Sort of funny that you use this to condemn Republicans with some of the signs mentioning internet privacy. Not only has the current administration been quite supportive of our various intelligence agencies collecting data from our citizens and now the President has come out and is advocating government control of the internet by reclassifying it as a public utility.
"Obama in a letter asked the FCC to reclassify the Internet — and mobile broadband — as a public utility under Title II telecommunications regulations, a move opposed by broadband providers such as Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications (VZ). Following January's court decision, the FCC has been studying whether to re-regulate broadband services under section 706 of the 1996 Telecom Act or reclassify broadband as a public utility according to Title II regulations, part of the Communications Act of 1934."
You can't always trust bubble gum news sites such as yahoo. I think the the New York Times is more clearly understood.
If Comcast and Verizon oppose it, doesn't that tell you something right there? I confess, I'm not doing the background. However, earlier this year I did jump into the mega-mergers in telecom debate. Comcast and Verizon are big players. In a similar type of price-fixing duopoly twenty-five years ago, Time Warner and Cox split up the cable TV market, so they could each enjoy a monopoly over the customers who were forced to choose their services. For crying out loud, Comcast just merged with Time Warner. The two largest mobile providers are Verizon and AT&T. These are the companies that are trying to exert their control over broadband access, in effect creating two or more tiers of internet priorities. Who do you think it is that is threatening net neutrality? It ain't Obama.
I think the move to reclassify broadband and mobile internet as a public utility, (which it is,) is specifically to protect its neutrality from the for-profit shenanigans of the monopolies.
Let's take a different look at this. Do we honestly think having it under government control will be a good thing? From much of what I have read regarding the subject that's what will happen. To get an idea how that's going to work we just have to look at how the post office compares to fed ex ups or other private logistical services. As much as I would like to believe the shenanigans will go away it seems like it's just trading one set of shenanigans for another. I mean do you really want the government that set up the NSA saying, IRS targeting and fast and furious to be in charge of the Internet? I'm all for making it faster more efficient more accessible and more private but I really don't think government involvement is the way to do it. MikeZ
Given the injustices of corporate abuse, should government have a role in regulation? If we give free reign to corporations, the net and pay TV will be only for the rich.
Anonymous, a valid point and a very legitimate question to ask. An equally legitimate question to ask is can we trust the government to maintain freedom, impartiality and access or does the potential exist for us to run into scenarios like in Korea and Iran in which the government actively controls Internet communication? I would argue that the government should have a role but minimal power and authoritu. MikeZ
"If we give free reign to corporations, the net and pay TV will be only for the rich."
Unlikely, in its rightful quest for the almighty dollar, if providers raise costs higher than the market will bear, they will either lose money due to the customer base not buying the product, or someone else will jump in to undercut the unacceptable high prices. I've been noticing that up in my area, with cell services. Small companies cropping up offering flat rates without the data limits now common with the larger providers. And of course, the government is still doing things that don't inspire a lot of trust,
"The Department of Justice is using planes to mimic cell-phone towers in order to snatch data from Americans' mobile devices, according to a new report. Small planes, flying out of five airports and operated by the U.S. Marshals Service, carry high-tech devices known as "dirtboxes" that trick nearby cell phones into connecting to them instead of to actual phone-company towers. The phones are duped into sharing their location and revealing personal data about the phone owner. The Cessna planes used to carry the boxes can cover most of the U.S. population, reports the Wall Street Journal."
"American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Freed Wessler called the strategy a "disturbing progression of the federal government's use" of such technology that "vastly increases the number of completely innocent bystanders whose information is being swept up by law enforcement."
"The revelation is just the latest about an increasing system of surveillance of digital communication by law enforcement agencies, including the use of so-called "stingrays" by federal law enforcement agencies, which can also mimic cell phone towers."
