FCC Chairman's Proposal Will Radically Change The Rules Of The Internet

[mustang_revival]

And that has to do with classifying the internet as a utility how?

Did you miss this part from OP? Its in red.

This puts the responsibility of providing Internet service to the various city and state governments (as well as ostensibly the federal government) and away from a retail position under control of cable, phone, and wireless providers.

[mustang_revival]

I'm hearing "most likely", "suspected", "risk of", etc etc, from people using fear as a reasoning. I want to see bills, legislation, etc of what the government is trying to pass to affect the internet as a utility, not what you "believe" or "suspect" will happen.

I connect and Secure Data Centers for a living so I have a decent idea of what it would take to happen.

[line-em-up]

^This can be interpreted in more than one way, depending on what you fear. I fear continued fucking from the isp/corps, you fear the da gubment.

See?



What do you mean? It's pretty cut and dry there, and the part I quoted.

It was just my asinine attempt to pick at you for saying "a part" instead of "apart". Please continue on. I am enjoying the different viewpoints. I can see both sides with valid points. However, I think anytime the government get's their claws into something, nothing good can come of it.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Think bigger and more long term.

City provided internet most likely would be handled like power companies in bigger citys.

Dont most subdivisions only have one fiber provider already?

[Forever_frost]

Okay, NPR, does that work better or worse in responding to what their customers want versus Sirius Satellite Radio? Which has better options?

[CexMashean]

Okay, NPR, does that work better or worse in responding to what their customers want versus Sirius Satellite Radio? Which has better options?

Satellie/Radio is a whole different territory. Should not be in the same argument at all with with land based connections.

[Forever_frost]

Satellie/Radio is a whole different territory. Should not be in the same argument at all with with land based connections.

Why? NPR is nationwide, Sirius is as well. NPR is regulation and government backed, Sirius is free market and limited FCC oversight. Which is more reactive to the wishes of it's consumers, profitable and is a market for growth?

[CexMashean]

Why? NPR is nationwide, Sirius is as well. NPR is regulation and government backed, Sirius is free market and limited FCC oversight. Which is more reactive to the wishes of it's consumers, profitable and is a market for growth?

You really don't see how a satellite/radio broadcast is different than laying down cable and supporting hardware to provide internet?

[racrguy]

Why? NPR is nationwide, Sirius is as well. NPR is regulation and government backed, Sirius is free market and limited FCC oversight. Which is more reactive to the wishes of it's consumers, profitable and is a market for growth?

Protip: Not everything has to draw a profit to have value and worth.

[matts5.0]

Protip: Not everything has to draw a profit to have value and worth.

thats all you have?

[racrguy]

Think bigger and more long term.

City provided internet most likely would be handled like power companies in bigger citys.

One entity running the physical "plumbing" and termination points for a neighborhood, and connected into the larger internet on the back end with some high speed tunnels that are participating in BGP,etc.

You would have a list of companies to get internet from directly, and they would be setup to deal with Customer Service stuff - customer home installs, helping grandma get setup, making payments to, answering the phone when your internet is slow and you want to complain. - I don't see the City taking this part on.

Getting internet from the city, through city infrastructure, you can be charged anything. It will be slow. Then regulation would come. Then tax would come. Like Porn? TAX. Like youtube? TAX.

BTW - Fine print, the city monitors all of your internet traffic under the guise of Security because the electrical grid controls to the city happens to sit on the same network or China is trying to mix in some hacking inside a DDoS attack or any list of 1000 more legitimate "reasons".

Legislation could decide certain Web Sites are a threat to national Security and block them within a second or less across the whole "city-provided" internet. If we had a "disaster" or "threat" every web site could be changed to fema.org in a second.

It is too intrusive, it gives too much power, that is what I fear. You guys should too.

Presumably isp/corps would get their satellite internet game up to par or at 80% capacity of city internet to keep making money and fill the gap of being connected. They would also fill the gap where the city could not provide internet.

What makes you think that the government would nationalize the internet?

[racrguy]

thats all you have?

No, actually.

[CexMashean]

No, actually.

And others are focused on the thought that there is no possible way that letting the corps run wild is a bad thing.

[Forever_frost]

What makes you think that the government would nationalize the internet?

History. Government, left alone, seizes all forms of communication and creates a monopoly just as it did with force. Remember back before government took over student loans, mortgages and banking?

[Forever_frost]

Protip: Not everything has to draw a profit to have value and worth.

No, you're right. When you're backed by the government, you can fail completely in every aspect and expand. NPR, EPA, DHS, TSA, FCC.