GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO “FIX” THE INTERNET
|| By FITSNEWS || At the behest of U.S. president Barack Obama, the federal government has issued new regulations governing the internet. The so-called “net neutrality” rules – passed by a partisan 3-2 vote of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – purport to be a pro-consumer leveling of the online playing field.
“No one … should control free and open access to the Internet,” FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said. “It’s the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules.”
So … government should make the rules?
We wrote about “net neutrality” back in November, basically referring to it as a solution in search of a problem.
That’s a position we’ve consistently held … for years.
“The ‘danger’ that government is seeking to address is illusory, in our estimation,” we wrote way back in 2010. ” Sure, there’s a chance that service providers might try to block certain content or platforms offered by competitors, but isn’t that what competition is all about? And wouldn’t companies that try to block certain content or platforms face severe reprisals from the marketplace?”
Exactly …
Unfortunately the FCC – including South Carolina commissioner Mignon Clyburn – didn’t agree. Using a 1934 communications act, the agency has declared internet service providers to be public utilities – and reserved the right to regulate them accordingly. The goal of such regulation? Ensuring “fairness.”
Oh brother …
“The last thing we should want is President Obama or a government agency picking winners and losers on the Internet,” Forbes’ contributor Jeffrey Dorfman wrote last fall. “And enforcing net neutrality is picking winners and losers even if it looks like it is just ‘leveling the playing field.’ (Obama) may think it is not, but it completely blocks certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth.”
We concur …
164 comments
Wow…when FITS was busy crucifying Romney, pre-Nov. 2012…this ignorant MoFo did not say a D@*n word about Obama and Soros imposing Net Neutrality Unilaterally…
You Idiots should be P!$$#d at FITS, but they are likely in favor of this Gestapo-NAZI move by Heir Obama…
Are you off your meds again?
It’s Herr, dumbass.
WTF you talkin’ ’bout….
Delusional Much???
WTF you talkin’ ’bout….
Delusional Much???
Edit Much?
Forget to eat crow on this one much?
Get a job. Get of Medicaid you lazy taker.
Obviously a Government-Controlled Internet fan…LMAO…
Get a job. Get of Medicaid you lazy taker.
Government, the solution in search of a problem. Wait until all the fine print in this legislation starts coming out. You gotta pass it to know what’s in it.
The Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996, we know whats in it and it gives the FCC rights to regulate utilities which is what they are doing.
“we know whats in it ”
How could you know what the FCC is going to do? They have the power to regulate as they see fit…so your claim that we know what the Telecommunications Act has in it has no bearing on how the FCC will regulate the internet.
They can make up whatever rules they want for the most part.
They have been doing that since 1996. That is 20 years. Why are you complaining now?
I complain about everything, you’ve just not been paying attention.
The OP said legislation, the FCC passes regulation (which is enabled by the legislation)
Well, I’m gonna guess he meant regulation…but good point.
So Fits…you’re suggestion is to let the “free market” make me pay more money to get faster internet b/c I don’t subscribe to Comcast?
Which is it Fits? Are you crony capitalist or free (and fair) market?
I’m sick of this anti-gov’t bullshit. If you hate gov’t so bad, move to Somalia. There is basically no gov’t there.
“There is basically no gov’t there.”
Wrong, lot’s of little govt’s all squeezed into a small area. Many of them “warlords” too.
If you like a single, unifying gov’t that works well with private-public partnerships, maybe you should consider the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
And none of them very effective .
A basic “limited” government” fanatics dream.
What makes you think they aren’t “effective”?
What’s your metric?
Your Silliness of course.
Why don’t you take a trip there and let us all know?
Better yet why don’t you move there and get away from this big bad American guvmint that’s basicaly enslaved you!
Please write!
Oh, that’s a great response. I suppose it was too far a stretch to imagine those running the show there like it just the way it is, and in their mind gov’t is “effective”.
I thought too much of you, my apologies.
Maybe they’ll let you become a pirate and you can raid the open seas…
That’s a really good joke!
Have you ever thought of doing stand up for living?
You’re super funny, you should do it.
