Screw you, FCC

[TripletDaddy]

EPU, your brand of lovable paranoia is what makes you interesting.

[old_gregg]

Of course, you're comparing apples to oranges, as the internet is not a public utility.

when was this pronouncement made? it's news to me.

[Tim]

No, I'm familiar with it. I worded it poorly, but when I mentioned "blocking something I want" (like the problem with Comcast and Netflix) I should have mentioned that Comcast was charging extra for Netflix. Comcast, being in the private sector, should be able to do whatever it wants to do. If Comcast customers wanted Netflix, they could drop Comcast.

And yes, if Murray Power Co. decided to up my cost because I buy Ute season tickets, I'd move. Of course, that would never happen as one of the bosses at Murray Power is in my stake and according to him, most all the folks who make the decisions at that company are Ute fans.

It's my money and I can ultimately decide who gets it.

But Comcast isn't completely in the private sector. They operate as the sole cable licensee within the areas they operate in, and they do so as permitted by the FCC. The decision was made over 100 years ago that to allow every company in the world to lay power and communications cable/lines would provide for a maintenance and logistics nightmare. Much like the electricity provider, then, Comcast is providing an infrastructural utility that prevents it from operating completely as a private entity. If they weren't operating under a sole-provider license given by the FCC I would agree with you, but since they're by nature the only group allowed to run lines and provide that infrastructure utility to residents and businesses, they simply must play by rules of fairness.

Comcast is biting the hand that feeds it by fighting net neutrality. The FCC grants Comcast a license that makes its shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars, yet they (Comcast) aren't willing to follow the rules regarding public utilities in doing so. Comcast either needs to give up their opposition to net neutrality or they need to give up all the benefits they receive as the recipient of an FCC licensee.

[il Padrino Ute]

when was this pronouncement made? it's news to me.

When was it pronounced a public utility? This is news to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

But Comcast isn't completely in the private sector. They operate as the sole cable licensee within the areas they operate in, and they do so as permitted by the FCC. The decision was made over 100 years ago that to allow every company in the world to lay power and communications cable/lines would provide for a maintenance and logistics nightmare. Much like the electricity provider, then, Comcast is providing an infrastructural utility that prevents it from operating completely as a private entity. If they weren't operating under a sole-provider license given by the FCC I would agree with you, but since they're by nature the only group allowed to run lines and provide that infrastructure utility to residents and businesses, they simply must play by rules of fairness.

Comcast is biting the hand that feeds it by fighting net neutrality. The FCC grants Comcast a license that makes its shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars, yet they (Comcast) aren't willing to follow the rules regarding public utilities in doing so. Comcast either needs to give up their opposition to net neutrality or they need to give up all the benefits they receive as the recipient of an FCC licensee.

I don't want to defend Comcast, but is internet access a right? Folks could start dropping Comcast if it's the sole provider until Comcast gets its act together.

[Tim]

When was it pronounced a public utility? This is news to me.

It doesn't have to be pronounced one to be one. If it looks like one and smells like one...

The presence of the telecommunications provider licensing system makes any discussion of whether or it's a utility moot.

[woot]

I don't want to defend Comcast, but is internet access a right? Folks could start dropping Comcast if it's the sole provider until Comcast gets its act together.

It's simply amazing that you are so opposed to any interference in the free market even in circumstances when the free market so indisputably fails. Do you recognize that the internet has become a necessity for a great many people, and that simply getting rid of it to spite a corporation is a terrible solution?

[Tim]

I don't want to defend Comcast, but is internet access a right? Folks could start dropping Comcast if it's the sole provider until Comcast gets its act together.

No, it's not a right, just like electricity and water aren't rights. This discussion isn't about rights at all. It's about competition. Comcast is allowed to operate in an anti-competitive fashion as a condition of their license. They're allowed to operate in an environment in which the FCC doesn't permit other companies to provide the service that Comcast is providing in exchange for Comcast providing the service as a utility. The conditions that come with that prevent Comcast from acting in a way that uses their license and position of control to put their pursuit of profits above that of their customers.

Why you give the benefit of the doubt to Comcast instead of the thousands of businesses that will be negatively affected by this is beyond understanding. Those on the side of business and the free market are exclusively on the side of net neutrality. I can't figure out where you got your ideas on this.

[SeattleUte]

EPU, your brand of lovable paranoia is what makes you interesting.

He's Ralph in Wait Till Your Father Gets Home.

[il Padrino Ute]

No, it's not a right, just like electricity and water aren't rights. This discussion isn't about rights at all. It's about competition. Comcast is allowed to operate in an anti-competitive fashion as a condition of their license. They're allowed to operate in an environment in which the FCC doesn't permit other companies to provide the service that Comcast is providing in exchange for Comcast providing the service as a utility. The conditions that come with that prevent Comcast from acting in a way that uses their license and position of control to put their pursuit of profits above that of their customers.

Why you give the benefit of the doubt to Comcast instead of the thousands of businesses that will be negatively affected by this is beyond understanding. Those on the side of business and the free market are exclusively on the side of net neutrality. I can't figure out where you got your ideas on this.

It's obvious that neither of us will convince the other to see what's wrong with his opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree, or as Non Sequitur would say, disagree to agree.

No biggie. I still like you.

[il Padrino Ute]

It's simply amazing that you are so opposed to any interference in the free market even in circumstances when the free market so indisputably fails. Do you recognize that the internet has become a necessity for a great many people, and that simply getting rid of it to spite a corporation is a terrible solution?

If it really is a necessity, don't you think people would pay for it, no matter the cost?

[il Padrino Ute]

EPU, your brand of lovable paranoia is what makes you interesting.

If I'm paranoid, what is Al Franken?

http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality

He wants net neutrality to ensure that the Fox News Website doesn't load faster than the Daily Kos? And that this is THE First Amendment issue of our time?

lo freaking l.

[woot]

If it really is a necessity, don't you think people would pay for it, no matter the cost?

Ask yourself how much you would pay to heat your home in the winter. Yes, a great number of people would pay much more for internet than they are currently paying. Many of them, as Tim mentioned, businesses who depend on internet access to make a profit. Since you seem to care about corporations more than people perhaps that should affect your perception.

[Tim]

It's obvious that neither of us will convince the other to see what's wrong with his opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree, or as Non Sequitur would say, disagree to agree.

No biggie. I still like you.

If we were talking about questions of opinion I would be happy to agree to disagree with you on this, but this is a question of fact, not opinion. You're like Ron Burgundy in Anchorman:

Ron Burgundy: Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina.
Veronica Corningstone: No, there's no way that's correct.
Ron Burgundy: I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.
Veronica Corningstone: Doesn't it mean Saint Diego?
Ron Burgundy: No. No.
Veronica Corningstone: No, that's - that's what it means. Really.
Ron Burgundy: Agree to disagree.

[il Padrino Ute]

If we were talking about questions of opinion I would be happy to agree to disagree with you on this, but this is a question of fact, not opinion. You're like Ron Burgundy in Anchorman: