That’s not a good thing to do.
Creating regulations and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll never enforce these,” is a horrible approach to regulation.
Concur.
And satellite? HughesNet offers the kinds of speeds and bandwidth for “must have to live” types of service.
I cannot think of a remedy to those issues that doesn’t involve the rules that were imposed. What steps would you think would have been warranted?
Keep in mind I don’t think suggestions like “How about a stern look and a tut-tutting?” would be taken seriously.
By “rules that were imposed,” do you mean rules that the FCC decided not to enforce through forbearance, but which exist by virtue of the Title II classification?
Unbundling of last-mile facilities? Tariffing? Rate regulation? Cost accounting rules? How did those rules correct these horrendous abuses?
So your answer to my question is…?
All of the suggested alternatives for competition with existing broadband oligopolies have issues, some of which I itemized. This one is, if anything, even worse. It’s costly, it imposes a minimum 500ms additional latency on every round-trip packet in addition to normal network latency, bandwidth is a pathetic max of 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up, and the monthly usage allowance starts at 10 GB and goes up to a max of 50 GB. Oh, and as an extra added bonus, bandwidth goes to zero every time it rains.
If you’re going to promote that as a “must have to live” level of service, it’s not surprising that you think the ISP marketplace is a thriving and competitive free market! Don’t forget to mention a 300 baud acoustic coupler and a rotary dial telephone as yet another exciting competitive option for Internet service! :rolleyes:
That’s one way to look at it. Another would be, the FCC didn’t create the regulation as a result of this. And further, they tried to minimize the effects of the new classification to simply what was needed to solve the issues that were arising.
In your opinion, after these issues started causing problems, what would you suggest that the FCC or other government entity should have done?
Do you believe that in todays political climate rules/regulations will be put in place to curtail abuse?
If you are just taking an ideological stand, I understand. But it’s not going to work in the real world particularly under the current administration.
I think satellite has potential as well. But in its current state it’s an option of last resort IMO. If you are in a rural area where there are no earth based options, then sure. Otherwise I can’t see how the limitations and unreliability make it viable. I guess the direction I’m trying to steer your towards is speculating on the minimum threshold of providers where you’d consider it a well functioning market where the normative approach should be taken. Like, if there were at least 3 options, or 4, or 5…etc. For me, I’d be opposed to NN if greater than 50% of people had 4 or greater choices. Do you have criteria like that in mind?
I would add to that threshold that at least 90%ish percent have at least 2 choices.
And, while there are predictions that wireless or satellite or other technologies may be able to replace a wire attached to your house coming directly from the ISP’s provider, those predictions actually need to result in something that actually does reach the level that wired technology is now.
If wireless or satellite are as good as a wired connection is now, then competition becomes more logistically feasible.
So even if losing the open internet makes things slightly worse, it’s better to lose the open internet so long as it doesn’t make things dramatically worse?
I think this is an unrealistic standard. Thee are very few products or services that have this adoption rate. For a significant amount of people, they just aren’t interested in broadband. A market at 89% availability of 10 providers and 11% of people with 1 choice I’d say is well functioning but would fail that criteria.
I would say yes. If the detrimental impact is minor or slight, at the cost of a huge intrusion into private enterprise, that’s not a tradeoff that I think is worth it.
Yep. It’s my only choice. I purchase their highest speed and download cap. And I don’t have much demand. It’s workable.
I’m not a gamer, or use it for phone because of the inherent latency of sat systems. But that’s ok. Hughes has a comparably small, but totally captured corner of the market. I hope they don’t start taking advantage of the lack of regulations.
This seems to depend on your definition of “huge intrusion”.
Requiring the ISPs to continue to do what they are doing doesn’t meet my definition of “huge intrusion”
I did say “ish”. Maybe 80%'s, maybe as low as 75%. It’s negotiable. My concern is with your criteria, it could be left with 50% with 4+, and 50% with only one.
Yes, we can certainly trust the business ethics of ISPs.
Your question presupposes that we agree on what rule were imposed. Before I can answer that, I have to know what you mean by “rules that were imposed.”
Do you mean rules that the FCC decided not to enforce through forbearance, but which exist by virtue of the Title II classification?
My own view is that no one has a right to Internet service, but some discussion above suggests that other contributors to this discussion feel that Internet service is a civil right.
If that’s the point, then what makes you think that “it’s harder,” and “the companies do know how and where to pressure,” is a standard that justifies regulation to address? Be concise and specific, citing your sources.
It is a basic right in my society because the society aspires to the principle of equality of opportunity. But then you live in a basket case of racism so it’s to be expected.