There should be an option for essential but not a utility. Because the internet is not, in fact, a utility.
I understand your position now. How do you define a public utility? “Utility” is defined as “a public service, as a telephone or electric-light system, a streetcar or railroad line, or the like.” See, http:// dictionary.reference.com/browse/utility. “Public utility” is defined as “a business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service which is of public consequence and need, such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, or telephone or telegraph.” Black's Law Dictionary 1232 (10th Ed. 2014).
Main Entry: public utility Function: noun Date: 1903 : a business organization (as an electric company) performing a public service and subject to special governmental regulation At this time, the Internet does not have special regulation as a utility. A lot of things that are essential do not. Democrats are pushing to make it a utility. The question is why, other than they think the solution to everything is more laws?
Utilities are that because they require an extraordinary amount of capital to build. Utilities are essential. Internet service requires a large amount of capital to build and it's essential which is why we would all benefit if it were considered a utility. So why isn't it a utility? Perhaps because Comcast, UVerse, and Time Warner all have a vested financial interest in limiting competition and keeping prices high to the detriment of the public?
What's your solution to the high prices, limited competition, and comparably slower speeds? No rules, no laws, no action, just more of the same?
Internet is as essential as electricity. You can live without it, but you won't be very modern. Not that that's all bad.
It's a utility. Because it is essential to connect with a wide range of business functions and has been given monopolistic concessions by governmental entities. There is really no debate other than the typical lawyer speak advocating for corporate profits.
Props to Mr. Clutch for responding to everyone with discourse.... Throttling certain content providers for yet another tiered service plan also kills innovation. Yes, it is regulation in the sense that the FCC would forbid ISPs to manipulate traffic that should in spirit not be inside the TOC the customer agreed with the ISP. Though on the other end, the government incentivized capital investment and growth among the larger ISPs, such as a cheap auctions (that the limited parties privy to bid colluded upon) for wireless spectrum, grants and tax breaks to build cable and fiberoptic infrastructure under the spirit that it would positively impact commerce and the public good. And who's to say the primary stunt in broadband growth over the last two decades hasn't been the same telcos that effectively lobby to prevent new comers such as municipal wifi and earlier VoIP adoption (that would've effectively kill mobile)? I think the spirit of Marc Anderson's words sound true, but the reality is that as new disruptive technologies come into play, they'd face the same entrenched industries that killed other players in the past. Google is not in the business of being an ISP. Their "test/beta" markets are currently a symbolic measure to increase broadband speeds to global top tier standards and proves that the regional companies that compete with Fiber has the means to do so, if not the will.
Not everything stays the same. It's very basic. Do not allow ISP to throttle internet on purpose to charge more. The basic infrastructure of the internet has had that assumption from the very beginning. Allowing that is essentially completely changing the game. So, yes, we do know and can predict what will happen if the ISP have their way. Yes there are big money at play here. The guys that want to make more money through artificial flow control and require additional fee to release such control (to allow normal traffic). The internet speed problem in the US (due to no real competition in the US market) can be improved with technology. The ISP artificial flow control is not a real or long term solution to the speed problem but a method to make more money.
Access to the internet is the basic service (utility) Content providers are not. Since one is a monopoly and the other isn't, the confusion is from companies that want to do both.
What was your definition's source? And which court of law has used it? The source I quotedfrom is widely used in the American legal system and the most well respected.
It is officially not a utility which is why the democrats are trying to make it one. The proper thing would be to argue that it should be one. But judging by the fact that many utilities have been deregulated, I don't see why'd you go down that path.
Referencing the definition you provided, how would you determine something as a potential utility that should then be subject to special government regulations?
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have voted. A vote either way wouldn't accurately reflect my view. I don't endorse "public utilities" as a whole as a matter of principle. But I think there can also be an economic argument made. I'm not here to make one because doing so is exhausting, so once again for that reason I shouldn't have voted. Anyway this thread is going well and I don't mean to take it off track (as always seems to happen when I post in the D&D with my unpragmatic and nose-in-the-air views). Just wanted to clarify because OP asked. Oh and I'm not conservative.
That's not what the thread is about. But anything can be a potential utility. Especially if you're a communist.
I'm not sure what the solution is.I can't tell the future of technology. But I feel pretty strongly that government taking control is the wrong path. People keep mentioning electricity. Electricity has been deregulated.
Well I think we can agree that the public will be increasingly dependent on the internet in the future. Having control of the internet in the hands of a few giant corporations like Verizon, Comcast, and UVerse whose only interest is profitability runs counter to the interests of society. It's such a problem that it could put us at a disadvantage to the rest of the world. Constructing a system where internet access is delineated into a haves vs have nots system is a gigantic problem. Even the working poor in the US have electricity, sewage, and water.