Your argument might make sense Will if the telecoms didn’t use gov’t money to build their networks and then not follow through with their promises even though there were given protected local monopolies.
““No one … should control free and open access to the Internet,” FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said. ”
“Except for us that is, cause we’re good at running stuff and keeping it “free””
“Yay for freedumb!”
“Sure, there’s a chance that service providers might try to block certain content or platforms offered by competitors. . .”
Should read. “Sure service providers will try to block certain content or platforms offered by competitors”
“Wouldn’t companies that try to block certain content or platforms face severe reprisals from the marketplace?”
NO! What reprisals would those be.
So, fitnews is on board with the crackpot theory that treating the Internet like a utility is somehow allowing that dictator Obama to . . . do what?
This has nothing to do with subscribers choosing what download/upload speed they want to pay for when they sign up with their local cable company. It has everything to do with cable monopolies favoring one website over another.
For people who do are so wary of government control, they sure do turn a blind eye to corporate fat cats and what they will do, and already have done, with that same control. The same lobbyists who fight Net Neutrality are the same lobbyists who fight municipal broadband and try to nudge out smaller competitors with unfair laws and anti-competitive practices. To you or I this is a wake up call, to them it is nothing to be concerned about.
They call all that kind of stuff,
The “Free Market.”
How is it the free market when monopolies are involved?
Most of these pro- regulation comments are from paid commentaries. Yu can tell by the similar messaging and number of post.
If you are referring to me I assure you I am paid nothing. If you know how I can be, let me know. If anyone was paying anyone, particularly politicians, I would bet its the telecom giants.
If you are referring to me I assure you I am paid nothing. If you know how I can be, let me know. If anyone was paying anyone, particularly politicians, I would bet its the telecom giants.
Are you the Ned that works at the AT& T store?
“Yu can tell by the similar messaging and number of post.”
Hate to say it, but it’s called “group think”…
actually if the public responses are mostly the same, and it appears as though they were on a form letter they can be batched and counted as 1. that means 4 million unique letters or phone calls came in requesting net neutrality
lol wut?
Most of these pro- regulation comments are from paid commentaries. Yu can tell by the similar messaging and number of post.
It’s a good question, because some of the players do have gov’t granted monopolies…but there are lots of ISP providers delivering service outside those specific monopolies(monopolies in phone/cable lines). Like satellite, cell, google fiber, etc.
Fits is just opposed to this because the Democrats are for it.
He doesn’t give a damnabout all that other stuff.
Nope. Fits is just a regular guy like you and me. He pays for his internet fees just like the rest of us.
“dictator Obama to . . . do what?”
Ok, I’m gonna take a stab at the potential.
What if they decide you have to have a license to blog?
What if they get to decide who can call themselves a news organization?
What if they decide that they must have a rating system for the internet to protect the youth from obscenity?
What if they decide there must be “equal time” by each blog for Dem & Repub viewpoints? (screw independents of course)
It goes on and on…it’s limitless.
They being Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.
What if they decide not to let you have a blog unless you pay them thousands of dollars a month?
What if they get to decide which news organization will be allowed to send content over the internet?
What if they decide you can only sell your products over the internet if they get a cut? What if your competitor offers them a bigger cut?
What if they decide that they must have a rating system for the internet to protect the everyone from “bad information” with them deciding what is bad information?
What if they decide to only allow Republican or Democratic viewpoints or viewpoints they agree with?
It goes on and on…it’s limitless.
You obviously don’t have a good head for business – bless your heart. You probably have a gentleman’s liberal arts degree – good for you!
Read up a little more on the free market. They will charge as much as they can to win a profit. That means price will be limited to what consumers will pay. Ya know that “supply and demand” thing” you heard about from your friends who majored in Bus Admin.
Just as they operate now, they will allow anyone to participate regardless of moral or political content.
I can always tell clueless hacks. They pretend they possess superior knowledge. Spout canned free markets BS straight from their right wing nut sight of choice. Its easier to insult than to say anything of substance. I’d be surprised if you ever set foot inside a business school, and this discussion is clearly above your “pretty little head.” Go back to posting on facebook and watching your stories mom. Bill O’reilly comes on soon. Beck has a new channel, for you to watch. He will sell you some end of time seed. Don’t forget your Geritol before bed.
