Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility
vivIsel writes In a move that is sure to generate controversy, the President has announced his support for regulation of broadband connections, including cellular broadband, under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification of broadband in this way would treat it as a utility, like landline telephones, subject providers to new regulations governing access, and would allow the FCC to easily impose net neutrality requirements.
In the highest profile case, Cogent has offered to cover the capital costs of the needed upgrade. The problem is that last-mile ISPs are trying to collect ongoing monopoly rents by charging transit to backbone providers well in excess of the ISP's actual cost of moving the bits, when the ISP's customers are already paying their part of the cost of moving the bits.
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Because the content providers are not the ones using the bandwidth, it's the ISPs own customers that are using the bandwidth they paid for. Netflix doesn't push it's contents onto an ISPs network - the ISPs customer pulls it, using the bandwidth they've already paid for. If the ISP wants to charge more, or renegotiate terms with all those customers they promised "unlimited high speed" bandwidth to, that's a different story. Punishing the content providers is absurd. If you could punish the spam pushers, that'd be a different story, but companies like CNN, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon... they don't force their content onto anyone's networks.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Well, I'm a tree hugging conservative... whatever, and Obama can't get out of bed in the morning to suit me. But this is a really good move on his part. That woman he nominated for Holder's job; good choice also. Sending more help to fight ISIS; another good move.
I guess he cares far less about politics now than a week ago. It'd be funny if he turns out to be a good president for these last 2 years
This may actually be the stupidest thing I've ever seen on ./. So kudos, to you.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
If Obama had his way, he wouldn't go through Congress for anything.
I'm not saying he should rule by fiat or anything of the sort but I understand the frustration the guy must feel. Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea? Even when the item being debated was their idea. They don't even try to compromise, they just say no, especially if they are a tea party candidate. Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other. Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election. The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
This is the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" problem. The short answer is, most rural populist types would probably fare better under a Democratic economic regime, but it really wouldn't be that much better. On the other hand, Republicans make few concrete promises economically, but they make broad promises about how they will sustain rural culture -- they fight for gun rights, and for the protection of traditional religious values, and against abortion, and gays. And in the end both parties mostly work in the interests of large corporations. In the end, Democrats promise a Starbucks in every town, and Republicans promise a cross on every door.
Also Democrats are generally supportive of state services, and things like Obamacare, which would improve the lot of poor voters in general, but a lot of poor people are simply morally opposed to accepting "welfare," and the slightly-better-off people around them are all downright hostile to the idea. This persists even if the "welfare" in question is completely pro-market, means tested, economically justified and everything else -- it's because American culture has moralistic, puritanical beliefs about thrift and work that are impervious to facts. The liberal tendency in American politics promises poor people a leg up, at the cost of their soul and their meritocratic ideals -- they'll get ahead but "everyone" will know they don't deserve it; meanwhile the conservative tendency promises a boot on your neck, but offers the guarantee that when you get the boot, you'll feel like you deserve it. People are attracted to appearance of order and justice, even if it hurts them.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
What utilities are you referring to? My sewers, water, electricity, and gas all keep flowing, and at reasonable rates. I certainly would not want them transformed into Comcast-esque money-grubbers. Privatization in the absence of competition is the worst of both worlds, and that's what broadband to my home currently is.
With respect to government intrusion, assuming you buy the line that it's any different from, or even separate from, corporate intrusion (which I don't, since companies simply sell it to the govt) - the US Mail has the strongest legal guarantees of privacy, as far as I can tell, with phone being next. It seems to be in decreasing order of when invented, rather than public/private. At least with a utility there's a possibility of meaningful privacy regulations, if the public ever decides to start wanting them.