I hope SS by your examples you are not saying the corporate world is free of the same kind of abuses. Prices are rarely decided by supply and demand these days and market share only matters if profits drop. In the last few years while unemployment was high, wages stagnant, and millions more of Americans in poverty buying less; the stock market has doubled and so have the profits of most corporations, yet their market share is down. Corporations simply make up the difference by raising prices. Competition did not bring down health care costs but in just the short time the ACA has been in effect health care costs have come down. Mainly because of the simple idea that the more people covered the less expensive it is to run the system. The cry by conservatives that it's now government heath care is BS.. We have not gotten rid of insurance companies, we simply put regulations on who those companies must insure and who pays the insurance companies. In 2004 the price of a barrel of oil was $97.00 reflecting a price of a gallon of gas at $2.10. In early 2014 the price of a barrel of oil was $97.00, but gas was over $4.00 per gallon. Again, the free market is not reflecting price, or competition. The more customers these carriers get, the higher their prices go. Seems in a free market where supply and demand rules, just the opposite should be happening. Regulations on corporations have always been necessary to curtail corporate abuses. And yes even federal law regulating what corporations can and cannot do to protect citizens and better the lives of citizens. Should we eliminate federal child labor laws? Health and safety laws? Those kind of regulations on corporations were passed because of corporate abuses. The idea of public utilities has been around a long time. And yes government has stepped in to say things like "cold weather rules" and the like, but that reflects a compassionate society and no companies are going broke to meet those laws. I believe Minnesota has a cold weather rule. History tells us that free reign by corporations invites abuses. The same can be said about government which is why it's a compromise and check and balance that works best. To choose one over the other is a mistake either way.
"Competition did not bring down health care costs but in just the short time the ACA has been in effect health care costs have come down."
Complete and utter bullshit! Health care costs have skyrocketed, choices are all but gone, forcing people to engage in commerce is unconstitutional. My insurance is gone and cannot afford the Obama Care farce to cover what I had. It has tripled, my out of pocket costs has went up five times, and my coverage is less. Its cheaper for me to pay the FINE, AKA tax and just pay for my health care out of my own pocket AND get the care I want, which is exactly what I am doing.
Gruber, the architect of the ACA openly ADMITTED the he and the supporters of the ACA had to LIE TO EVERYONE to get this crap passed. If the act was so good, did what was told us, ACTUALLY LOWERED COSTS then why did they have to LIE ABOUT IT??
Oh, and the rest of your post, TOTAL CRAP as well.
Sort of funny that you use this to condemn Republicans with some of the signs mentioning internet privacy. Not only has the current administration been quite supportive of our various intelligence agencies collecting data from our citizens and now the President has come out and is advocating government control of the internet by reclassifying it as a public utility.
ReplyDelete"Obama in a letter asked the FCC to reclassify the Internet — and mobile broadband — as a public utility under Title II telecommunications regulations, a move opposed by broadband providers such as Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications (VZ).
Following January's court decision, the FCC has been studying whether to re-regulate broadband services under section 706 of the 1996 Telecom Act or reclassify broadband as a public utility according to Title II regulations, part of the Communications Act of 1934."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pres-obama-isnt-neutral-broadband-230200722.html;_ylt=AwrBEiFdAGJUvhQAvJTQtDMD
Aren't Obama's recent remarks about internet privacy in support of it? Isn't that why Comcast and the others oppose his suggestions?
DeleteThere seems to be a lot of projection in that cartoon.
ReplyDeleteHowdy ssg,
ReplyDeleteYou can't always trust bubble gum news sites such as yahoo. I think the the New York Times is more clearly understood.
If Comcast and Verizon oppose it, doesn't that tell you something right there? I confess, I'm not doing the background. However, earlier this year I did jump into the mega-mergers in telecom debate. Comcast and Verizon are big players. In a similar type of price-fixing duopoly twenty-five years ago, Time Warner and Cox split up the cable TV market, so they could each enjoy a monopoly over the customers who were forced to choose their services. For crying out loud, Comcast just merged with Time Warner. The two largest mobile providers are Verizon and AT&T. These are the companies that are trying to exert their control over broadband access, in effect creating two or more tiers of internet priorities. Who do you think it is that is threatening net neutrality? It ain't Obama.
I think the move to reclassify broadband and mobile internet as a public utility, (which it is,) is specifically to protect its neutrality from the for-profit shenanigans of the monopolies.
Let's take a different look at this. Do we honestly think having it under government control will be a good thing? From much of what I have read regarding the subject that's what will happen. To get an idea how that's going to work we just have to look at how the post office compares to fed ex ups or other private logistical services. As much as I would like to believe the shenanigans will go away it seems like it's just trading one set of shenanigans for another. I mean do you really want the government that set up the NSA saying, IRS targeting and fast and furious to be in charge of the Internet? I'm all for making it faster more efficient more accessible and more private but I really don't think government involvement is the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
Given the injustices of corporate abuse, should government have a role in regulation?
