Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
What are the consequences of an FCC Internet "utility"?
superboyac:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/04/regulate-internet-providers
The big news today is the move to regulate the internet as a utility. I know we have other threads for this, but my main question is what are the consequences to this? It's hard for me to tell with all the weird political doublespeak and general news narratives.
Some of my basic questions:
Is the internet really a "natural monopoly"? (like gas, water...to me, it doesn't appear to be)
For the normal residential connection...does regulation mean faster or slower speeds per buck spent?
For the normal residential connection...does regulation mean the internet is wide open as it is today? (I don't get this one at all)
Wouldn't any kind of "change" for the internet by default indicate MORE restrictions on content? To me, it seems logical that this is true because the internet currently is completely "liberated"...it's already 100% free, any change would have to be less free, no?
wraith808:
More links that have some of the ramifications baked into the article.
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/net-neutrality-fcc-chairman-proposes-to-reclassify-internet-like-a-utility-1201422752/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/04/the-fcc-just-proposed-the-strongest-net-neutrality-rules-ever/
http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/03/source-fcc-will-reclassify-internet-as-public-utility-att-and-verizon-will-immediately-sue/
The issue is Net Neutrality, and how the ISPs regulate internet access more than any of the questions that you ask. Reclassifying it as a Title II utility will give the Feds more power to regulate the access. This has a couple of big ramifications that are different than the direction that you're looking at:
1. They could regulate how the major players limit access- and indeed remove all right for them to do so, and then enforce it.
2. Smaller providers that don't have access to what is really a government funded initiative will again have access, creating more competition.
Now, these two points do affect your basic questions.
1. The reasoning that they're using to classify the internet in the same way as gas and water is because in this age, the internet to a large extent has become a necessity for the common citizenry to function in society. As far as the monopoly part, it's based on the fact that the infrastructure required to operate as a provider is prohibitive.
2 and 3. The implementation of the reclassification would allow more access so that Comcast/Xfinity/Whomever has a virtual monopoly in your area would have more competition, driving prices down and increasing competition over service quality.
4. The purpose of this is to create less restrictions. In theory, the internet is unrestricted- but that is only as much as your provider makes it so. If there was the ability to regulate and tell them that they can't restrict and enforce this, then you'd enjoy this as a matter of course, rather than at the whim of your provider.
eleman:
The big news today is the move to regulate the internet as a utility.
-superboyac (February 05, 2015, 05:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Apparently, no, it isn't so.
wraith808:
The big news today is the move to regulate the internet as a utility.
-superboyac (February 05, 2015, 05:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Apparently, no, it isn't so.
-eleman (February 06, 2015, 06:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
A good comment from the comments, that I agree with:
The overall message in this post is one that FCC official Gigi Sohn has urged "friendly bloggers"to echo; the same story appears on TechDirt and Public Knowledge. Here's a clue: if you impose universal service taxes, pole attachment rates, and price controls on interconnection (setting the price to zero is price control), you're in utility territory. Call it what it is.
--- End quote ---
They're just trying to head off opposition by saying, "no, no... we're not trying to classify it as a utility. No matter what it looks like!"
eleman:
The big news today is the move to regulate the internet as a utility.
-superboyac (February 05, 2015, 05:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Apparently, no, it isn't so.
-eleman (February 06, 2015, 06:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
A good comment from the comments, that I agree with:
The overall message in this post is one that FCC official Gigi Sohn has urged "friendly bloggers"to echo; the same story appears on TechDirt and Public Knowledge. Here's a clue: if you impose universal service taxes, pole attachment rates, and price controls on interconnection (setting the price to zero is price control), you're in utility territory. Call it what it is.
--- End quote ---
They're just trying to head off opposition by saying, "no, no... we're not trying to classify it as a utility. No matter what it looks like!"
-wraith808 (February 06, 2015, 08:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
Ohh... The quacks like a duck test... You may be right. I didn't look from that angle.
What could be the pros and cons of a utility treatment then? Most of the stuff I read on the matter is from techdirt, so I suspect I have a one-sided view.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version