That certainly seems overly broad. Surely an ISP should be able to deploy and upgrade their network in a manner that prioritizes those areas in which it is most economical to do so.
"Under these rules, the FCC can protect consumers by directly addressing companies' policies and practices if they differentially impact consumers' access to broadband Internet access service or are intended to do so, and by applying these protections to ensure communities see equitable broadband deployment, network upgrades, and maintenance," an FCC announcement today said.
That certainly seems overly broad. Surely an ISP should be able to deploy and upgrade their network in a manner that prioritizes those areas in which it is most economical to do so.
This perspective only makes sense if internet is a luxury service. But I'd say for the past 5 or so years access to the internet through a phone or home computer is a necessity. From that...
This perspective only makes sense if internet is a luxury service. But I'd say for the past 5 or so years access to the internet through a phone or home computer is a necessity. From that perspective a baseline quality needs to be enforced.
I honestly do not understand why we still don't classify the internet as a utility and regulate it with the same rules we do for telephone and electricity services. Just this morning I was...
I honestly do not understand why we still don't classify the internet as a utility and regulate it with the same rules we do for telephone and electricity services. Just this morning I was listening to a podcast with a guest who was paying for Starlink internet because they are out in the countryside and the alternative was paying Comcast $40K to entrench a line to their house. I understand and even sympathize with Comcast for asking such a high price - labor costs money, after all - but on the other hand they would be paying that much for cables that belong to Comcast.
So much of our lives take place over the internet today. A lot of the work that we do these days require the internet, and in many cases there are no alternatives you can realistically choose. If I need some software from Adobe, for instance, I can't just go to a store and buy it on physical media; you have to download it over the internet and it's going to constantly phone home or it stops working. Government offices have adopted online services to reduce the staff they need, which means that you are effectively penalized if you don't have internet access.
We don't do it because the ISP/carrier lobby is too strong. They make insane profits, far in excess of what a utility would be allowed. They'll fight hard to hold onto that.
I honestly do not understand why we still don't classify the internet as a utility
We don't do it because the ISP/carrier lobby is too strong. They make insane profits, far in excess of what a utility would be allowed. They'll fight hard to hold onto that.
Ironically the house just passed a bipartisan budget extension this very day, although yes, I doubt there will be any major policy bills with the major election cycles coming up so soon.
And lets face it the House of representives is no longer functional so no bills will pass currently anyway.
Ironically the house just passed a bipartisan budget extension this very day, although yes, I doubt there will be any major policy bills with the major election cycles coming up so soon.
The U.S. has spent billions of dollars on Internet access, and continues to invest billions more. Spending is to the point where it most likely would have been faster and cheaper for the U.S....
The U.S. has spent billions of dollars on Internet access, and continues to invest billions more. Spending is to the point where it most likely would have been faster and cheaper for the U.S. government to roll out fiber to the home countrywide decades ago. It definitely would have resulted in more people having faster Internet access for less money than they do now.
What needs to change to allow this? Probably money in politics, lobbying, and private businesses swaying public opinion in the favor of their profits.
Imagine if the roads needed to be maintained by private businesses?
Really, they shouldn't. An ISP can start appealing to free market principles the moment it starts individually negotiating with and paying the owners of every bit of land their wires pass over....
That certainly seems overly broad. Surely an ISP should be able to deploy and upgrade their network in a manner that prioritizes those areas in which it is most economical to do so.
Really, they shouldn't. An ISP can start appealing to free market principles the moment it starts individually negotiating with and paying the owners of every bit of land their wires pass over. Like almost every home in the US, there's a utility easement on my property. This means that utility and telecom companies can just place their infrastructure there. I have no ability to tell them to get off my land or to demand that they rent the space from me. The government forces me to lend my land, free of charge, to these for-profit companies.
These companies only exist because state and local governments completely override the land rights of private citizens. And I'm not really opposed to such a thing; utility easements are a necessary evil, a practical reality for modern infrastructure. But the idea that these companies will then turn around and have the gall to appeal to free market or libertarian principles is, honestly, downright disgusting. The ISPs rely on the government taking land from other people, but they then think they should be able to operate these state-created networks without oversight or regulation.
When ISPs stop using utility easements and start negotiating rents with every landowner their wires pass over, they can start talking about their free market rights. Until then, if they want to rely on government coercion for their entire business model, then they can also accept rules about having to treat all customers fairly and equally.
I think it's pretty rare for an easement to be non-negotiated. It's far more likely that you just weren't a part of the deal. When the first utility came through they paid off the then owner and...
I think it's pretty rare for an easement to be non-negotiated. It's far more likely that you just weren't a part of the deal. When the first utility came through they paid off the then owner and saddled future owners with the easement.
Some jurisdictions may stipulate easements in new developments, but in that case the developer is probably negotiating with the utility owner and getting something out of the deal prior to selling.
I feel it should go the way of cable. Basic cable sucks but it is a baseline in order to offer some core channels, news, etc. premium cable packages need to offer more to get people to pay more,...
I feel it should go the way of cable. Basic cable sucks but it is a baseline in order to offer some core channels, news, etc. premium cable packages need to offer more to get people to pay more, but if they laze about people will stick with the "free" option.
It should be likewise for internet, if comcast is barely working in your area, then there should be an option to use the baseline internet. but there seems to be many more blockages here than with cable. Or perhaps not as much time to address the blockages.
Well, I would argue they shouldn’t. If you consider home internet access as a basic right and a necessity for participating in today’s society, which I think is a fair viewpoint, then there’d be...
Well, I would argue they shouldn’t.
If you consider home internet access as a basic right and a necessity for participating in today’s society, which I think is a fair viewpoint, then there’d be an obligation for ISPs to ensure coverage.