DeleteIf we give free reign to corporations, the net and pay TV will be only for the rich.
Anonymous, a valid point and a very legitimate question to ask. An equally legitimate question to ask is can we trust the government to maintain freedom, impartiality and access or does the potential exist for us to run into scenarios like in Korea and Iran in which the government actively controls Internet communication? I would argue that the government should have a role but minimal power and authoritu.
DeleteMikeZ
"If we give free reign to corporations, the net and pay TV will be only for the rich."
DeleteUnlikely, in its rightful quest for the almighty dollar, if providers raise costs higher than the market will bear, they will either lose money due to the customer base not buying the product, or someone else will jump in to undercut the unacceptable high prices. I've been noticing that up in my area, with cell services. Small companies cropping up offering flat rates without the data limits now common with the larger providers.
And of course, the government is still doing things that don't inspire a lot of trust,
"The Department of Justice is using planes to mimic cell-phone towers in order to snatch data from Americans' mobile devices, according to a new report.
Small planes, flying out of five airports and operated by the U.S. Marshals Service, carry high-tech devices known as "dirtboxes" that trick nearby cell phones into connecting to them instead of to actual phone-company towers. The phones are duped into sharing their location and revealing personal data about the phone owner. The Cessna planes used to carry the boxes can cover most of the U.S. population, reports the Wall Street Journal."
"American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Freed Wessler called the strategy a "disturbing progression of the federal government's use" of such technology that "vastly increases the number of completely innocent bystanders whose information is being swept up by law enforcement."
"The revelation is just the latest about an increasing system of surveillance of digital communication by law enforcement agencies, including the use of so-called "stingrays" by federal law enforcement agencies, which can also mimic cell phone towers."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/13/Feds-use-planes-to-spy-on-Americas-cell-phones/5121415933816/
I hope SS by your examples you are not saying the corporate world is free of the same kind of abuses.
DeletePrices are rarely decided by supply and demand these days and market share only matters if profits drop. In the last few years while unemployment was high, wages stagnant, and millions more of Americans in poverty buying less; the stock market has doubled and so have the profits of most corporations, yet their market share is down. Corporations simply make up the difference by raising prices.
Competition did not bring down health care costs but in just the short time the ACA has been in effect health care costs have come down. Mainly because of the simple idea that the more people covered the less expensive it is to run the system. The cry by conservatives that it's now government heath care is BS.. We have not gotten rid of insurance companies, we simply put regulations on who those companies must insure and who pays the insurance companies.
In 2004 the price of a barrel of oil was $97.00 reflecting a price of a gallon of gas at $2.10. In early 2014 the price of a barrel of oil was $97.00, but gas was over $4.00 per gallon. Again, the free market is not reflecting price, or competition.
The more customers these carriers get, the higher their prices go. Seems in a free market where supply and demand rules, just the opposite should be happening.
Regulations on corporations have always been necessary to curtail corporate abuses. And yes even federal law regulating what corporations can and cannot do to protect citizens and better the lives of citizens. Should we eliminate federal child labor laws? Health and safety laws? Those kind of regulations on corporations were passed because of corporate abuses.
The idea of public utilities has been around a long time. And yes government has stepped in to say things like "cold weather rules" and the like, but that reflects a compassionate society and no companies are going broke to meet those laws. I believe Minnesota has a cold weather rule.
History tells us that free reign by corporations invites abuses. The same can be said about government which is why it's a compromise and check and balance that works best. To choose one over the other is a mistake either way.
"Competition did not bring down health care costs but in just the short time the ACA has been in effect health care costs have come down."
DeleteComplete and utter bullshit! Health care costs have skyrocketed, choices are all but gone, forcing people to engage in commerce is unconstitutional. My insurance is gone and cannot afford the Obama Care farce to cover what I had. It has tripled, my out of pocket costs has went up five times, and my coverage is less. Its cheaper for me to pay the FINE, AKA tax and just pay for my health care out of my own pocket AND get the care I want, which is exactly what I am doing.
Gruber, the architect of the ACA openly ADMITTED the he and the supporters of the ACA had to LIE TO EVERYONE to get this crap passed. If the act was so good, did what was told us, ACTUALLY LOWERED COSTS then why did they have to LIE ABOUT IT??
Oh, and the rest of your post, TOTAL CRAP as well.