Surprise! I do have a business degree from Clemson. Where is your business degree from?
Clemson has a business school???
I know a college education is a long shot for you. But with perseverance and a good work ethic you can do it.
Actually I am joking, I have heard of it. Isn’t that were Clemson sends students who could not hack one of their engineering programs?
You are definitely not an engineer. I can tell by your lack of logic.
Thunderbird
Thunderbird College?
He may have gone to Thunderbird but his major was MadDog 20/20.
He doesn’t have one in Business. B.S. in Drinking from the College of Charleston. Government paid for it.
“They being Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.”
None of those companies control the “internet”, they simply provide access…even further you can go to several other companies if you don’t like the service they provide.
You can’t do that with gov’t…there is no competitor in a certain region.
Your premise failed from the start.
These companies do control the internet. Comcast has been brought to court multiple times for throttling bandwidth of customers and traffic going to their competitors or people they are trying to demand more money from. They are a perfect picture of corporate thuggery and it would be foolhardy to believe they are the only ones doing this.
“These companies do control the internet.”
No, they don’t. The control ACCESS to the internet, which is a very important distinction.
If you don’t like the access they are providing(like throttling, censorship, etc.), you switch companies.
Your argument only works if your ISP has a direct connection to everything on the internet, which isn’t even close to how the internet works. Do you have any idea how many ISPs you hopped across to get to this website? Do you even know how to find that out? Because I do. ISPs take each other to court all the time over all kinds of disputes. The internet has to be regulated.
“Your argument only works if your ISP has a direct connection to everything on the internet,”
Wrong,the decentralized nature of the internet allows for fluidity in access on both ends.
Allowing people to choice based on service/needs/affordability if far superior to central planning.
This power expansion seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.(except for those who haven’t made enough effort to deal with any ISP throttling them)
Doesn’t exist? Read the news. Many large ISPs have been accused of throttling and have been taken to court over it.
You say fluidity as if there is a million ways for you to get to a site and it can change at the drop of a hat. There may be multiple paths but I bet for most sites all of them will go through the big ISPs. Usually you will go through the same one path 99% of the time and it only changes when something breaks. You can’t free a fish from water.
Service needs and affordability is off the charts better in other countries, they pay less money than we do for more bandwidth. They regulate more than we do.
They will never believe you. To them you are a lying socialist. Just like they don’t believe people in Canada pay less for health care than we do, live longer lives than we do and are happier with their health care than we are with our health care.
Lawyers not being able to go to court because of regulations, they won’t like that.
Well, you COULD HAVE switched, until now. But socialism hates competition it does not control.
Now change they to the gov… Doesn’t sound so good does it?
“… It has everything to do with cable monopolies favoring one website over another.”
… It has everything to do with Gruberment monopolies favoring one website over another, too.
Yeah, don’t let the government pick the winners and losers, let AT&T do it instead!
Will this make the Obamacare web site work? Had to pass Obamacare to know what was in it too.
You don’t really know what we are talking about, do you?
Just felt the need to throw a Fox News zinger in the mix?
Fox didn’t say you had to pass it to know what was in it, Nancy did.
BTW I agree with Dorfman.
He quotes himself, then follows it up with “Exactly.”
Chutzpah.
It serves him well.
“Popular victories like today’s are so unusual that three Congressional committees are investigating how this happened,” said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a group that supports net neutrality. “If the net neutrality effort had followed the usual playbook, if Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T had defeated the American people, nobody would be wondering why.”
To quote Fits News. “Exactly!”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-foundation-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702
Looks like the usual suspects pushing it. “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet”
…and there’s only one reason Soros would throw money at it..and it’s not because he wants everyone to have decentralized media/information.
He isn’t spending the dough for Commie equality of the internets….
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-foundation-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702
Looks like the usual suspects pushing it. “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet”
What we need is more government regulation in everything. Yup
Right! Because anyone with common sense knows what we really need is more control of our daily lives by giant corporations who will decide based on how much they are paid what we need to see and how fast we need to see it.
