http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/opinion/van-schewick-net-neutrality/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Will the FCC ruin the Internet?
By Barbara van Schewick
updated 4:17 PM EST, Fri November 7, 2014

(CNN) -- The results of the midterm election confirm Americans' widespread discontent with Washington gridlock on a range of issues.

In the last few months, millions of people contacted the White House, Congress and federal agencies to demand action on one of those issues -- protecting a free and open Internet.

Their message was overwhelmingly clear: Americans don't want fast and slow lanes online. They want the government to preserve the Internet as a place where everybody -- startups, small businesses, nonprofits, activists, and independent artists -- has an equal chance of reaching people.

Yet it appears their voices have fallen on deaf ears.

The Federal Communications Commission, tasked with creating new rules to protect the Internet, appears to be favoring a proposal that will allow fast lanes after all. As the New York Times reports, the proposal would permit Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon to charge Internet applications, content or services access fees for faster service, as long as those fees are "just and reasonable."

The proposal is bad policy and rests on shaky legal foundations. If some companies can pay so that their content loads faster and reaches people easier, then small businesses and startups won't have a chance to compete. Innovation as we know it will suffer.

In fact, the proposal harms anyone who can't pay to be in the fast lane, making it harder for everyday people to create, connect and organize online. It's no wonder that 3.7 million Americans, more than 70 members of Congress, and President Obama have come out against fast lanes.

So far, the FCC is not listening. But it's not too late. The FCC should take this week's midterm results as a wake-up call to listen to the public. It should ban access fees and stop the creation of fast lanes in a way that will be upheld in court.

In order to ban access fees, the FCC must reclassify the ISPs that connect us to the Internet as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That's the only way to ban these fees, and that's what the agency should do. But instead, it seems to be leaning toward a confusing "hybrid" proposal that creates two legal categories for the service offered by ISPs — a "wholesale" service that allows companies like Google, Yahoo! and Netflix to reach us, and a "retail" service that connects us to the Internet. The FCC wants to classify only the wholesale side under Title II.

Under this "hybrid" proposal, the FCC would decide case-by-case whether specific access fees are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory. This approach provides little certainty to entrepreneurs and investors, creates high regulatory costs, and tilts the playing field against those who don't have the resources, time and money to engage in long and costly proceedings at the FCC. Worst of all, it still allows access fees and fast lanes.

Any access fees, no matter how "reasonable," will crush innovation in America. If Comcast offered a fast lane to Netflix, the FCC could potentially force it to make a similar offer to Hulu and YouTube. But if a video startup couldn't pay the fee, then it would never have the chance to compete in the first place.

Think of what we'd lose. Innovators with little or no outside funding have produced some of the most important sites -- such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and eBay -- and economic research suggests that such innovators will continue to fuel our nation's economic growth. Even companies that remain small create jobs and provide value to customers.

But there's more that we'd lose. Large corporations that pay to be in the fast lane will have higher costs, so we the customers will be forced to pay higher prices for their products and services. Small businesses that rely on the Internet to reach their customers will be shut out of the market. Worse, all noncommercial actors will be in the slow lane -- educators, artists, activists, nonprofits, underserved communities, and the list goes on. This will harm democratic discourse as we know it.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the FCC's proposal is also likely to fail in court. The proposal appears to prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against sites, but it relies on a new, untested legal foundation that does not actually allow the FCC to adopt such rules. And while this legal foundation empowers the agency to police access fees, it does not grant it the authority to ban them. So even if the FCC wanted to improve its rules and ban access fees, any attempt to do so under its proposed "hybrid" approach would likely be struck down in court.

From the FCC's perspective, the proposal might seem like a compromise. It improves the FCC's ability to police access fees, but does not actually ban them. It involves Title II, but does not reclassify ISPs. But we are not getting the benefit of the bargain.

The proposed rules fail to protect the Internet, pose high social costs, and will most likely be struck down in court. And as ISPs have made abundantly clear, they oppose "hybrid" proposals just as strongly as reclassification and will fight them tooth and nail.

Fortunately, there is a better "compromise" on the table. The FCC should reclassify Internet service under Title II and then lift (or in legal terms, "forebear from") all regulations that are not needed to protect consumers. This route would allow the FCC to pursue a light regulatory touch that protects ISPs' incentives to invest while adopting bright-line rules that ban blocking, discrimination, and access fees.

