This will just be another magnificent government failure. While this might be an unpopular stance(and I really could not care less), government does not exist to protect you. If you are not willing to vote with your dollar and exercise your right to vote in elections, then nothing will ever change. We can all wish for issues to get better, but it does not work in practical terms.
Comcast caused so many customers problems because those customers continued to provide Comcast financial support while they(Comcast) continued to provide sub par service. If customers would learn to ditch companies that provide bad service, then these regulations would not be needed. If you happen to live in an area that Comcast has a monopoly, then you need to vote out the idiots in your local and state government that allow the monopoly to thrive. Aside from regulated market(which few exist today in the consumer world), there should always be, at the very least, two to three different companies offering services.
Even if the United States switched to compete government-control of all private business, services would not get better. Only when you have open markets, and the businesses within those markets face a harsh customer base that accepts nothing but the highest level service, do we truly get what we(the consumer) pays for. When we(the consumer) start accepting trash service, then that is all we will ever get.
[citation][nom]montezuma[/nom]If customers would learn to ditch companies that provide bad service, then these regulations would not be needed. If you happen to live in an area that Comcast has a monopoly, then you need to vote out the idiots in your local and state government that allow the monopoly to thrive. Aside from regulated market(which few exist today in the consumer world), there should always be, at the very least, two to three different companies offering services.[/citation]
That would all be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that Comcast usually works on a contract basis with city and municipal governments. Voting out the turds who allow this kind of thing won't work in the short term when Comcast has a ten-year contract to monopolize your local internet access.
Your trust in an open market is admirable, but quaint. I can't think of any market right now that needs more intense oversight than the broadband market. How effective has an open market been so far? When you allow robber barons to roam at will, they're gonna do what they do best.
I don't get it. You start off saying it's a government failure, then go on to propose it's the job of the people to regulate, which obviously isn't happening... So isn't this a people failure, either way? Either they don't support the FCC, or they continue to accept crappy service, that's a failure of the people, and obviously, the FCC here for once appears to be doing its best to do the right thing.
Montezuma, you are missing the whole point. Genachowski is a huge proponent for net neutrality. He is doing this to stop Comcast from tier pricing. If he doesn't stop them then the flood gates will open for service providers and tier pricing will become the norm. He stated that they want very low key regulation. His whole purpose in doing this is solely to preserve net neutrality.
So does this mean, in regards to net neutrality, that Espn3/Espn360's policy in regards to being distributed only through ISP's that have paid for the service could be legally contested? If there is anything that violates the ideas of net neutrality it would have to for services to be provided only through certain ISP's.
In an ideal world yes customers alone could regulate services based on their performance. But it never works out that way in the real world.
A completely unregulated free market is probably just as bad as a 100% government controlled one. In an unregulated market one company will end up cornering the market, buying or pushing out the competitors, and then will be free to do whatever they want and the customer base will have no option or recourse.
[citation][nom]mcbowler[/nom]I'm sorry, what is wrong with tier pricing? If someone wants to only use a little bandwidth and doesn't want to pay $50 per month should they be allowed to buy a plan for $10 a month?[/citation]
It isn't soley about tiered pricing. But controlling content, and charging more or throttling services such as Hulu, Youtube, so that you have no choice to either pay the higher fee and don't use the service at all.
The industry as a whole is opposed to any type of government intervention or regulation. That includes the issue of net neutrality. This is not a new issue. The U.S. Government has repeatedly made it known that it supports net neutrality. I've read articles about it for quite a few years. If history repeats itself, then I expect the U.S. Government will step in and wind up with a mess that satisfies no one.
[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]That would all be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that Comcast usually works on a contract basis with city and municipal governments. [/citation]
You missed the point all we will get with this is more of the same. All the Feds will do is replicate what the cities are doing. If government got their hands out, we would then, and only then, have choice. The internet providers will adapt because any new regulation will be complex and filled with loop holes.
The only reason companies demanded contracts was that they had to install brand new and very expensive infrastructure for a new medium. That business model is changing but the government sees a cash cow that will be blighted with little hidden fees to pay for all the overhead they bring. You want more government you will pay dearly for it.
This has nothing to do with helping out the little guy and all about political power and control. The FCC is run by political appointees and they all have agendas.
All we need are laws with criminal and fiscal penalties, i.e. a couple years in jail plus all profits gained through fraudulent actions. Fines have little incentive to follow and are typically factored in risk management.
When political appointees reinterpret the regulations we loose. If they get away with this you will pay more, not less.
The government needs to treat the infrastructure like they do roads, and then allow independent service providers to fight it out to deliver services via contract. North America is lagging far behind in internet technology for consumers by subsidizing the robber baron's with tax dollars. (you think comcast paid for most, if any of their internet infrastructure? HAH!)
Actually, the court said that the FCC has no authority over the Internet at all... the FCC can go ahead and classify broadband as a "duck hunting service" or a "car painting service" or whatever you want... once it's challenged in court again, they should again rule against the FCC's self-proclaimed jurisdiction.