I would rather have corps supplying what I can see than the Feds.
He doesn’t get it. If you don’t like who you’re doing business with you go to someone else.
You don’t get that choice with gov’t.
What was the name of that board game again? You know the one that has Park Place and Boardwalk?
Let’s see, I’m rural yet I just got TWC to run a line to my house and I’m actually using a service via T-mobile for internet in the interim.
I also had the choice of DISH, a host of satellite providers, & Windstream to choose from.
No monopoly in sight.
And when the Feds broke up that monopoly Standard Oil, the Rockefellers only became richer.
You’re welcome. I help pay for the bill to run that line after all. My Uncle FCC regulates T-mobile cell towers so I will tell him thanks for you too.
You think regulation has anything to do with providing?
Holy moly, I don’t even know how to respond to that.
SCE&G, you know that public utility or maybe that other public utility that pulls water from behind the SCE&G dam and charges more for their product if you live outside the city limits of Columbia…you mean that board game.
You do get that choice, you just have to move to a different country to make it. It is expensive and inconvenient but in some cases so is finding another business to deal with. What is good for one should be good for another. Good luck finding a country with a government you can like.
Well yes, I can move to another country, but I’d rather try to convince people that a country that has a gov’t that allows free market choices are in the best interests of everyone.
Well I can try to find another business that will treat me right, if I can, but I would rather try to convince people that if we regulate the companies and make them do what they should be doing, it will not be an easter egg hunt to find a company that is actually good to do business with. That is also in the best interests of everyone.
I also say that this is the internet, when you access a web page you are jumping across several ISPs to get there. Just because you are not a customer of a bad ISP does not mean it does not mean that ISP will not have an effect on your internet use. In general ISPs rely on each other to play nice, if they did not the internet would be chaotic. Laws and regulations exist to keep ISPs from stepping on each others toes. They should also exist to keep ISPs from stepping on our toes too. It is a public utility.
“but I would rather try to convince people that if we regulate the companies and make them do what they should be doing,”
The problem is that there’s no long term example of gov’t regulated industries dropping price and increasing quality, even the ACA was passed under those claims and now everyone can see it’s bunk(it’s not even debatable), the only argument that some try to make is “well, the rates didn’t increase as fast”, but no one really knows that.
Really, intuitively before we even get to specifics, most people know that free markets produce the most options and best quality/price versus a gov’t regulated one.
Man, you have really drunk the wing nut Fake News kool-aid. The Feds are us. They are not telling you what you can see, They are telling Corporations what they cannot prevent you from seeing because someone who did not want you to see it paid them.
If you believe you will be treated more fairly by giant for profit corporation than by our the government, you really need to find a new country, because those corporation you trust so much would let your Pinto explode with you and your kids in it for enough money.
“The Feds are us”
Holy shit, that’s the most stupid thing you’ve written, and that’s saying something.
Well, I will have to confess since Citizens United, you may be right. But while I breath I hope we will realize what has been done to us before it is too late.
You really have a problem with Fox don’t you. Good thing you’re not on the FCC board.
Fox is free to spread their Fake News, because the airways are made available by the public. If I were on the FCC I would not interfere with Fox’s ability to spread whatever made up garbage they want to spread; nor would I allow another private company to prevent them from doing so. Even if they are largely the author of this irrational right wing hatred of our government.
There is nothing wrong with our Government, just the people that run it.
If you think the “hatred of our government” (your words not mine) started with FoxNews, you have been living under a rock.
The corporations are stumbling over each other to provide us a service. Now one of those service models IS now illegal.
Why can’t you people understand this. This is not about the telecoms offering more service. This is about the telecoms controlling who can offer internet content to you. Content is why you go to the internet.
Companies like Netflix wanted to purchase higher speed service to provide better service to its customers. Now that is not allowed. These type of profit driven policies lead to improved service and infrastructure for all. The profit motive with fraud and monopolistic restrictions leads to best and least expensive service. Fraud and monopolistic regulation is the proper extent of government regulation.