The FCC is at a fork in the road. It could turn its back on sound policy and public opinion and pursue fast lanes, or it could adopt meaningful rules that protect the American people and will be upheld in court. The correct path is clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/opinion/van-schewick-net-neutrality/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Will the FCC ruin the Internet?
By Barbara van Schewick
updated 4:17 PM EST, Fri November 7, 2014

(CNN) -- The results of the midterm election confirm Americans' widespread discontent with Washington gridlock on a range of issues.

In the last few months, millions of people contacted the White House, Congress and federal agencies to demand action on one of those issues -- protecting a free and open Internet.

Their message was overwhelmingly clear: Americans don't want fast and slow lanes online. They want the government to preserve the Internet as a place where everybody -- startups, small businesses, nonprofits, activists, and independent artists -- has an equal chance of reaching people.

Yet it appears their voices have fallen on deaf ears.

The Federal Communications Commission, tasked with creating new rules to protect the Internet, appears to be favoring a proposal that will allow fast lanes after all. As the New York Times reports, the proposal would permit Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon to charge Internet applications, content or services access fees for faster service, as long as those fees are "just and reasonable."

The proposal is bad policy and rests on shaky legal foundations. If some companies can pay so that their content loads faster and reaches people easier, then small businesses and startups won't have a chance to compete. Innovation as we know it will suffer.

In fact, the proposal harms anyone who can't pay to be in the fast lane, making it harder for everyday people to create, connect and organize online. It's no wonder that 3.7 million Americans, more than 70 members of Congress, and President Obama have come out against fast lanes.

So far, the FCC is not listening. But it's not too late. The FCC should take this week's midterm results as a wake-up call to listen to the public. It should ban access fees and stop the creation of fast lanes in a way that will be upheld in court.

In order to ban access fees, the FCC must reclassify the ISPs that connect us to the Internet as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That's the only way to ban these fees, and that's what the agency should do. But instead, it seems to be leaning toward a confusing "hybrid" proposal that creates two legal categories for the service offered by ISPs — a "wholesale" service that allows companies like Google, Yahoo! and Netflix to reach us, and a "retail" service that connects us to the Internet. The FCC wants to classify only the wholesale side under Title II.

Under this "hybrid" proposal, the FCC would decide case-by-case whether specific access fees are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory. This approach provides little certainty to entrepreneurs and investors, creates high regulatory costs, and tilts the playing field against those who don't have the resources, time and money to engage in long and costly proceedings at the FCC. Worst of all, it still allows access fees and fast lanes.

Any access fees, no matter how "reasonable," will crush innovation in America. If Comcast offered a fast lane to Netflix, the FCC could potentially force it to make a similar offer to Hulu and YouTube. But if a video startup couldn't pay the fee, then it would never have the chance to compete in the first place.

Think of what we'd lose. Innovators with little or no outside funding have produced some of the most important sites -- such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and eBay -- and economic research suggests that such innovators will continue to fuel our nation's economic growth. Even companies that remain small create jobs and provide value to customers.

But there's more that we'd lose. Large corporations that pay to be in the fast lane will have higher costs, so we the customers will be forced to pay higher prices for their products and services. Small businesses that rely on the Internet to reach their customers will be shut out of the market. Worse, all noncommercial actors will be in the slow lane -- educators, artists, activists, nonprofits, underserved communities, and the list goes on. This will harm democratic discourse as we know it.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the FCC's proposal is also likely to fail in court. The proposal appears to prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against sites, but it relies on a new, untested legal foundation that does not actually allow the FCC to adopt such rules. And while this legal foundation empowers the agency to police access fees, it does not grant it the authority to ban them. So even if the FCC wanted to improve its rules and ban access fees, any attempt to do so under its proposed "hybrid" approach would likely be struck down in court.

From the FCC's perspective, the proposal might seem like a compromise. It improves the FCC's ability to police access fees, but does not actually ban them. It involves Title II, but does not reclassify ISPs. But we are not getting the benefit of the bargain.

The proposed rules fail to protect the Internet, pose high social costs, and will most likely be struck down in court. And as ISPs have made abundantly clear, they oppose "hybrid" proposals just as strongly as reclassification and will fight them tooth and nail.

Fortunately, there is a better "compromise" on the table. The FCC should reclassify Internet service under Title II and then lift (or in legal terms, "forebear from") all regulations that are not needed to protect consumers. This route would allow the FCC to pursue a light regulatory touch that protects ISPs' incentives to invest while adopting bright-line rules that ban blocking, discrimination, and access fees.

