not to give them the authority to fuck you over in the first place.

[some guy]

Ok, someone clear this up for me. Is Obama talking about regulating the infrastructure behind the network (cables and switches and such?) or only about creating a "net neutrality" framework that regulates content delivery, regardless of infrastructure? Or both?

(The pessimist in me thinks it is both.)

[tlapp]

New regulations to cure a problem that doesn't exist. Govt greed for power and money is the only reason for this proposal. Freedom of the internet is at stake. Will government control include monitoring of groups as the IRS did so political enemies can be harassed? Also we can guarantee this "control" will include new taxes to pay for an expansion of the FCC which will make internet access more expensive.

[ellendempseyivy]

my neighbor's mom makes $81 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her check was $20806 just working on the internet for a few hours. why not try here......

======== http://www.payinsider.com