As if they need more help...

[badrose]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fed-regulation-of-internet-coming-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2595304

[PedroDaGr8]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fed-regulation-of-internet-coming-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2595304

For this discussion I will ignore the FEC issue because I know nothing about it. That being said, it has nothing to do with the FCC issues. The anti-net neutrality comments are the usual horseshit from the Republicans on this topic. They are conflating letting monopolistic businesses manipulate their position with the government interfering with businesses when it is not needed. Net neutrality is a fundamental AND NECESSARY right of the internet which companies are attempting to quash. By structural design, ISPs at this time are utilities. They are pissed that they can't abuse their monopoly position as much after being regulated as one by the FCC. THey have funded a HUGE amount of money into the republican party to try to get them to overturn this ruling. It has nothing to do with what YOU say on the internet, and has everything to do with the government preventing your ISP from preventing you from saying and doing things on the internet. If ISPs (as the Republican Party wants) have their way, they can control where you visit, what you can say on them, what you can upload to them, what sites you see, how much you view them, etc.

To quote myself from another thread:

I am not against ISPs, as they are currently structured (this is an important qualifier), being regulated as utilities because in essence they are just that. I think you have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to argue that they are not the modern iteration of a telecommunications utility. They are rapidly becoming, if not already are, a necessary function for modern daily life. So much in life, from job applications to government programs are only available via access by the internet. At the same time, this utility-like function and structure is what enables them to engage in rent-seeking and monopolistic behaviors. While usually the capitalist market system works great, even without the monopoly structure that often exists the barrier to entry is so remarkably high that it distorts the free market VERY heavily in favor of the limited few that can afford to pony up the money initially. As a result, this high barrier to entry more or less guarantees the kind of market distortions that we have been seeing. It kills competition and results in a non-free market even without government intervention. Additionally, one could give the argument there is a small degree of public good inherent in having a limited number of connections to the home. Just like we don't need 12 power lines coming into our house, we don't need 12 internet lines coming in. Yet in the current system, to have a free and competitive market, this is what you would require.

The barrier to entry is so high and their societal need so great, that they ARE the same thing as the telco utilities in the 30s. These things heavily distort the market so that it is not actually a free market with competition even without government regulation. To compare what the ISPs want to do with the internet. Imagine if you had a power company that said you could only plug in hairdryers from Samsung, dishwashers from LG and refrigerators from Kenmore with your electricity unless you paid $20 more to get on a higher plan that allowed Fridgidaire, Viking, etc. or $50 more for the any brand plan. On top of that, they charged the equipment manufacturers money to have access to their utility network. This is basically what the ISPs are trying to do and the FCC ruling on net neutrality stopped it. If the ISPs have their way, you will have very heavy handed data caps, limited access to websites and no option to change providers. Oh yeah, all at really high fees.

Truthfully, the Republicans are DAMN wrong on this and are honestly toying with the future of the internet by pandering to their ISP lobbyists. Let's put it this way, I know that I tend ot be all over the place on issues, but when even CBBN is agreeing with Obama on a topic. You know the Republicans done messed up.

If you want to see what the Republicans SHOULD be championing if they were actually truly capitalist anymore:

http://www.kysportsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?33033-An-interesting-alternative-to-the-traditional-ISP-model

This model increases competition and decreases the amount of regulations necessary. The ISPs don't want it because they lose their monopoly position and have to actually compete. I can promise you, the ISPs and as a result the Republicans will fight this kind of model tooth and nail if it becomes popular.

[CitizenBBN]

Going with Pedro here. the battle against net neutrality is a put on by the ISPs trying to frame this as a government control issue.

The only government control here is trying to prevent utilities from becoming uncontrolled monopolies who can then take money from the big content companies and push out the little guys.

The GOP and the Democrats have sold out. Both have sold to Big Business, and the Dems are long beholden to Big Labor. The problem is Big Business isn't pro market, and Big Labor doesn't give a crap about the average American worker.

Obama is screwing up other internet issues, like turning over control of ICANN, but he's right on this one.

[dan_bgblue]

As the October 1 deadline approaches for the us to turn over control of ICANN, the domain name nonprofit, to the international community, (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/can_the_gop_stop_obamas_internet_giveaway.html)

[CitizenBBN]

Giving up control of iCAAN is really dumb. It looks fine on paper, but it's dumb. You can't dance with these foreign countries and not have problems.

We created the internet. It's ours. If they don't like it tough, go build your own. Otherwise we will control the naming rules, the numbering rules, etc.

What I think of international standards organizations is beyond low. The last thing I want is a bunch of EU bureaucrats or Chinese communists planning how the internet works. while all those groups have input now, I'd rather we have the deciding power to make sure it's right.

And yes, the naming conventions are totally US centric. Tough. That's like complaining that Ford put his name on the cars. We came up with it we get to decide how it gets named.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/29/ags-file-suit-in-last-ditch-bid-to-stop-hand-off-internet-control.html