The FCC is at a fork in the road. It could turn its back on sound policy and public opinion and pursue fast lanes, or it could adopt meaningful rules that protect the American people and will be upheld in court. The correct path is clear.

Unless the Government prevents this you can say good bye to an open internet for us all. Yet this would require more Government regulation. SO how do the Libertarians and hard core Conservatives here feel about that? Do you support the Government stepping in to preserve our internet rights or would you prefer to allow the free market determine our internet access?

I believe big business will do what is in the best interest of big business, which is make money. Those that offer the best service for the most competitive price will survive over the long run.

Doug - How many ISP's do you get to choose from?

I have Comcast or Verizon. Both have some of the worst customer service records in the nation. I've used both. Hate them both. I'm with Verizon right now because I believe them to provide faster internet speed. What if both Comcast and Verizon decide to throttle Netflix to get a tariff? Then the cost of my Netflix goes up.

How does the consumer have any say when the ISP's, big telecom, have all the say?

I believe big business will do what is in the best interest of big business, which is make money. Those that offer the best service for the most competitive price will survive over the long run.

Doug - How many ISP's do you get to choose from?

I have Comcast or Verizon. Both have some of the worst customer service records in the nation. I've used both. Hate them both. I'm with Verizon right now because I believe them to provide faster internet speed. What if both Comcast and Verizon decide to throttle Netflix to get a tariff? Then the cost of my Netflix goes up.

How does the consumer have any say when the ISP's, big telecom, have all the say?

Exactly! I live out in the country and do not even have the choice of using Verizon. My only choice is the local cable company unless I want to pay exorbitant prices for mobile tethering data fees as Verizon wireless is the only company I can use and still get reliable cell connection where I live.

JMO opinion but I doubt big internet access companies are going to miss out on the chance to line their pockets at the consumers expense if they get the chance. Why wouldn't they?

[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]

I believe big business will do what is in the best interest of big business, which is make money. Those that offer the best service for the most competitive price will survive over the long run.

Doug - How many ISP's do you get to choose from?

I have Comcast or Verizon. Both have some of the worst customer service records in the nation. I've used both. Hate them both. I'm with Verizon right now because I believe them to provide faster internet speed. What if both Comcast and Verizon decide to throttle Netflix to get a tariff? Then the cost of my Netflix goes up.

How does the consumer have any say when the ISP's, big telecom, have all the say?

Exactly! I live out in the country and do not even have the choice of using Verizon. My only choice is the local cable company unless I want to pay exorbitant prices for mobile tethering data fees as Verizon wireless is the only company I can use and still get reliable cell connection where I live.

JMO opinion but I doubt big internet access companies are going to miss out on the chance to line their pockets at the consumers expense if they get the chance. Why wouldn't they?

[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]

Our only choice for broadband is Time Warner...even worse than Verizon (who I have for cellular, no broadband service available here). They have cut our bandwidth several times already, and then sent us "special offers" to "upgrade" to the same level of service. No choice but to take the lower bandwidth or pay the premium. But that's the not-so-free market for you.

So, let's go back to the beginning...is broadband internet a utility? I think there's compelling reasons to say it is or isn't. I lean toward that it is...the internet has become such an intergral part of daily life, both public and private.

So, let's go back to the beginning...is broadband internet a utility? I think there's compelling reasons to say it is or isn't. I lean toward that it is...the internet has become such an intergral part of daily life, both public and private.

I tend to agree.

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry? And government intervention in their colossal failures only propped the industry up at our expense, helping the rich get richer while we pay. Doesn't look like much has changed as a result. Who truly benefits from Obamacare? The insurance industry. No thanks. But to each his own. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry? And government intervention in their colossal failures only propped the industry up at our expense, helping the rich get richer while we pay. Doesn't look like much has changed as a result. Who truly benefits from Obamacare? The insurance industry. No thanks. But to each his own. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.

Fair enuogh. It sounded like you were saying "it doesn't impact me so why should we do anything" but I get where you are coming from now. For me those are apples-to-oranges analogies based on political philosophy rather than the specific circumstances, but that's just my opinion and we don't have to agree. By the way, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping would happen when I started this thread. Thanks.

Regarding the Telecoms, it would have been nice to have spirited debate before the Govt. paid for their much of their infrastructure. The taxpayers have funded large swaths of the fiberoptic and cable networks these companies use to provide their service. Based on that fact alone I have to say, yes, they are a utility.

And don't the people own the airwaves? Do cellphones use the airwaves to transport data? At least some spectrum of airwaves?

I'm just tired of big business having it both ways.

