Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it 'works for everyone'

[Zach Caldwell]

President Obama has put forth that the FCC should classify the Internet as a public utility. Which I find most interesting in that the internet is very intergrated into our society, much like roads, electricity, power grid etc. What do you think, good idea or bad? Why?

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

[A.B]

I agree, the Internet is not a luxury, its a service used now by hundreds of millions of people if not more. To some it is only entertainment and leisure, to others it is keeping in touch with friends and family in different countries and continents, to others it is their job and livelihood and to others it is any or all of the above. It should not be "limited" or "restricted" by companies according to if a web page or service provider can pay for the traffic/bandwidth.

 

Everyone should have equal access to it regardless of stature in society and financial wealth. It is such a world of opportunity and wonder that it would be almost a crime to restrict it to only those that can "afford" it.

 

So yes, I agree to it being classified as a public utility.

[Jeikor]

I agree that it should be available to all without restrictions but our government doesn't have a good track record of actually doing things like they claim they will. So kind of undecided.

[Tails32]

Yes, I also agree but I would also request that it be more public access so people can apply for jobs since most every company requires online only applications.

[ken barber]

Very true Tails. Many companies require you to submit resumes via email or onto a doc site of some type and many more require you to fill out applications online. These are screening tools and very effective however they do eliminate those that dont have internet access.

[Jeikor]

True, Ken and Tails, but several do provide computers in their stores for people to apply. Two that I know of are Walmart and Food City.

[Kyle Aarons]

I am curious on when people are going to get sick of the government telling us what is and isn't good for us or needed. At some point people need to be responsible for themselves and not expect the government to provide.

[Rilbur]

These are screening tools and very effective however they do eliminate those that dont have internet access.

Which can be defined as 'people without access to a library'.  Which... means almost nobody.

 

This aspect of this discussion reminds me of a repeating discussion I had back when I was in city college.  Every semester, when registrations would open up, my mother and grandparents would bug me, 'Have you registered for classes yet?'

 

Me:  "No, the website was down."  (The college's system couldn't handle the usage-surge right when registrations opened up)

 

Them:  "So do it by paper!"

 

Me:  "They don't let you register by paper forms anymore."

 

Them:  "Impossible!  How would poor people register?  Obviously they still have paper forms!"

 

Me:  "They provide a computer lab to register in."

 

Them:  "Use that!"

 

Me:  "Can't, the website is down."

 

Them:  "Then go get some of hte paper forms they must still have!"

 

<repeat conversation on loop>

 

 

I am curious on when people are going to get sick of the government telling us what is and isn't good for us or needed. At some point people need to be responsible for themselves and not expect the government to provide.

The classification of internet as a telecom has NOTHING to do with making the government provide it -- at best, a side-benefit.  The real, underlying issue is net neutrality.  My ISP should not be able to dictate what video services I subscribe to, for example, or force CastleROland to pay extra to avoid being put into a 'slow lane'.

 

ISPs should be 'dumb pipes' -- but that means that their internet services can cannibalize their cable services, and they really are not happy with the consequences of that.

[ken barber]

Kyle,

this has nothing to do with the government telling us what to do what we need. This is about regulating a public utility, which be definition uses public infrastructure to provide a service. Public infrastructure means we as a whole own it, if something uses public infrastructure to deliver a service then damn right I want my rightfully elected government who represents me to regulate and control it. When are people going to realize unless they want to live the life of being a hermit then as a whole in order to operate 314,000,000 people require organization and structure.

[Rilbur]

I am curious on when people are going to get sick of the government telling us what is and isn't good for us or needed. At some point people need to be responsible for themselves and not expect the government to provide.

Oh, also let me point out that public safety nets are vital to a large section of our society.  Much as subsidized telephones were necessary too allow the poor to function in the society of the 1990s/2000s, subsidized internet is becoming a necessity for the poor to function in today's environment.  Internet and computer access, to an increasing degree, is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity.  You don't have to like or agree with it being a necessity, you simply have to live with it.  Email is overtaking postage, websites are overtaking phone lines, and through this process people are being empowered to focus less on the jobs machines can do for them, and more on the jobs machines can't do.

[seabird]

Governments in our country have a very poor record of regulating anything! To name a few, banking, interstate commerce, railroads, and telephones. Our telephones are a good example to use, at one time, we had the finest telecommunication system on the planet and, after they destroyed "ma bell", we rank about on par with Egypt! Banking is about the same and yea gods, even our dog food is not safe, even for dogs!

 

The government began regulating commercial fishing and, now, the fisheries along all three coasts are about dead! I could go on and on, but I am sure you all get the picture. Government meddling is rapidly destroying our freedom and our country. Certainly, some regulation is needed, but the government bigwigs are not content with just setting parameters, they want to adjust the internal workings and create a "nanny state" that coddles us all in lambs' wool. They are even trying to regulate "bedroom behavior" and table manners in our homes.

