It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
I don't see it that way since someone just called for 'net neutral' from the oval office with 'tighter' rules.
Which means more regulation.
Arguing that it's an "Obama Administration" grab for more regulations is a fallacy, is the impetus began under the previous administration (and was embraced)
President Obama calls for tighter rules from the FCC -- leaving a little bit of wiggle room -- in an effort to preserve a "free and open Internet."
originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
When I see evidence of corporate greed interefering with internet freedom, I will consider supporting government regulation.
originally posted by: ketsuko
You put the government in charge of the 'net and they can then start to regulate what you see on it ... you know, like those embarrassing stories.
originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: beezzer
Do you complain about the electric/natural gas/phone company having the government in control? No matter what you say/how much electric/gas you use, the government can't just arbitrarily come in and shut you off or lower your service. That's what net neutrality would protect.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
What do you see happening directly to ATS as a result? I know you may have already answered that, and if so I'm sorry - I haven't read the entire thread.
originally posted by: beezzer
There are threads about "smart meters" that could shut you off if you use too much power,
originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Indigo5
You make the same naive mistake most do in these discussions, you assume that infrastructure is a giant cash cow for the company that installed it.
I guess that is why the government makes so much money off of roadworks!
ISPs pay for a part of these infrastructures through their purchase of leased lines and, in some cases, payments to universities for rent and local administration. For the most part, the joint costs of the infrastructures are picked up directly by end users and are not included in the prices charged by ISPs.
The hardware and software costs described above are part of the costs of obtaining Internet service, as is the cost of the users' computers, and the LAN infrastructure in which large customers have invested.
This is an important feature of Internet economics: substantial elements of cost are borne by the user and not the ISP. Consequently, user costs are considerably higher than the charges set by the ISP.
While Verizon has continuously told anyone who will listen that using the Title II classification for its broadband networks would harm innovation and investment, Verizon appears to have failed to disclose a basic fact to regulators and the courts:
FiOS uses a FTTP, 'fiber to the premises' network which has been based on the Title II, common carriage, telecommunications classification for about a decade. Why? Title II gives Verizon the ability to use the existing telecommunications rights of way, but it also has allowed Verizon to use basic phone customers as defacto investors through multiple rate increases to fund this FTTP network, which we documented in New York State. See our report: 'It's All Interconnected" (which we have also filed in this proceeding.)