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

[Edited on 11/13/2014 by BillyBlastoff]

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry?

The impacts on the banking industry came from changes and reductions to regulations, and little to no enforcement of said regulations.

"The free market will police itself." - Alan Greenspan, 2005

Did it?

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry?

The impacts on the banking industry came from changes and reductions to regulations, and little to no enforcement of said regulations.

"The free market will police itself." - Alan Greenspan, 2005

Did it?

Exactly, If history has proven anything it is big business will do what is in their best interest to maximize their earnings. I am not a fan of over regulation but there has to be a happy balance as Big Business has proven it cannot police itself when faced with prospect of bigger profits.

What's wrong with the internet right now?

That depends on who you ask.

Net Neutrality involves ISPs and their ability to control what we can see/access on the internet and at what speeds. For example, without some rules regarding Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize web traffic by reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest.

Some believe that losing Net Neutrality will amount to corporate censorship, less privacy, less innovation, and limited access to web content and apps for all but the highest bidders. Others believe letting the market sort it out on its own with no regulation whatsoever will ultimately lead to more innovation and access.

Google Net Neutrality and you can decide for yourself who to believe. Here's a few links to get you started:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/

http://www.internetsociety.org/publications/isp-column-april-2014-rip-net-neutrality

http://broadband.about.com/od/netneutrality/a/What-Is-Net-Neutrality_2.htm

There is currently a lot of competiton among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable.

Regarding the Telecoms, it would have been nice to have spirited debate before the Govt. paid for their much of their infrastructure. The taxpayers have funded large swaths of the fiberoptic and cable networks these companies use to provide their service. Based on that fact alone I have to say, yes, they are a utility.

And don't the people own the airwaves? Do cellphones use the airwaves to transport data? At least some spectrum of airwaves?

I'm just tired of big business having it both ways.

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

[Edited on 11/13/2014 by BillyBlastoff]

The people do not own the internet "airwaves" in the manner you mean. That theory has been used to justify regulation of over the air television and radio content because the amount of space is limited. It does not apply to the internet which is by its nature unlimited. Their are literally millions and millions of websites. There is no need for the government to regulate any of it for any reason that I can see.

There is currently a lot of competiton among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable.

Hold on a second. ISPs only provide a gateway to the Internet, they don't "own" the internet. Now, the electric company, the gas company, they for the most part own the entire infrastructure. So, it goes back to the question, is broadband a utility?

It does not apply to the internet which is by its nature unlimited.

Well, maybe. There's been a lot of debate over the last few years on whether there truly is an infinite amount of bandwidth or not.

There is currently a lot of competiton among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable.

Really? I only have one option for broadband at home, competition doesn't exist. Some more rural places don't even have that, which is depressing economic activity in those areas and is why state and local gov'ts are trying to create the necessary infrastructure where private enterprise doesn't have any interest.

[Edited on 11/13/2014 by gondicar]

Exactly, If history has proven anything it is big business will do what is in their best interest to maximize their earnings. I am not a fan of over regulation but there has to be a happy balance as Big Business has proven it cannot police itself when faced with prospect of bigger profits.

Pardon me for saying so, but if any entity needs to do a better job "policing itself" it would be the government.

Regarding the Telecoms, it would have been nice to have spirited debate before the Govt. paid for their much of their infrastructure. The taxpayers have funded large swaths of the fiberoptic and cable networks these companies use to provide their service. Based on that fact alone I have to say, yes, they are a utility.

And don't the people own the airwaves? Do cellphones use the airwaves to transport data? At least some spectrum of airwaves?

I'm just tired of big business having it both ways.

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

[Edited on 11/13/2014 by BillyBlastoff]

The people do not own the internet "airwaves" in the manner you mean. That theory has been used to justify regulation of over the air television and radio content because the amount of space is limited. It does not apply to the internet which is by its nature unlimited. Their are literally millions and millions of websites. There is no need for the government to regulate any of it for any reason that I can see.

The potential size may be unlimited, but the service providers have direct control over how much of that size we have access to. The number of websites that currently exist in the world largely is irreverent to the net neutrality issue, this issue is the infrastructure and gateways that allow them to be accessed and how that access is delivered.

I only have one option for broadband at home, competition doesn't exist.

In this instance, this makes broadband a utility as a de facto monopoly exists like any other utility.

There is currently a lot of competiton among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable.

Hold on a second. ISPs only provide a gateway to the Internet, they don't "own" the internet. Now, the electric company, the gas company, they for the most part own the entire infrastructure. So, it goes back to the question, is broadband a utility?