Giant Corporation have no control over us. Big Government can do ANYTHING they want by law.
Have you ever heard of ALEC?
They write the bills for your bible thumping politicians to pass at the behest of ALEC’s corporate sponsors.
you can’t be serious
For most people, a giant corporation is the only choice to get broadband internet. That’s a lot of control.
Nah I liked it better when George W “unleashed” Wall Street from all those”burdensome Regulations.
Ah 2007-2008
Those were the days.
Honey, your drunk. Go on the bed.
Not Bush. Try Clinton.
Net neutrality doesn’t “fix” the internet, it keeps the status quo. We already had net neutrality, but telecom companies wanted to change that status quo to make bigger profits. Also, it’s funny to complain about the gubmint meddling in the internet. The internet was created by government labs and tax payer-funded university research. Part of the reason the internet is great is because it began as a government-owned, pubic asset.
+25
Private contractors were used in the internet’s development…even further though the notion that it wouldn’t have occurred otherwise is just silly.
How many private contractors were paid by public funding?
It doesn’t matter, it only matters that the internet would have eventually developed on it’s own.
The argument that there would be no internet without gov’t is laughable.
Partially true. The creature created by government and universities remained a tiny, elite entity until private enterprise turned it into an inventive, growing moneymaker. Now, it will eventually become slow, elite and uninventive again, for which, we will all pay more. It’s all socialism can do: make everything it touches less. -600.
Private enterprise seemed to do ok under the current net neutrality framework. So keeping the status quo is going to change this? Or do you want your access to be throttled when you don’t pay a premium to your ISP. Probably end up looking like your cable bill with your movie streaming “package” (Netflix et al.) is an extra $10 unless you want dial up speed on the streaming sites.
The web boom was led by Mosaic, the first popular browser developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications.
“The ‘Black Proposal’ was a short, ten-page proposal for the creation of a supercomputing
center which eventually led to funding from the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to create supercomputing centers, including the
National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University
of Illinois. In this sense, the significant role played by the U.S.
Government in funding the Center, and the first widely popular web
browser (NCSA’s Mosaic) cannot be denied.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Supercomputing_Applications
“Private enterprise seemed to do ok under the current net neutrality framework.” TWC internet posted a 97% profit margin. thats enough to fund the entire operating cost of TWC as a whole for a year. all this because there is no competition
No competition?
Dude, wirelss internet is just coming on in full force…Google fiber, DSL(though most of the time DSL is shitty unless you close to a junction), satellite, etc.
Over time these service will become better/cheaper….gov’t involvement is going to fuck it all up(HT to Mark Cuban)>
Government does not throw a wrench into things like Google fiber, where did you get that from? Government will probably end up subsidizing some of it.
Did I say government has thrown a wrench in Google? (are you mistaking me for someone else?)
Now that being said, do I think they will? Yes.
Regardless, you’re ignoring my point. There’s already tons of competition. Regulation does nothing but try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Government doesn’t subsidize taxpayers do.
The article you quote backs up my argument. No one disputes that government-funded universities set up a primitive network which showed the system could work militarily as well as scholarly. But it wasn’t until private businesses took the reins that the internet we have now came into being.
Well when the government pays the cost of inventing something and also pays the costs of expanding and improving the infrastructure across as giant a land mass as America is of course corporate ISPs are going to make a buck.
It’s all socialism can do: make everything it touches less expensive.
“It’s all socialism can do: make everything it touches less expensive.”
lol…is that a joke? Do you think that no one is paying for socialized programs and that they cost less than a privatized version?
Talk to a European or Canadian about what medical bills in America looks like.
Great, let’s take your philosophy and naturally extend it to better mankind.
I know you agree with me that if we are going to be consistent in the your philosophy that we should apply it to everything for the betterment of mankind and all government to run everything.
Government has to run everything or nothing, why do I even bother, I am not having a conversation with an adult.
Actually, you have no logical underpinnings and then you end the discussion with an ad hominem.
You’ve failed logically in every way possible.
You are telling me that I have to be for government running everything, I never said that or suggested that. After that I did not see this conversation going anywhere, so I see no need to respectfully disagree with you anymore.