Similar to how every household should receive electricity or connection to fresh water and sewage systems.
Whether this should now be covered under digital traffic non-discrimination rules – which to my understanding are meant for covering something else – however, is a different question…
The US market is incredibly stagnant. Beyond any discussion of discriminatory access, that line of reasoning is probably not being given much credence based on the clear lack of historical...
The US market is incredibly stagnant. Beyond any discussion of discriminatory access, that line of reasoning is probably not being given much credence based on the clear lack of historical investment among established players.
I don't even need to look further at this. If Ted Cruz is disappointed, it's all good news. He's right up there with Mitch McConnell on my list of "Will celebrate death of mostly because they'll...
I don't even need to look further at this. If Ted Cruz is disappointed, it's all good news.
He's right up there with Mitch McConnell on my list of "Will celebrate death of mostly because they'll no longer have power."
That certainly seems overly broad. Surely an ISP should be able to deploy and upgrade their network in a manner that prioritizes those areas in which it is most economical to do so.
This perspective only makes sense if internet is a luxury service. But I'd say for the past 5 or so years access to the internet through a phone or home computer is a necessity. From that perspective a baseline quality needs to be enforced.
I honestly do not understand why we still don't classify the internet as a utility and regulate it with the same rules we do for telephone and electricity services. Just this morning I was listening to a podcast with a guest who was paying for Starlink internet because they are out in the countryside and the alternative was paying Comcast $40K to entrench a line to their house. I understand and even sympathize with Comcast for asking such a high price - labor costs money, after all - but on the other hand they would be paying that much for cables that belong to Comcast.
So much of our lives take place over the internet today. A lot of the work that we do these days require the internet, and in many cases there are no alternatives you can realistically choose. If I need some software from Adobe, for instance, I can't just go to a store and buy it on physical media; you have to download it over the internet and it's going to constantly phone home or it stops working. Government offices have adopted online services to reduce the staff they need, which means that you are effectively penalized if you don't have internet access.
We don't do it because the ISP/carrier lobby is too strong. They make insane profits, far in excess of what a utility would be allowed. They'll fight hard to hold onto that.
Ironically the house just passed a bipartisan budget extension this very day, although yes, I doubt there will be any major policy bills with the major election cycles coming up so soon.
92 Republicans voted against it and 2 Democrats voted against it. Which is crazy because it's being pushed by a Trump ally.
Just because they’re allies with Trump doesn’t mean they’re allies with each other. Never misunderestimate the efficacy of petty political squabbles.
I was more talking about getting 99% of Ds to vote Yes.
The U.S. has spent billions of dollars on Internet access, and continues to invest billions more. Spending is to the point where it most likely would have been faster and cheaper for the U.S. government to roll out fiber to the home countrywide decades ago. It definitely would have resulted in more people having faster Internet access for less money than they do now.
What needs to change to allow this? Probably money in politics, lobbying, and private businesses swaying public opinion in the favor of their profits.
Imagine if the roads needed to be maintained by private businesses?
https://www.google.com/search?q=us%20government%20spending%20on%20internet%20access&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
Really, they shouldn't. An ISP can start appealing to free market principles the moment it starts individually negotiating with and paying the owners of every bit of land their wires pass over. Like almost every home in the US, there's a utility easement on my property. This means that utility and telecom companies can just place their infrastructure there. I have no ability to tell them to get off my land or to demand that they rent the space from me. The government forces me to lend my land, free of charge, to these for-profit companies.
These companies only exist because state and local governments completely override the land rights of private citizens. And I'm not really opposed to such a thing; utility easements are a necessary evil, a practical reality for modern infrastructure. But the idea that these companies will then turn around and have the gall to appeal to free market or libertarian principles is, honestly, downright disgusting. The ISPs rely on the government taking land from other people, but they then think they should be able to operate these state-created networks without oversight or regulation.
When ISPs stop using utility easements and start negotiating rents with every landowner their wires pass over, they can start talking about their free market rights. Until then, if they want to rely on government coercion for their entire business model, then they can also accept rules about having to treat all customers fairly and equally.
I think it's pretty rare for an easement to be non-negotiated. It's far more likely that you just weren't a part of the deal. When the first utility came through they paid off the then owner and saddled future owners with the easement.
Some jurisdictions may stipulate easements in new developments, but in that case the developer is probably negotiating with the utility owner and getting something out of the deal prior to selling.
I feel it should go the way of cable. Basic cable sucks but it is a baseline in order to offer some core channels, news, etc. premium cable packages need to offer more to get people to pay more, but if they laze about people will stick with the "free" option.
It should be likewise for internet, if comcast is barely working in your area, then there should be an option to use the baseline internet. but there seems to be many more blockages here than with cable. Or perhaps not as much time to address the blockages.
Well, I would argue they shouldn’t.
If you consider home internet access as a basic right and a necessity for participating in today’s society, which I think is a fair viewpoint, then there’d be an obligation for ISPs to ensure coverage.
Similar to how every household should receive electricity or connection to fresh water and sewage systems.
Whether this should now be covered under digital traffic non-discrimination rules – which to my understanding are meant for covering something else – however, is a different question…
The US market is incredibly stagnant. Beyond any discussion of discriminatory access, that line of reasoning is probably not being given much credence based on the clear lack of historical investment among established players.
We subsidize the ever living crap out of ISPs. If they are enjoying federal funds they should not get to prioritize economic vibility.
I don't even need to look further at this. If Ted Cruz is disappointed, it's all good news.
He's right up there with Mitch McConnell on my list of "Will celebrate death of mostly because they'll no longer have power."