Yes.

What's wrong with the internet right now?

That depends on who you ask.

Net Neutrality involves ISPs and their ability to control what we can see/access on the internet and at what speeds. For example, without some rules regarding Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize web traffic by reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest.

Some believe that losing Net Neutrality will amount to corporate censorship, less privacy, less innovation, and limited access to web content and apps for all but the highest bidders. Others believe letting the market sort it out on its own with no regulation whatsoever will ultimately lead to more innovation and access.

Google Net Neutrality and you can decide for yourself who to believe. Here's a few links to get you started:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/

http://www.internetsociety.org/publications/isp-column-april-2014-rip-net-neutrality

http://broadband.about.com/od/netneutrality/a/What-Is-Net-Neutrality_2.htm

There is currently a lot of competiton among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable.

Not if you live in rural areas Doug. I live out in the country and have only one option which is the local cable company so they have no competition in my area other than dial up ( no bandwidth) or tethering via cell phone (you pay for data and it is slow).

If they are allowed to regulate what I watch or limit bandwidth I am basically at their mercy so you are wrong claiming there is free enterprise in this industry for many of us.

I can't wait until the ISPs start limiting access to Fox News. Then we'll see a reverse on how some of you feel about Net Neutrality.

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry?

The impacts on the banking industry came from changes and reductions to regulations, and little to no enforcement of said regulations.

"The free market will police itself." - Alan Greenspan, 2005

Did it?

No it did not, and as a result crashed and burned. We should have let them die, bit the bullet while enduring the hardship that would have entailed, and moved on IMHO. My biggest problem i that I agree with both of these statements:

"There is currently a lot of competition among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable."

"Exactly, If history has proven anything it is big business will do what is in their best interest to maximize their earnings. I am not a fan of over regulation but there has to be a happy balance as Big Business has proven it cannot police itself when faced with prospect of bigger profits."

I don't need the internet or a cell phone, go significant periods of time without using either one. I still have a flip phone, doesn't do data or the internet. I manage to survive just fine. I can't see how government intervention in the regulation of the internet changes that.

Thanks for sharing that . So are you suggesting public policy regarding the internet should be determined based on how it impacts you personally?

Not at all. I'm saying political policy regarding the internet has incredibly limited impact on me, but from a free market standpoint I don't see the need for regulation. How did all that regulation work out with the banking industry?

The impacts on the banking industry came from changes and reductions to regulations, and little to no enforcement of said regulations.

"The free market will police itself." - Alan Greenspan, 2005

Did it?

No it did not, and as a result crashed and burned. We should have let them die, bit the bullet while enduring the hardship that would have entailed, and moved on IMHO. My biggest problem i that I agree with both of these statements:

"There is currently a lot of competition among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable."

"Exactly, If history has proven anything it is big business will do what is in their best interest to maximize their earnings. I am not a fan of over regulation but there has to be a happy balance as Big Business has proven it cannot police itself when faced with prospect of bigger profits."

As long as choices are as limited as they are, there is no competitive market out there. AT&T has a long range plan that would make universal wifi the norm. What this means is that wherever you go, you would be in a hot spot. It would be a joint venture by all providers so you would have the same access whether or not you were an AT&T customer or someone else. They would like other providers to be involved and split the revenues. Eventually your cell service would also be on this wifi network. Total and equal access for everyone.

uhm...lol...i know some won't like the comparison but alot of or all of Europe treats theirs like a utility and they have some of the best and fastest internet there is. japan too i think. i may be talking out my a** on this but European internet is better than ours. Korea....they do too. how can we best keep up/catch up? i think the net neutrality thing is the right way to go.

"There is currently a lot of competition among internet service providers which keeps the cost down and the services good for the consumer. It is the ONE industry where free enterprise is working properly. Naturally the government wants to regulate it which will probably mean the end of competition and a single provider per area like cable."

This statement proves you have no idea what Net Neutrality means. The only thing it means is that an ISP can't pick and choose who to throttle data from. They can't decide that they will slow down access to Fox News website while at the same time providing faster service to CNN because CNN paid them money to do it. That's all it means. Some websites don't get favored treatment over another for financial or other reasons. How exactly do you think this will lead to single service providers?

