I'm not in favor of passing a bunch of laws written by politocians and self interested companies when nothing is broken
Regulation has been done for safety, for environmental protection, for personal protection, for public access to critical needs, for cost reduction.... There are regulation that works and those that don't work. Liberal maybe want those above things instead of to just regulate everything. When you put liberal and regulation into such a narrow box (equality only), then you are seeing through a very narrow hole. IOW, you don't see reality.
Sure. But you can be in favor of passing sensible laws to ensure "nothing is broken" have a chance to stay that way?
What? Who would not survive without the internet? Most of us grew up without the internet. I didn't have real internet until I was about 16.
I guess I trust politicians and companies passing laws that affect everyone and billions of dollars less than you do. I'm skeptical that these net neutrality stuff isn't just a money and power grab.
There's also a problem with regulating things so that "everything stays the same." We don't know what the future will look like. If politicians in the past had their way, the Rocket Rivers of the world would have passed laws keeping libraries growing at the same pace as the Internet.
I was setting up the chart of accounts for my wife's business a couple of years ago. I put internet in utilities. For bigger businesses, what counts as a utility is a fraught decision because they'll put Accounts Payable priority on paying utilities before other vendors (if money gets tight). I don't get to see AP stuff anymore, but I can't imagine corporations putting a lower priority on paying internet bills nowadays. Obviously it's an essential service. I think some are afraid of making the same mistakes we've made with other kinds of monopolistic utilities. I think Texas has done a good job of it in power though, where the regulated utilities only own the transmission and distribution function and allow others to use their lines without prejudice. You can do the same with internet networks, and should. The utilities incentive will be to provide service to everyone, and internet service retail can be fully opened to real competition.
its amusing how some people are flippant on their answers to solutions. "Just regulate it" or "ISP's are greedy and need to spend money to give everyone in the US 1gb connections".
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet is built, and how technologies intermesh with one another. We do know what the future will look like in some respects. One of them is that it is not going to stray fundamentally from the ethos of how the web is currently built. Technologists have fashioned a new way to create ideas from a decentralized perspective where it is not money that really counts, but reach---and reach is often a function of utility. Speed of delivery is often a key consideration of adoption of alternative media, and alternative utilities. Those alternatives can often rapidly become the mainstream if they solve pain points better than the established norm---and if they are given room to grow. An internet that does not allow for new ideas to spring forward democratically, is one that betrays the innovative spirit that has built it to its full potential. We know for any Internet of the future that allowing new ideas to spring forward instead of rewarding well-monied incumbents is the way to go for social innovation---and prosperity. There's subtle shades between absolute and relative net neutrality, and that's more the debate you want to have, but when Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee both stand very publicly for a stance, you know it has implications beyond just the here and now.
How in the world does restricting content expedite more growth and competition? We already pay (a super inflated price) for speed. Now on top of that we have to pay not to get throttled and to access what ISPs deem as "Premium Content" on the web? This would absolutely kill growth, competition, and innovation. The telecommunications industry in this country is a ****ing joke. You want growth and competition? Look at the ISPs first before giving them outright control to flood the internet with paywalls and restrict content as they please. In fact both extremes would ensure the end of the internet golden age. Whether you give outright control to the ISPs or the Government, the end result will be the same. The status quo is nice.
This thread is devolving into another Net Neutrality noise confusion like the other ones. I intentionally limited the question. This thread isn't about whether regulation is good or bad, what kind is needed, whether Net Neutrality is desired, etc. The thread only asks whether the internet is a utility (essential) regardless of where you stand politically. I mentioned Net Neutrality to provide context to why I'm asking the poll, but the poll isn't about Net Neutrality per se. The poll currently shows only right leaning posters do not view the Internet as a utility and being essential. The internet's importance should be bipartisan imo. Mr. Clutch and Space Ghost, why do you consider the Internet non-essential? Rudan, "The term off-the-grid (OTG) can refer to living in a self-sufficient manner without reliance on one or more public utilities [especially electricity]." [Wiki] Most people rely on electricity nowadays. You said most couldn't live without the internet. Why then did you say the internet is not essential?
Being a utility and being essential are not the same thing. I guess this thread had an agenda from the beginning.
The thread was a poll hence the agenda was trying to discern who opposes the question of the internet being a utility (essential).
