Who do you trust with the Internet? The Government or Free Enterprise? Even when it may seem necessary it's never a good idea to open the door to Government Regulation. Ultimately, if the ISPs enact draconian pricing schemes, new less restrictive ISPs will pop up, and people will vote with their Dollars. It's scary at first, but the Market is always right.
@Critic2029 That's true when there is true competition. With coast-2-coast companies, you're going to get lesser of two evils.
You see, a free-market these days is pretty much a fairy tale. Corporations have bought legislation that helps them make a buck and squeezes out the little guy.
We need more, smaller companies that actually have to compete. The airwaves don't belong to the companies, they belong to everyone, and we need someone to make sure it stays that way.
Free market idealism works great in a world where there is no such thing as collusion, price fixing... essentially when you eliminate greed and replace it with pure altruism.
@desmo No, I just love the internet how it is, and don't want to see it destroyed by people that have no idea how it works, or what they are talking about.
aka you.
Read a book on how things work and why our current system of net neutrality is something to fight for.
@Critic2029 In free markets there exists Market Failure, where the normal supply and demand no longer works, due to high barriers to entry /collusion and other factors. This *could* be (and in my opinion is) the case with Telecommunications. Government intervention is often needed to end/prevent Market Failure.
@d0mth0ma5 I agree about the existing barriers to entry. The answer to to try and remove those barriers and allow for more competition, not add regulation to an open system which has been so wildy successful.
@Akston The high barriers to entry are cause by the ISP's suing anyone that trys to build in their area. It's also due to the nature of the beast.
ISP's have to rent public land to lay their lines, there just isn't physically enough space for everyone. The real option is for ISP's to be dumb pipes and like it.
@Akston Too much regulation certainly stifles an industry. However i'm not sure how "wildly successful" the ISPs have been for the consumers. The OECD website lists the average cost of Broadband as well as the average cost per Mb at Purchasing Power Parity (equalising the strengths of currencies). In this table the US comes 20th in terms of the average monthly subscription $49.25, and 19th in cost per (advertised) Mb $8.06. Comparatively the UK is $30.8 and $1.98, sorry Canadians, you're even worse off ($54.24 and $11.85)
So how is that Comcast, ATT, Verizon triopoly going for you.
What he need is around 10 companies competing against each other not the mob like tactics they use now where Verizon wont step on Comcast turf or the other way around.
What we have now is Comcast, Verizon, ATT and maybe Time Warner together up in a boardroom with a map of the USA and some states splitting up territories for themselves.
Every bit of bandwidth on the internet costs ISPs money in infrastructure and equipment; the internet isn't free. It should be treated like a commodity like Electricity; and traded on the open market.
@Critic2029 No rational person thinks that it should be free, but why are your ISPs charging more than 4 times the amount of the UK per Mb. Partly this will be due to population density, I assume, but if that is the case they should focus dense regions (which I assume, again, they do).
[[not add regulation to an open system which has been so wildy successful.]]
If you believe this is what net neutrality means, then you have no idea what the topic is. The "open system" is making sure that DSL, Cable, et al all give the same internet ACCESS.
Bandwidth, tech to offer that connection to the same content, etc. is what should be competed on....and is.
Quit twisting the facts. Net Neutrality KEEPS THE INTERNET OPEN. This is NOT REGULATING SOMETHING NEW. It is keeping it OPEN.
"it's never a good idea to open the door to Government Regulation"
you do realize that the US isn't a true capitalist economy right? without regulation we would regress back to the days of Ma Bell, Standard Oil, price fixing/gouging, etc.
we also wouldn't have safety standards, unions, overtime pay, maternity leave, min. wage, consumer rights and protection, standardized threads for nuts and bolts... you name it. just about everything we as americans take for granted is due to government legislation. it's like democracy: it sucks, but it sucks less than other systems
But how did those monopolies form in the first place? The government created them by forcing so many regulations on the industry! Only the largest companies could exist in that environment, thus killing competition.
Government regulation can NEVER create competition, only inhibit it. For example: why is cell service so expensive? Because the FCC believes that it "owns" spectrum and deigns to "sell" it to companies. (Think about how ridiculous that idea is for a minute.) If companies could simply start up and take some open spectrum in their market, imagine how much more competition we would have.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Who do you trust with the Internet? The Government or Free Enterprise? Even when it may seem necessary it's never a good idea to open the door to Government Regulation. Ultimately, if the ISPs enact draconian pricing schemes, new less restrictive ISPs will pop up, and people will vote with their Dollars. It's scary at first, but the Market is always right.
@Critic2029 The government has had no problems controlling the internet the past whatever years it has existed.