This explains it better than I can: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[Edited on 11/14/2014 by 2112]

New Networks

NEW-- The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal & Free the Net, September, 2014

Summary:
$200 Billion Broadband Scandal

(Published in 2005)

This book documents the largest fraud case in American history

The case is simple: Do you have a 45 Mbps, bi-directional service to your home, paying around $40? Do you have 500+ channels and can choose any competitive service? You paid an estimated $2000 for this product even though you did not receive it and it may never be available. Do you want your money back and the companies held accountable?

Background: Starting in the early 1990's, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the "National Infrastructure Initiative" to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies — SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.

The Commitment:

By 2006, 86 million households should have already been wired with a fiber (and coax), wire, capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, and could handle 500+ channels.
Universal Broadband: This wiring was to be done in rich and poor neighborhoods, in rural, urban and suburban areas equally.
Open to ALL Competition: These networks were to be open to ALL competitors, not a closed-in network or deployed only where the phone company desired.
Each State: By 2006, 75% of the state of New Jersey was to be wired, Pennsylvania was to have 50% of households by 2004, California to have 5 million households by 2000, Texas claimed all schools, libraries, hospitals.…Virtually every state had commitments.
Massive Financial Incentives: In exchange for building these networks, the Bell companies ALL received changes in state laws that gave these them excessive profits, tax savings, and other perks to be used in building these networks.
This was not DSL, which travels over the old copper wiring and did not require new regulations.
This is not Verizon's FIOS or SBC’s Lightspeed fiber optics, which are slower, can't handle 500 channels, are not open to competition, and are not being deployed equitably.
This was NOT fiber somewhere in the network ether, but directly to homes.
The Harms and Outcome

Costs to Customers — We estimate that $206 billion dollars in excess profits and tax deductions were collected — over $2000 per household. (This is the low estimate.)
Cost to the Country — About $5 trillion dollars to the economy. America lost a decade of technological innovation and economic growth, about $500 billion annually.
Cost to the Country — America is now 16th in the world in broadband. While Korea and Japan have 40-100 Mbps at cheap prices, America is still at kilobyte speeds.
The New Digital Divide — The phone companies current plans are to pick and choose where and when they want to deploy fiber services, if at all.
Competitor Close Out — SBC, BellSouth and Verizon now claim that they can control who uses the networks and at what price, impacting everything from VOIP and municipality roll outs to new services from Ebay and Google.
The Truth: This is a Fraud Case

Fraud: There is a dark secret — the networks couldn't be built at the time the commitments were made and are still not available. If someone pays thousands of dollars for a service and doesn't get it, isn't that fraud?
Collusion and Cover-up: TELE-TV and Americast, the Bell companies' fiber optic front groups, spent about $1 billion and were designed to make America believe these deployments were real in order to pass the Telecom Act of 1996 and enter long distance. How did every major phone company in America not know that these fiber-based services couldn't be built and were able to defraud over 40 states?
The mergers killed fiber optic deployments in over 26 states and harmed competition. With every merger, the phone companies simply dropped all state commitments and harmed every state they merged with. Case in point: Verizon cut deployments to 13 states during the NYNEX-Bell Atlantic merger, not to mention GTE's 28 state deployments. SBC did the same in all 13 of its states, from California to Illinois. Worse, the mergers were based on the companies competing with each other and there is NO evidence they ever did any serious wireline residential competition.
The Regulators Killed Competition and Broadband. Over the last 4 years, instead of continuing competition as ordered by the Telecom Act of 1996, the FCC has rewritten the laws close down Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that brought America to the Internet, as well as virtually all local competition. AT&T and MCI couldn't compete because they were regulated out of business and thus were sold off.
Distortion of the Truth by the FCC. Virtually every piece of documentation presented in this work is missing from the FCC's Advanced Network Reports. The FCC defines broadband as 200 kilobytes per second in one direction — 225 times slower than what was promised in 1992.
Cross-Subsidization — Instead of spending the money on these networks, the Bell companies used the money to enter long distance, rollout wireless and the inferior DSL services. The Bells also lost over $20 billion overseas and paid executives over a billion in stock options during the mergers.
Bait and Switch — Customers paid for a fiber optic wire and got DSL over the old copper wiring — it's like ordering a Ferrari and getting a bicycle.
20 Year Analysis of Revenues, Profits, Expenditures: This book is based on a 20 year analysis of Bell-supplied data, Census Data and Business Week. Since 1984::

Revenues are up 128%.
Employees are down 65%, Construction is down 60%.
$92.5 billion is missing in network upgrades.
Profits based on failed fiber plans up 188% as compared to other utilities.
Teletruth has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, (FTC) to investigate the claims presented; the book is the data for our complaint.