It's safe to say as a libertarian, he doesn't believe in the concept of public utilities. My apologies to him and Haymitch for lumping them under the umbrella term "conservative". I think one of the failures of libertarians is their inability to provide practical solutions to natural monopolies (ones that have a very high entry barrier because of investment etc). One libertarian quipped natural monopolies were simply the result of a free market naturally selecting the fittest form of organization. I asked what incentive they'd have to compete or how a newcomer would come on the stage to offer an alternative. In the long-run (100-150 years), something would occur, he said. Meanwhile consumers under natural monopolies/oligopolies would suffer while the free market worked something out, I replied. 'That's capitalism and life's tough', and we ended it there. Yes, he had a red beard, a Ron Paul bumper sticker, and he drank craft beer. I'm neither a fan of pure capitalism or pure communism. I think each has its strengths. A public utility is an example of this; you deem certain things too important and essential from natural monopolies so you make public utilities. Other things like smartphones or hair dryers you leave to the 'freer' market.
The internet is not a utility. The types of sites that are critical to commerce and or stability are large and well-funded enough that they'll be able to afford priority fees without net neutrality. Incidentally I wouldn't go assuming that government regulation would stop at data bandwidth parity, they'd eventually start curtailing content for decency or political subversiveness.
1) What are examples of websites that are critical to stability? This is like my electric company telling me which lamps I can buy for my house by charging one lamp company more than the other. Lamps made by General Electric will be fine since GE will pony up the priority fee. But the lamps made by the smaller, independent craftsman in Portland are impacted because he can't afford the priority fees. ISPs should charge me by the volume of service I consume like my electric company. It shouldn't matter which lamp I use. The amount of information I consume matters, not the type or from where I get that information i.e. WikiLeaks. 2) Is there any evidence of the government curtailing your telephone conversations for decency/subversiveness? Any why they eventually start doing this? Because I haven't seen of this in landlines.
Which is why we maintain the status quo. We don't push for more regulation, we don't push for a no regulation free market. The status quo is fine. Tell the ISPs to go **** themselves and keep the golden age of the internet alive.
First, electricity is deregulated for much of the country. Second, I'm not in favor of having it concentrated in the hands of a few companies. That's a straw man and a common silly fear of the left. I'm in favor of competition because we don't know what the future will look like and what the best technologies will be. Someone mentioned google fiber. How will google fiber compete if the government makes the Internet a utility and picks the winners?
You're too busy thinking of an insult (you came up with shill, good one) that you didn't realize it has been addressed. Try reading the thread your posting in.
Not necessarily, it depends. What's the liberal obsession with utilities though? You trust governments competence that much?
I wouldn't call the lack of competition a straw man and "silly fear" - we see it now in the marketplace. The barrier to entry can run into the tens of millions of dollars range and ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner, etc. won't share their existing network infrastructure with new companies. Hell, they want to merge and consolidate their networks even more, despite the gentleman's agreement to not compete with one another in different markets. It's estimated that Google spent $80 million in Kansas City to install their Fiber network and will spend over $90 million in Austin. That cost stifles innovation by preventing new competitors from opening up shop. Are you against the proposed Time Warner/Comcast merger? What's the conservative obsession with deregulation? You trust the motives of for-profit companies that much?
dodge, I put a definition up there.... internet access is a basic service that allows a host of services to be viable and chosen by the user, it runs on existing public Rights-of way reserved for utilities, on structures built by and for utilities, with exclusive municipal contracts limiting competition. All you said was that is not a utility in response without addressing the issues stated. It is in the public's interest to regulate internet access (not content) as a utility providing the basic service at a price that reflects the cost and a publicly deemed profit margin. The only reason to argue against that public serving position would be to support excessive profits by allowing the basic service provider to control the access that you are already paying for and anyone who does is probably getting paid to do so, shill. There are no competitive alternatives to the systems that were allowed to be installed on the public easements with exclusive contracts, ATT, Time Warner and Comcast. Why would you trust these corporations to be fair in a monopolistic endeavor when their very reason for their existence is to make as much profit as possible. Maybe they are just good people. THIS IS HOW COMCAST IS ASTROTURFING THE NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality By its own admission, Comcast is working with think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. Fellows at the Institute are printing op-eds all throughout the media in support of killing Net neutrality--without disclosing the think tank's ties to Comcast. Comcast and its cable lobby partners spent over $70 million in the last decade lobbying for the new net neutrality rules that would allow them to create a slow lane on the web, charge more for tiered services, and artificially slow traffic to competitors. Net neutrality was just the start. Can the FCC keep states from banning public Internet? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eep-states-from-banning-city-funded-internet/ Last night, House lawmakers pushed through legislation that would effectively undo those prospects for many cities around the country. In an amendment to a must-pass funding bill, Republicans led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee approved an amendment that would prohibit federal regulators from ensuring cities' ability to sell their own high-speed broadband directly to consumers.