The government developed the internet.
The government subsidies the internet.
The government wants to make sure that company don't rake consumers over the coals by turning the internet into cable TV.
If you are against net neutrality you are an enemy of the internet.
@Critic2029 That's true when there is true competition. With coast-2-coast companies, you're going to get lesser of two evils.
You see, a free-market these days is pretty much a fairy tale. Corporations have bought legislation that helps them make a buck and squeezes out the little guy.
We need more, smaller companies that actually have to compete. The airwaves don't belong to the companies, they belong to everyone, and we need someone to make sure it stays that way.
Free market idealism works great in a world where there is no such thing as collusion, price fixing... essentially when you eliminate greed and replace it with pure altruism.
@stabbytheicepic lol.. are on the Obama troll payroll?
@desmo No, I just love the internet how it is, and don't want to see it destroyed by people that have no idea how it works, or what they are talking about.
aka you.
Read a book on how things work and why our current system of net neutrality is something to fight for.
@Critic2029 In free markets there exists Market Failure, where the normal supply and demand no longer works, due to high barriers to entry /collusion and other factors. This *could* be (and in my opinion is) the case with Telecommunications. Government intervention is often needed to end/prevent Market Failure.
@Critic2029 Free Enterprise (and the profit motive) is not inherently more trustworthy or benevolent than Government.
@d0mth0ma5 don't bother explaining how economics works, and use big words like abnormally high barriers to entry.
These people see government and instantly go apeshit, yet think our military, the largest government program in the world, is perfect.
@d0mth0ma5 I agree about the existing barriers to entry. The answer to to try and remove those barriers and allow for more competition, not add regulation to an open system which has been so wildy successful.
@Akston The high barriers to entry are cause by the ISP's suing anyone that trys to build in their area. It's also due to the nature of the beast.
ISP's have to rent public land to lay their lines, there just isn't physically enough space for everyone. The real option is for ISP's to be dumb pipes and like it.
@Akston Too much regulation certainly stifles an industry. However i'm not sure how "wildly successful" the ISPs have been for the consumers.
The OECD website lists the average cost of Broadband as well as the average cost per Mb at Purchasing Power Parity (equalising the strengths of currencies). In this table the US comes 20th in terms of the average monthly subscription $49.25, and 19th in cost per (advertised) Mb $8.06. Comparatively the UK is $30.8 and $1.98, sorry Canadians, you're even worse off ($54.24 and $11.85)
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html for those interested (or unbelieving)
@Critic2029
So how is that Comcast, ATT, Verizon triopoly going for you.
What he need is around 10 companies competing against each other not the mob like tactics they use now where Verizon wont step on Comcast turf or the other way around.
What we have now is Comcast, Verizon, ATT and maybe Time Warner together up in a boardroom with a map of the USA and some states splitting up territories for themselves.
@Critic2029
Every bit of bandwidth on the internet costs ISPs money in infrastructure and equipment; the internet isn't free. It should be treated like a commodity like Electricity; and traded on the open market.
@Critic2029 No rational person thinks that it should be free, but why are your ISPs charging more than 4 times the amount of the UK per Mb. Partly this will be due to population density, I assume, but if that is the case they should focus dense regions (which I assume, again, they do).
@Akston
[[not add regulation to an open system which has been so wildy successful.]]
If you believe this is what net neutrality means, then you have no idea what the topic is.
The "open system" is making sure that DSL, Cable, et al all give the same internet ACCESS.
Bandwidth, tech to offer that connection to the same content, etc. is what should be competed on....and is.
Quit twisting the facts. Net Neutrality KEEPS THE INTERNET OPEN. This is NOT REGULATING SOMETHING NEW. It is keeping it OPEN.
@Critic2029
"it's never a good idea to open the door to Government Regulation"
you do realize that the US isn't a true capitalist economy right? without regulation we would regress back to the days of Ma Bell, Standard Oil, price fixing/gouging, etc.
we also wouldn't have safety standards, unions, overtime pay, maternity leave, min. wage, consumer rights and protection, standardized threads for nuts and bolts... you name it. just about everything we as americans take for granted is due to government legislation. it's like democracy: it sucks, but it sucks less than other systems
@snugs
But how did those monopolies form in the first place? The government created them by forcing so many regulations on the industry! Only the largest companies could exist in that environment, thus killing competition.
Government regulation can NEVER create competition, only inhibit it. For example: why is cell service so expensive? Because the FCC believes that it "owns" spectrum and deigns to "sell" it to companies. (Think about how ridiculous that idea is for a minute.) If companies could simply start up and take some open spectrum in their market, imagine how much more competition we would have.