Internet deregulation

Standardizing the rules of franchises isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's good for business if a company rapidly trying to expand it's operations has only one uniform standard to adhere too. Instead of thousands. Which is primarily what this bill is about. In the short term this provides people with more established options quickly. On the flip side, this might circumvent local governments ability to legistlate and protect the consumer's rights. Only a series of lawsuits could clearly establish that.

On the issue of network neutrality, I'm not really that concerned. Already we have broadband and dialup. That's akin to a "fast lane", "slow lane" service. It seems like too much of a partisan political battle. And not a very important one when you have Microsoft and Google on one side and Telecom/Cable companies on another. If the bad side of this legislation is truly manifested, this leaves plenty of room for competitors to move in on the market. Whether that be companies like Microsoft or local governments.

Charter Communications is owned by Paul Allen of Microsoft, so this leaves open a very good possibility that at least one ISP will respect network neutrality. Who knows.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

On the USER side, this makes sense, since the users have contracts with their ISPs. This bill wants to make each website have to pay every telecom to guarantee service. Makes absolutely no sense.

I think that's taking a extremely liberal interpetation of the bill. Ahh well. Just more theatrics of political fear-mongering for the election year.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601624.html

Replace "Extremely Liberal" with "Documented Fact"

They're not trying to deny you anything. Only the rate at which massive amounts of traffic from giant internet firms like Google utlilze their infastructure. This is between two massive giant corporation consortums on opposing sides. So our "facts" differ. Not to mention this is only just one business acting on it's own accord to maintain it's profitability. Only years from now can we be certain this will start a trend. When it just might be the end of Verizon if consumers or the courts don't buy their interpetation or actions of this particular law. Which might not even be passed, or could be overturned by the Judiciary at a later day.

As for the political theatrics comment, this issue is solely politicized by comments like "Well those greedy corporations will censor liberal blogs!!!". While I don't have much faith in the system, I'm pretty sure that would be grounds for a legal challenge. A particularly successful one if the democrats regain control of... anything.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Arainach

"Maintain its profitability". These companies have long since paid off the cost of all the lines they've laid. As a matter of fact, they're reneged on promises to lay more cable that they got tax breaks for. Source - That one gives one of the most in-depth explanations, which is why I linked to it in particular. If you want raw numbers of sources, it's all over Google as well. They're getting money for something that costs them essentially nothing.

Yes, maintain it's profitability. Not in the present, but in the future. When the '96 Telecom Act was written a decade ago present uses for the internet were not devised or proven to be viable in the marketplace. Now things are different.

How different? Well Company A starts a long distance broadband phone service that utilizes the infastructure of Verizon. Since Verizon is also a phone carrier this is a direct competitor. The catch? Company A is not bound by the same regulations as Verizon and Verizon get's no royalty payments even though it's infastructure/assets are being used to generate a profit for Company A. It's this lack of foresight based upon one law that's gonna cost Verizon and could put them out of business? Is that fair? Screw fairness for a second and ask, is that right? This is a far cry from what most people in the thread are talking about or even considering.

Great article though. I especially liked the part where it listed the FCC as the primary enabler of the telecom companies.

Originally Posted by Technophile

God thank you! With all the backwards steps we've taken in America over the last 8 years, I don't see this too far off from reality. Hopefuly, if nothing else, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft can stop it.

Yeah! Those greedy corporations are on our side. Wait, wasn't and isn't Microsoft still involved in all those anti-trust lawsuits from Europe to here?!

I wouldn't be surprised if all these scary tactics were taken from a public interest group tied to Microsoft.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The cable companies who provide Internet services have zero competetors to that particular product as designed by the government to allow them to be run as other utilities.

Not entirely true. The cable companies are required by law to share the infrastructure set up. While paying dues and considerations to the local government. This make's the issue of royalties in instances like these such a touchy issue. When a company like Verizon pays a sizable share of said infrastructure, they (Verizon) wants the right to "tax" Microsoft, or any other company that uses said infrastructure. Which had no part in the construction or maintence of it. Microsoft doesn't want to cough up the dough.

Originally Posted by Arainach

If it's using the Phone System they're required to pay royalties. But if it's using Internet Bandwidth it's a completely seperate concept. Internet Bandwidth is Internet Bandwidth - it's all the same. Presuming that you meant for your analogy to represent VoIP, it's like saying that Henry Ford should have to pay royalties to Horse companies for using the roads.

Bad analogy I think. This is more akin to the oil companies complaining that the tax on gas should not be levied to help support our roadways. Verizon is a telecom company first and foremost, so it wants it's infrastructure to be treated no differently despite it's usage. You seem to grasp the precept on this particular situation though.

Originally Posted by Technophile

Yeah, I'm not super fond of Microsoft but I recognize that they have power. Therefore, questionable ethics or not, I'm just glad that they're, for once, on the desired side! Cause, frankly, I don't want these other fuckers shitting all over my internet.

Don't worry. Most people's fears regarding this issue are completely unfounded. If they wern't, and got away with it we'd all have much larger issues to deal with then just internet censorship.

Microsoft is looking out for it's own interests. But that doesn't necessarily mean their interests are in your best interests. Even in this case. It's hard to say.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

My point, though, is that companies and users have no option but to use that infrastructure. A user wanting DSL does not have an option to choose anything but Verizon to obtain information/products/etc. from Microsoft. Thus, Verizon should not be given free reign to set prices how they see fit.

I understand your point, but there's still the choice of choosing what internet service provider in your area. Verizon typically isn't the only game in town since they're required to share the infrastructure set up.

Also, you're neatly avoiding the regulations issue. Should companies that provide telecom/cable television services through the internet be held to the same regulations that Verizon is held to? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with standardized regulations.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

A lot of what we are talking about here is a free market, where companies are free to peddle their services in any way they see fit. However, when government-imposed monopolies enter the equation, the idea of such a system goes right out the window. Verizon's contract is to provide a government service to citizens, not unlike how I am forced to use Tucson Water for the plumbing in my home.

Free market considerations are out of the window at this point. Especially in this case. Despite that, not everybody can or will agree on if internet is considered a public utility. Certainly Verizon does not. If they fail in this bid consider it a victory for the classifying of the internet infrastructure in place as being more fully in the public domain. Doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

I can see plenty of outcomes if they fail completely in this bid. The less then desirable option could possibly be that they could stop trying to improve/expand the current infrastructure that's already in place.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The telcoms that set up these lines knew what they were getting into. Now that everything is in place and they find their profitability ideas aren't as fruitful as they thought, they essentially want to hold a ransom for good services that they were given government assistance to set up and own monopolies on initally.

Not necessarily. Nobody could of thought up what diverse uses the internet could satisfy. It will change over the years to be sure. So the laws must change with it. I do agree that they are trying to redefine the rules to protect their profitability though.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?