I'm trying to understand why "special governmental regulation" drives your definition of a "utility" and you seem to reject (or ignore) the other definition of "business that provides a commodity of public consequence" that dmc89 provided. I definitely wouldn't trust the government to run a utility company, but I believe oversight (or some kind of accountability to people, not dollars) is necessary for services that are necessary to maintain our current level of civilization. To follow up on your one-liner answers, what does your preference on whether something should be considered a utility or not depend on?
We align pretty well on this issue; but I trust the federal government pretty much whole-heartedly since the Warren Court, the Interstate Highway System, Tennessee Valley Authority, the CDC and the Clean Air Act.
"Sites that are critical to commerce" are relevant today because of the lack of access restrictions of the past. Netflix, a big game changer to video rentals and now the video on demand market, would not be where it is today if their service was throttled by ISPs who might also be competitors for content and views.
It's not broken because of net neutrality. Think how ****ty the cable system is? You want the internet to be that?
I believe you have a misunderstanding about the Net Neutrality debate, and where the utility question comes up. Here's a quick breakdown. Those who don't want things to change - the 'conservatives' - they want to pay ISPs for service in exchange for how much they use. The 'conservatives' do not want ISPs to discriminate based on the type of information users view online. They want freedom online regardless of what websites they click on. In 1996, Congress passed the Telecoms Act. There was Title I for 'Info services' (i.e. YouTube, Facebook) and Title II for 'Telecoms Services'. In 1996, your ISP like America Online gave you more than internet access. It also gave you email, news, instant messaging, etc. Thus, in the early days ISPs were 'info services' instead of 'telecoms services' as you'd think today. By the early to mid 00s, deregulation was a huge trend. People thought the free market would be best for consumers in the Internet industry. Problem is today 95% of Americans have only 2 choices for broadband internet access as a result of deregulation. Not only do Americans now have fewer choices, their ISP like Comcast began discriminating on the type of content they were viewing (because it competed with their cable tv product). This behaviour was deemed unfair by the FCC under its Open Net rules. However, the DC Circuit said the FCC couldn't tell ISPs to play fair because they fell under Title I. If the FCC reclassified ISPs to be 'telecoms services' like they are, then it would have authority, the Court said. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T et al say they are not telecoms services and so should be allowed to discriminate based on what you see online. The utility question is separate from this. Currently, the free market prevents competition in this industry due to the huge entry barrier to become a ISP. In the free market, ISPs can charge you more if you watch YouTube and Netflix instead of your cable TV. A company like Comcast wants you watch more MSNBC instead. If you want more ISP choices as an American, make internet access a utility. More choices means more innovation, healthier companies, and better prices. Google Fiber is mentioned because it's been the only newcomer on the block. The fact that one of the richest and most dominant corporations in the world can't even make a dent in the overall US ISP market further manifests this industry is a natural monopoly. Internet access today has a huge public consequence hence the utility definition used by the American legal system. TL;DR Net Neutrality supporters want ISPs to be reclassified under Title II as telecoms services/open carriers. Americans have 1-2 choices at most for broadband internet access. The FCC's job is to make those 1-2 choices play fair. It can play referee if it reclassifies. The utility question is a tangent to this debate.
ISPs want to change the status quo. Net Neutrality wants to preserve it. If the FCC reclassifies ISPs under Title II, the status quo of Net Neutrality/open internet will be preserved. That joint proposal with Verizon has been voided because it was submitted 4 years ago when the FCC made new Open Internet rules to preserve Net Neutrality. Those rules were struck down by a Federal court. Google is on the opposing side to ISPs like AT&T and Verizon. It wants to preserve Net Neutrality.
I can't let this go. Less than half the states have deregulated electricity. And, of those states, only Texas has really deregulated; the other states maintain the incumbent utility as a competing retailer and a provider of last resort. And even where open to competition, electricity retail is regulated. The utility commissions are still there to provide ample protection for the little guy, even in Texas. The polar vortex showed you get less protection when you stray from the utility, but regulators and legislators were all over the power industry about marketing and pricing practices after consumers in the northeast got some big price increases from the cold weather. The amount of consumer protection we get as electricity consumers is leaps and bounds more robust than what we get as bandwidth consumers.