 

 

BEWARE, A CONJUGIAL REGULATOR MAKE BE PEEKING IN YOUR BEDROOM WINDOW TONITE!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[ken barber]

And shall I list unregulated industry as an example of hoe privatization is the down fall of our freedom and way of life. The telephone industry is the worst example you can use, our telecommunication system is still state of the art and one of the best on the globe we have moved beyond telephones the increase in competition created by the Sherman Anti-trust laws have made companies increase research and development to stay ahead of their competitors. That has created a telecommunications industry that makes Ma Bell look like a corner five and dime store. Sorry Seabird the break up of the monopolies and its history is a perfect example of how government regulation can actually stimulate economic growth. 

[Rilbur]

Our telephones are a good example to use, at one time, we had the finest telecommunication system on the planet and, after they destroyed "ma bell", we rank about on par with Egypt!

 

I'd love to see any supporting facts for us being 'on par' with Eqypt.  And, frankly, the biggest issues facing our telecommunications industry is a lack of regulation.  You may not have noticed, but across most of the nation, you have the choice of DSL or cable internet.  Not which DSL or which cable company, cable or the vastly-inferior DSL.  And you get that much choice if you're lucky!  Many rural areas don't even get a choice.

 

The biggest issue is 'last mile' infrastructure.  Once one company rolls it out in an area, it becomes economically nonviable for another company to do a duplicate roll-out.  You wind up with city and state monopolies that the cable companies fight to the death to protect -- including lobbying for laws that lock out their competitors.  Look at all the municipal internet projects that they're busy trying to force into shutdown.  If that last mile infrastructure were better regulated, with laws requiring a company to let other cable companies use them at reasonable rates, we might see some actual competition.  (Wait, doesn't that sound a lot like breaking up 'Ma Bell' and then requiring the component companies to sell time on their wires at reasonable rates...  why yes, I think it does!  And look!  No more long-distance fees!)

[ken barber]

This is strange to say But I agree with Rilbur completely (on this issue only). Without competition we have stagnate economics. Since the Break up of the Bell group Telecommunications has soared to unbelievable heights and is considered a major economic factor in the US. 

 

Here is an article by John Haring

John Haring is a principal of Strategic Policy Research, Inc. He was previously the chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission and chief of the commission's Office of Plans and Policy.

 

Telecommunications is important for two reasons. First, it plays a vital role in the organization and operation of the modern global economy. Second, the problems associated with regulating and organizing the telecommunications industry have stimulated a great deal of economic analysis that is important in its own right and relevant to other sectors of the economy as well.

Telecommunications and the Information Age Economy

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of telecommunications in today's economy and virtually impossible to overstate its likely importance in the future. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, telecommunications has become the central nervous system of the economy. Just as the railroads once promoted economic growth and development, telecommunications is now globalizing markets, reducing transactions costs, expanding productivity, and directly increasing economic well-being.

An astounding array of technical advances is constantly reducing costs and expanding capabilities in telecommunications. The forces that are driving down costs and expanding supply capabilities involve advances in microelectronics, photonics, computer software, network architecture, high-definition television, and superconductivity. Many of these advances are simultaneously reducing the costs and expanding the capabilities of complementary goods and services (e.g., electronic data bases and the personal computers that interact with them). At the same time, we are raising a generation of computer-literate consumers and producers with a taste and propensity for interactive communication.

The use of telecommunications in the production and marketing of goods and services is ubiquitous. For many companies telecommunications has become an integral part of the production process and is itself becoming part of the product firms supply either as a value-added service or as part of the product itself. Telephonic order entry and credit validation make transacting business convenient. Customer-service telephone lines provide an excellent way to supply product information and guarantee customer satisfaction. General Electric now builds telecommunications capabilities right into the medical equipment it supplies to hospitals. GE's technicians can dial up the equipment from a central location, do remote monitoring and diagnosis, and implement a solution very rapidly if a problem develops or is anticipated.

Globalization of markets and businesses also relies upon intensive communication and extensive telecommunications capabilities. To bridge time-zone differences, companies are increasingly using video and teleconferencing services.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Telecommunications.html

[Rilbur]

This is strange to say But I agree with Rilbur completely (on this issue only).

Why is that so strange to say?  I mean, I'm not quite as left leaning as you are, but I assure you that the real right-wing nutters can't see the difference between our positions...  Or is it just my habit of grabbing onto the devil's advocate whenever I can?

[Jeikor]

Okay here goes with comments on several previous posts:

Rilbur is right that the internet has become a necessity. My children HAVE to turn in their English papers and some of their other homework online.

 

Seabird is right that the government doesn't have the best record in regulating but Ken is also right that regulation is often needed.

 

Ken and Rilbur- you want strange. I (a nutter right-winger) agree with you about the Bell group. Okay really I am probably about as far to the right as Rilbur is to the left and yes I can tell the difference between your two views.

 

Cable is worst than internet in rural areas because there is usually only two choices get cable or don't. There isn't a choice of cable companies. With internet there is at least a choice even if it isn't a great choice, although ATT's Uverse is almost as fast as cable internet. (I know it is what I use).