good point. actually, very good point. but aren't we talking about making a bad situation worse by adding more gov't regulation to try to "correct" a problem created by goverment regulation? Also, If we agree that since the government has the right to regulate the infrastructure because they (meaning us) paid for it, doesn't that also mean the gov't should be able to regulate other aspects of it such as content, end-user price, and availability?
You are absolutely correct! Free markets work best... free! While it is true that there are currently only a few choices in each market, as the wireless ISP market opens up there will be increased choice- as well as internet from power lines, cell-phone providers, and for that matter the blimp-internet guy.
What we are talking about here isn't government invervention in something that the companies are doing now- we are talking about pre-emptive regulation! Regulation against things that aren't even happening! It's not thought-crime (does godwin's law include orwell... because it probably should) but can't we see it from here?! (ok, maybe that last bit was a little over the top).
but isn't the cost involved more than just lines? I mean, lines are just one part of the expense of providing service- and while I am firmly against gov't subsidized anything, doesn't adding regulation just add one wrong to another? Besides all that, won't the end result, when upgrades are needed, be that I have to pay more for access, all because Joe down the street has a youtube addiction?
It's strange how much we detest government regulation in televsion, radio and voice services, but suddenly we're begging for in on the internet.
Why isn't it reasonable that if a company is making money by using someone else's resources- they should have to pay for it? When send my customers packages, I have to pay UPS to deliver them. This isn't any different.
With the increase of bandwidth consumption by sites like google video and youtube, someone is eventually going to have to pay to upgrade the infrastructure. Why not charge the companies that are making money off of it? (as opposed to me, who is only wasting money on it)
and yet, here is a case where the government has decided NOT to add additional regulation, and just hear the hue and cry! Ultimately, if I or you, or ABC Giant Corporation(tm) pays for the infrastructure and owns the equiptment, don't they have the right to charge as they see fit for access? If I run a dry-cleaner can't I charge more for same-day service? Isn't reasonable that I might charge a frequent customer less, or I might charge more to clean your sequined tube-top? (sissy). The Cato Institue explains a more libertarian perspective on things "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Is it just me, or are a lot of people asking the government to regulate our businesses?
I work on the Avionics package of the F-16. These (among many other aircraft) are fly-by-wire meaning that all pilot inputs (stick, rudder pedals) are passed through a computer and electrically sent to the control surfaces. These aircraft fly in conditions that are *somewhat* more hazardous and complex than your average Airbus, and largely the pilot does what the little screens tell him to. A common AF joke is to refer to a pilot as a "stick actuator", as that is largely what he is. It is a relatively small step (relatively speaking) to automate this last bit of flight. Or, for that matter, the Predator is a remote-controlled plane that carries Hellfire missles- surely if that can work, this can work.
The justification come from the same place that seat-belt laws do- If tax money is in use, then the government has the "right" to dictate conditions. I suppose that its as easy as saying that because government money is paying for access and bandwith, then they have the right to control what that bandwith is being used for (or "wasted on").
Slashdot Mirror
good point. actually, very good point. but aren't we talking about making a bad situation worse by adding more gov't regulation to try to "correct" a problem created by goverment regulation? Also, If we agree that since the government has the right to regulate the infrastructure because they (meaning us) paid for it, doesn't that also mean the gov't should be able to regulate other aspects of it such as content, end-user price, and availability?
You are absolutely correct! Free markets work best... free! While it is true that there are currently only a few choices in each market, as the wireless ISP market opens up there will be increased choice- as well as internet from power lines, cell-phone providers, and for that matter the blimp-internet guy.
What we are talking about here isn't government invervention in something that the companies are doing now- we are talking about pre-emptive regulation! Regulation against things that aren't even happening! It's not thought-crime (does godwin's law include orwell... because it probably should) but can't we see it from here?! (ok, maybe that last bit was a little over the top).
but isn't the cost involved more than just lines? I mean, lines are just one part of the expense of providing service- and while I am firmly against gov't subsidized anything, doesn't adding regulation just add one wrong to another? Besides all that, won't the end result, when upgrades are needed, be that I have to pay more for access, all because Joe down the street has a youtube addiction?
It's strange how much we detest government regulation in televsion, radio and voice services, but suddenly we're begging for in on the internet.
Why isn't it reasonable that if a company is making money by using someone else's resources- they should have to pay for it? When send my customers packages, I have to pay UPS to deliver them. This isn't any different.
With the increase of bandwidth consumption by sites like google video and youtube, someone is eventually going to have to pay to upgrade the infrastructure. Why not charge the companies that are making money off of it? (as opposed to me, who is only wasting money on it)
and yet, here is a case where the government has decided NOT to add additional regulation, and just hear the hue and cry! Ultimately, if I or you, or ABC Giant Corporation(tm) pays for the infrastructure and owns the equiptment, don't they have the right to charge as they see fit for access? If I run a dry-cleaner can't I charge more for same-day service? Isn't reasonable that I might charge a frequent customer less, or I might charge more to clean your sequined tube-top? (sissy). The Cato Institue explains a more libertarian perspective on things
"The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Is it just me, or are a lot of people asking the government to regulate our businesses?
*over_the_top reactionary comment follows...* hitler also knew that the best way to change a national mind was to start with the children...
I work on the Avionics package of the F-16. These (among many other aircraft) are fly-by-wire meaning that all pilot inputs (stick, rudder pedals) are passed through a computer and electrically sent to the control surfaces. These aircraft fly in conditions that are *somewhat* more hazardous and complex than your average Airbus, and largely the pilot does what the little screens tell him to. A common AF joke is to refer to a pilot as a "stick actuator", as that is largely what he is. It is a relatively small step (relatively speaking) to automate this last bit of flight. Or, for that matter, the Predator is a remote-controlled plane that carries Hellfire missles- surely if that can work, this can work.
The justification come from the same place that seat-belt laws do- If tax money is in use, then the government has the "right" to dictate conditions. I suppose that its as easy as saying that because government money is paying for access and bandwith, then they have the right to control what that bandwith is being used for (or "wasted on").
I believe that security has already been compromised. According to this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20051111/IBSONY/TPBusiness/Internatio nal, a britsh security company has found the first trojan(s) to exploit this.