- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obama's plan to save the internet draws bold reactions
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:46 am to Korkstand
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:46 am to Korkstand
quote:
Not if regulation is done correctly.
Describe what you see as regulation done correctly. Also, is there a way we disallow fast lanes and throttling but not regulate broadband as a public utility? Is there a compromise solution here?
Posted on 11/13/14 at 1:45 pm to MC123
quote:In this case, it means ensuring that the owner of the lines doesn't discriminate. This is essentially the root of the whole debate.
Describe what you see as regulation done correctly.
quote:Yeah, we could, but as I mentioned, this would do nothing to address competition. And it's the lack of competition that is kicking all this off. Seems it would be only a matter of time before a different type of anti-consumer move is attempted given a non-competitive environment.
Also, is there a way we disallow fast lanes and throttling but not regulate broadband as a public utility? Is there a compromise solution here?
Personally, I would love if regulation weren't necessary, and that more local governments would start rolling out fiber. Unfortunately, there are laws in many states preventing this (paid for by big ISPs), and in states where it is legal ISPs oppose municipal fiber every step of the way, crying foul over every little thing. There are lots of great reasons for cities to operate their own networks. Smart networked electric grids reduce outages, smart traffic control, etc. Being able to sell excess capacity to citizens and increase revenue is an added bonus. It's win-win-win all around, except for the ISPs who would prefer to spend their money lobbying and buying politicians rather than upgrade and compete. Is it unfair for a for-profit company to have to compete with partially taxpayer-funded services? Perhaps, but all across the country we have private companies doing contract work for government. It's likely that ISPs don't want to be bound by the stipulations of a government contract, though. They would prefer to fight to make their own rules. And why not? That strategy seems to be working.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News