Republican FCC Commissioner Slams ‘Obama’s 332-Page Plan To Regulate The Internet’

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptFun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
These concerns about bandwidth and data speeds will be gone in at most ten years by advances in technology.

We don’t need a government “solution” to an issue the private market will solve on its own.

The govt can’t even balance a checkbook, but we’re supposed to believe they can effectively run the internet??!?!?!?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Then these companies should not be selling data plans their infrastructure cannot support. Else the consumers should be able to sue for false advertisement and breach of contract.
Click to expand...
I am with you on this. If I go buy a car and pay for one fully loaded, the dealership is not able to delivery a stripped down basic model because the demand removed the more expensive one. No one would argue this is the way a free market should operate.
 
One wonders, is there ANY area of American life that this despot does not want to get his tentacles into and destroy? :banghead:
 
pnewton said:
I am with you on this. If I go buy a car and pay for one fully loaded, the dealership is not able to delivery a stripped down basic model because the demand removed the more expensive one. No one would argue this is the way a free market should operate.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% that there should be transparency. If the ISP changes the terms of service (i.e. throttling bandwidth), they MUST notify you. How they manage bandwidth should not be a secret from the bandwidth’s consumers. If you don’t like how Comcast manages their bandwidth, change to a different ISP. But let’s not pretend that the FCC telling Comcast how to manage their bandwidth is going to fix problems.
 
Suudy said:
But let’s not pretend that the FCC telling Comcast how to manage their bandwidth is going to fix problems.
Click to expand...
I am not pretending. My opinions are real opinions, as are yours.

Cable companies are in a unique situation. They want to be an unregulated business operating on the basis of free enterprise, until they need to build infrastructure. Then they rely on eminent domain to intrude on *private *property and governmentally regulated right of ways.
 
pnewton said:
Cable companies are in a unique situation. They want to be an unregulated business operating on the basis of free enterprise, until they need to build infrastructure. Then they rely on eminent domain to intrude on *private *property and governmentally regulated right of ways.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of any use of eminent domain by ISP’s to expand infrastructure. What I see is ISP demanding is access to public infrastructure when that same government funded infrastructure is used to compete against them (e.g. Google’s request for access to power poles).

If on the one hand the government is going to mandate how ISP’s distribute and charge for their bandwidth, they can’t on the other hand deny ISP’s access to public infrastructure.
 
_thaddeus said:
I think I understand.

Porno.com gets unlimited bandwidth and Catholic.com gets 300 baud.

Is that how it works?
Click to expand...
If that were an ISP’s policy, I’m quite certain that myself and several others here would drop them in a heartbeat. And we might even encourage a boycott. Just because we’d prefer Porno.com to get as close to 0 bandwidth as possible, does not mean we want the government to force it. The ends do not justify the means.
 
pnewton said:
I am not pretending. My opinions are real opinions, as are yours.

Cable companies are in a unique situation. They want to be an unregulated business operating on the basis of free enterprise, until they need to build infrastructure. Then they rely on eminent domain to intrude on *private *property and governmentally regulated right of ways.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that goverment officials could do a better job? Why do you trust bureaucrats who have secure jobs and big government agendas to work for the interests of ordinary Americans? :confused:
 
pnewton said:
I am aware of it. It runs across my property.
Click to expand...
They used the force of government to run the line? Or did an easement already exist? I know when fiber went into my neighborhood in the Seattle area they used the existing utility easement.
 
Suudy said:
They used the force of government to run the line? Or did an easement already exist? I know when fiber went into my neighborhood in the Seattle area they used the existing utility easement.
Click to expand...
The easement existed, but it only exists because of government regulation. Ironic, isn’t it. They used the public utility easement. Can you imagine the chaos if each property owner had to grant approval for Comcast, Warner, or Joe’s Cable to cross their property?
 
pnewton said:
The easement existed, but it only exists because of government regulation. Ironic, isn’t it. They used the public utility easement. Can you imagine the chaos if each property owner had to grant approval for Comcast, Warner, or Joe’s Cable to cross their property?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about your property, but when my grandfather built his house, he and the utility companies agreed upon the easement without any government use of eminent domain. It’s a typical process as part of providing services. Maybe in your state it is different, and maybe things have changed since the early 80’s. But I’m not familiar with any example of government mandated easements. In my experience, they are all privately negotiated. Sure, they are recorded as part of the deed, and it can be enforced in the courts. But it wasn’t the city, county, state, or federal government forcing the land owner to provide access to the utilities.

Note, there are cases with regard to the construction of transmission lines, pipelines, etc, that are eminent domain. But these are not the cases we are talking about. Expanding infrastructure to a neighborhood wouldn’t require construction of a massive belt to construct towers.
 
pnewton said:
I am a big fan of net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Internet traffic has been dominated by a handful of content providers for more than a decade. If those companies didn’t negotiate “fast lanes” – another misconstrued sound bite although this one sounds bad when it really isn’t – with Internet Service Providers (ISPs), it would cripple the Internet as we know and use it today.

Or, as Sen. Cruz put it, “’Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

Lest we forget that Obamacare is, as Dr. Barbara Ruth Bellar put it, "a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect by the government, which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare — all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.”
 
Erich said:
Or, as Sen. Cruz put it, “’Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”
Click to expand...
The differences between the two are vast and the similarities few. Sen. Cruz was reaching quite a bit with this comparison. Other than, they are both government, and oh, Obama is bad, there really isn’t much there. We might as easily throw abortion into the same conversation.
 
pnewton said:
Sen. Cruz was reaching quite a bit with this comparison.
Click to expand...
Not at all. As an earlier post on this thread put it,
These concerns about bandwidth and data speeds will be gone in at most ten years by advances in technology.
Click to expand...
We don’t need a government “solution” to an issue the private market will solve on its own.
Click to expand...
The govt can’t even balance a checkbook, but we’re supposed to believe they can effectively run the internet??!?!?!?
Click to expand...
 
Know very little about this but local radio station said that the FCC would pass it on Feb… 26th. There are 3 democrats and only 2 republicans on the panel. Is that correct?
 
gam197 said:
Know very little about this but local radio station said that the FCC would pass it on Feb… 26th. There are 3 democrats and only 2 republicans on the panel. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
This is correct. Believe me, the grubby Obama minions are behind this!
 
gam197 said:
Know very little about this but local radio station said that the FCC would pass it on Feb… 26th. There are 3 democrats and only 2 republicans on the panel. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
All 5 of the current FCC board were appointed by the Obama administration. And given they have only 5 year terms, a two term president essentially takes over the board (I know, the law requires no more than 3 be of the same party, but still, the president decides the board). Granted, they have to be confirmed by the Senate, but they are accountable only to the President and the Senate.

This is part of the reason I dislike the 4th branch of government. I think it was a mistake when Congress decided to start farming out its legislative ability by granting the power of law to rule making bodies of 5 people. I think it problematic to give 5 people the force of law. Rather, I think rule changes should be approved by either the house or senate. I don’t like this fiat imposition of rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top