“You are telling me that I have to be for government running everything,”
Only if you want to be logically sound.
You have stated a principle, which is in essence that socialism(run by gov’t) creates lower prices, let’s refresh:
“It’s all socialism can do: make everything it touches less expensive.”
I applied the logical method, “Reductio ad absurdum”, to illustrate whether the principle is sound or not.(which is a widely accepted form of logical argument)
Clearly you now are reconsidering,and haven’t actually tried to refute it.
I am not reconsidering anything. I said it is easy to make money on something you didn’t have to invent yourself and get help paying for the infrastructure for, so ISPs did not build a profitable machine by themselves. I then took his sentence on socialism and added one word to poke fun at the bad point he was making.
I never said that government should run the internet all by itself, so saying that I should want government to run every single thing in the world to be consistent is a straw man.
You are so right, I forgot about the $2,500.00 savings.
Your history varies from the actual events.
And, who is “the government?”
1934 communications act can not be legally applied in this matter. When the act was made, there was no such thing as the internet – must less even microwave signals. Therefore, anyone attempting to do so is obviously an unstable psychotic maniac.
There were no automatics when the Second Amendment was passed either, one might note.
Based on the intent of the Founders putting in the 2nd amendment, I highly doubt that would have changed their opinion.
This is not about making the internet better, it is about controlling the content.
So, Benito Mussolini isn’t dead, after all. Goodbye ROI, innovation, speed, Hello AT&T 1950.
Don’t tell me we are going to be having party bandwidths.
Vero! E proprio aspettare, c’è di più!
Translation by NBC affiliates: “What, me worry?”
“We wrote about “net neutrality” back in November, basically referring to it as a solution in search of a problem.”
You mean like Voter ID Laws?
Once again, an issue that exposes that Libertarianism, like its big business proponents and sponsors, is more about the ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ of any big business to screw over its customers any way it can.
The people won this one.
“The people won this one.”
The people only win when there is free markets/choice. You are mistaken.
I have one broadband internet provider to choose from. Where there is no choice, we need regulation to make sure they don’t sell us a broken internet connection.
We will see how this plays out but it is a safe bet if the govt. messes with it, no good can come out of it.
this article is so full of half truths and lies that its infuriating. youve never been a corporate shill but thats exactly what you are doing here. 200 BILLION DOLLARS IN TAX PAYER MONEY WENT TO IMPROVE THE INTERNET OVER 20 YEARS AGO AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO THE END USERS. The internet is not being regulated. the companies that connect you to the internet are being told they cannot selectivly deny you the ability to connect to the internet. When you make a phone call your phone company doesnt charge the person you call, and they cant tell you that you cant call that person because they use another carrier.
“issued new regulations governing the internet.” actually they have reestablished the same regulations that a federal judge lifted because verizon sued stating they were a content creator instead of a content provider. This resolution establishes ISPs as providers, not creators since they actually dont create the web pages you browse
“The ‘danger’ that government is seeking to address is illusory, in our estimation,” Tell that to netflix who has provided proof that their service has been throttled by ISPs who offer a competing service from another department, who was then extorted to pay a service fee to be allowed to connect to the servers
“isn’t that what competition is all about” please tell me more about this “competition” you speak of in the ISP industry
“it completely blocks certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth” This is so ignorant it cant even be argued with. It blocks the business model of Fucking over your consumer with high rates, and then fucking over the content creators that arent your customers with high rates too on the other end, after your customers already paid for the data that is being transfered. And if anything it improves the posibility for innovation. Google Fiber is the first attempt to innovate broadband in a generation. you know what is holding them back? the anticompetitve practices already being used by the established ISPs. They already have the infrastructure in place to provide 100mbps up and down (this was paid for by a 200 billion dollar tax subsidy since youre so worried about where our tax dollars go) but they only started making it available when google fiber came to town, and they only offer it when google fiber is competing
“The internet is not being regulated. ”
Then I suppose the FCC just claimed the power to do so for theoretical purposes.
