F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by MCRed on Monday February 02, 2015 @06:06PM (#8987726)

Why are there only one or two ISPs in your area? Because of regulation. Cable companies are government granted monopoly. The reason you don't have cable choice is that monopoly. Local phone service, similar thing, though regulations have opened up long distance access, only one company has the infrastructure. Wireless Broadband, similar thing, artificial scarcity created by regulation (spread spectrum would support hundreds of local services) and spectrum auctions literally selling regulated monopolies created out of thin air. And while they did offer multiple bands, they limited it to only 3 monopolies per a given area (and one company has the choice band while the other two have lesser bands.)

The only reason these companies have power to shape traffic is the federal and local governments have given them monopolies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by eropple on Monday February 02, 2015 @07:22PM (#8988089)

Your posts in this thread have had the woe-is-me scream of the right wing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being disingenuous when you're being wrong.

There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high. It's fantastically, stupefyingly expensive to run that much cable. There's a reason we as a country have paid for so much of it.

Wireless broadband and satellite are inferior goods and don't replace hardline connections. Even so, you seem to have this curious idea that spectrum usage isn't rivalrous...which is not exactly borne out by reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by mullingitover on Monday February 02, 2015 @09:30PM (#8988543)

> There aren't one or two ISPs because of regulation, there are one or two ISPs because the barries to entry are discouragingly high

Infrastructure and Internet service used to be separate businesses at one point, the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out. I had dozens of ISP choices when I signed up for DSL in 1998.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by orthecreedence on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:51PM (#8988910)

> the barrier was created when infrastructure owners were allowed to kick the other ISPs out

This stinks of deregulation to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by lomnakkus on Monday February 02, 2015 @06:08PM (#8987738)

Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice.

EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by MCRed on Monday February 02, 2015 @06:19PM (#8987795)

We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers?

I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists of nothing more than the word "bullshit" and an assertion that I must be astroturfing. Labeling the argument without a counter argument and then labelling me.

Can't you do better?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by lomnakkus on Monday February 02, 2015 @08:14PM (#8988302)

Learn to read separate statements as separate. Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit.

In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular country).

(I readily acknowledge that my original post was perhaps a little hasty and inflammatory, but one gets tired of this shit.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by lomnakkus on Monday February 02, 2015 @08:24PM (#8988340)

> "I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel...".

This has got to be the height of irony. See my posting history to see why you're Oh So very wrong.

Goodbye, I'll stop replying or acknowledging you from now on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by dang on Tuesday February 03, 2015 @04:29AM (#8989514)

> Stop spewing bullshit.

> How's that astroturfing going for you?

Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News. Please stop.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as ... by lomnakkus on Friday February 06, 2015 @04:20PM (#9011613)

While I can still reply and in retrospect: I sort-of agree. The astroturfing comment was out-of-line. I'm not sure "bullshit" can be construed as a personal attack, but... reprimand accepted nonetheless.

[ Parent | on HN ]