FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet

Leave it to the federal government to decide to regulate something that has shown doesn't really need their brand of "neutrality" regulation . . . rolleyes
There are already strong enough laws to protect consumers. This just opens the door for tighter and more intrusive regulation by the Feds . . . oh, and of course we will eventually be taxed to pay for their "protective" regulations.

This doesn't bode well, in my opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/?test=latestnews

 

If someone uses a huge amount of bandwidth then they should pay for it, like I do. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.:confused You folks have too much speed and no bandwidth caps to start with, this is asinine IMO. You like to keep the pedal near the metal then you should pay for the gas. DUH!!!

BTW, a slightly different take here.

CNN

 

Its about more then bandwidth usage - though that is a part of it, and part of the regulation talked about leaves the door open for "metered" internet usage like we now have for water, electric, etc . . . which may sound good in one sense but in reality can, and probably will, end up costing all of us more for internet, regardless of bandwidth usage. In point of fact, there already is a cost premium for high bandwidth usage - if I want to use XXgbs of bandwidth in a given amount of time, I'm going to need a connection package with the speed to support my habit. Higher connection speed, higher cost - but this is beside the point.

What is asinine here is the idea that the internet needs a Federal agency to step in and regulate ANYTHING. Whenever the Feds get involved in the private sector it never has a good outcome for the consumer . . . and to think the regulatory meddling will stop with what has been outlined so far is where DUH! really comes into play

In my humble opinion, Federal meddling in the internet is not a good thing, and does not bode well for the future . . .

 

Ya, I was just actually wondering about that myself?:confused I would have expected that from a GWB gov. instead but so be it. Let economics weed the weak out. The rest should still come through as they always have, at least I hope so.

 

Thats another part of the point - more government presence means it becomes less and less about free market economy and more about big brother decreeing what is "fair" and "unfair" . . . which is how you end up with a company like Amtrack that is losing over a billion dollars a year and is still in business . . . that doesn't happen in "normal" economics . . . :-D

 

Don't get me wrong Spad, too much 'free' market madness can get one stupidly drunk! Just look at the last few years. I just don't get this!:confused Anyways, the FCC is without balls just like the FDA is, how many volountary recalls so far? What if they actually had a gun to flex.

Let's not get political here. That's more of a reminder to myself.

 

Oh, trust me, my friend - I am apolitical on this issue. I don't care who is in power . . . the less government involvement in the private sector, the better. :-D

An honest look into the "free market madness" of the last few years will discern the involvement of the Feds in the housing market, which led to it being the first economic domino to fall . . . the well meaning but flawed attempt by congress to put people into houses they could not afford. Oddly enough, here was an area that could have benefited from some degree of regulation, but everyone on capitol hill let it run on to its certain doom, dragging the rest of the economy with it. This is but one example of government involvement in the private sector having a negative result. I already mentioned Amtrack, the railway company the feds took over years ago because it was "too big/important to fail." Instead of going bankrupt and letting someone else have a go at running it, it's still in business, losing even more money then before. There are many other examples of why Uncle Sam, God love him, should keep as light a touch on the public sector as possible. He can't run a railroad, to start with . . .

I understand your confusion. I mean on the face of it it sounds benign, even beneficial . . . if it would stop where it is. But based on the history of such things, it won't. More regulation will follow - and regulation usually has unforseen consequences.

I hope I am wrong . . . but I remain suspicious of a government agency wanting to stick its nose into something and "fix" what isn't broken. I see no possible benefit to the average consumer.

 

Sorry - that should say "Private sector" :-o