Regardless, I sympathize with those seeing the original monopoly power of the telecoms(granted by gov’t of course), but they are not seeing the competitive landscape options as they develop and not taking into consideration that every time gov’t increases its claim to power, said power is used way beyond the scope originally claimed/intended.
Dems that are concerned about civil rights & free speech should be as concerned as non-Dems.
regulating like a utility actually fosters competition because one of the big problems facing startups was the fees for running wires and using utility polls. because its now a utility they cannot charge for the use a utility line or a utility poll.
“regulating like a utility actually fosters competition”
No it doesn’t.
“problems facing startups was the fees for running wires and using utility polls”
A problem cell providers don’t have and that Google has already overcome….
There are utility pole up and down the street I live on but only SCE&G provides electricity, where’s the competition?
Are you saying regulation doesn’t foster competition?
lol
Not saying that at all, I dug a well.
lol…this whole thing remind me of the SCDOI arguments, remember when they & BCBS claimed that restricting the number of insurance companies allowed to compete in state would LOWER prices?
LMAO! Sad thing is, many people bought that…the only saving grace of the ACA is that it’s big gov’t telling a smaller gov’t what to do so there’s more cracks/loopholes you can work now than before.
Speaking of ACA, did you save $2,500.00 last year because I sure didn’t.
Nope, it was a mixed bag for me, I worked the system and saved money in one area(because the SCDOI forced small business into higher rates over individual plans) using the SHOP program(which the website never worked for, I had to call it in to complete it and the ACA agent acknowledged the site doesn’t work) to basically rate through my business that an individual could normally get…but then my personal rates skyrocketed because my original personal plan didn’t meet the ACA criterea and I was worried about getting hammered eventually via audit.
In the short, there was an increase for me and my company, but it wasn’t huge….certainly there was no “savings”, but I think most people probably knew the gov’t and the ACA proponents were lying about that(I’m fairly sure that most ACA proponents knew it was BS too, they just wanted some poor people covered and were willing to lie(Gruber) or do whatever it took)
The SCDOI & it’s cronies are a bunch of scoundrels so there’s a perverse joy I get in seeing the ACA make their life just a little more difficult….(but it’s all crony bullshit in the big picture)
Sure, Obamacare will help further destroy the country economically, but let’s face it, it is just speeding up the process…it’s not solely responsible for it.
There are some good things in the ACA but it didn’t take 2,000 pages of law and 18,000 pages of regulation to make the good things happen.
You’re right about the “solely responsible” thing. $18 Trillion and counting didn’t happen just because of ACA, one political party or one President but it sure has picked up pace lately.
“There are some good things in the ACA”
I respectfully disagree. If gov’t allowed the healthcare market to function like the TV, cell phone(the actual phone), or computer market we’d be much farther ahead.
We can respectfully disagree because I think preexisting conditions are a problem the healthcare market really didn’t want to solve. That aside I agree wholeheartedly.
Health care cost started to escalate in the mid 60’s after Medicare was passed. In Feb 1969 I was discharged from the AF, it was my choice I could have extended for a year. My son was born in Mar 1969 and because it was preexisting the insurance I had did not cover the doctor or hospital. I paid the hospital $300.00 cash (not complaining) when checking in for the wife and son’s five day stay. Four years later my daughter was born in the same hospital and same five day stay, the cost $2,000.00.
I also remember when you went to the doctors office for a snotty nose you paid for it.
Two markets that, again, other countries do better than us because they regulate it better.
Right, young healthy people would have insurance until they became old or sick, then they would be dropped by the insurance company. Insurance is real cheap that way.
Nope does not want to admit it but resale regulation helps smaller ISPs offer services through existing infrastructure of their competitors. Their competitors must allow this and are limited in what they can charge the ISP for it.
Never been a corporate shill?
What in the world do you think Libertarianism is all about?
be ready for broadband to slow up to dial-up speed when this is fully implemented.
I remember when we went to 1200 baud modems, we were in hog heaven.
Don’t we already have net neutrality?
“And wouldn’t companies that try to block certain content or platforms face severe reprisals from the marketplace?”
Not if you only have one broadband Internet provider available to you. It’s good to be a monopoly.