Just great. FTC nixed net nuetrality bill...

[SUBMAN1]

Some days, I think control of the net should be on a world stage, instead of a US controlled one. Now companies can screw you BW wise.

-S


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...6/ftc_net.html

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Some days, I think control of the net should be on a world stage, instead of a US controlled one. Now companies can screw you BW wise.

-S


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...6/ftc_net.html

I don't know but the FTC seems to be moving away from regulation here. This leads to more real competition among providers of internet connectivity and more consumer choice and free market forces. That is how I read it. I could be wrong but it seems like this is a good thing for us. But I'm a free marketeer.

regulation often has unintended side-effects...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I don't know but the FTC seems to be moving away from regulation here. This leads to more real competition among providers of internet connectivity and more consumer choice and free market forces. That is how I read it. I could be wrong but it seems like this is a good thing for us. But I'm a free marketeer.

regulation often has unintended side-effects...

I hear ya. I hate regulation to, but this regulation was intended to keep things the way they are right now.

But when I saw what the proposed plan of action of limitations as proposed by the telco companies. What this will become is a way to buy your way over the competition. Basically it will hurt the little web operator who is trying to squeak by.

I could explain it, but I think I'll go get some hard facts on it to present instead.

-S

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I hear ya. I hate regulation to, but this regulation was intended to keep things the way they are right now.

But when I saw what the proposed plan of action of limitations as proposed by the telco companies. What this will become is a way to buy your way over the competition. Basically it will hurt the little web operator who is trying to squeak by.

I could explain it, but I think I'll go get some hard facts on it to present instead.

-S

I agree. That was certainly what happened in the Telco business, although overall phone bills did come down. But know the Telco's and Cable Companies are trying all kinds of new tricks to get your bill back to $50 a month.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I don't know but the FTC seems to be moving away from regulation here. This leads to more real competition among providers of internet connectivity and more consumer choice and free market forces. That is how I read it. I could be wrong but it seems like this is a good thing for us. But I'm a free marketeer.

regulation often has unintended side-effects...

The problem with that assesement is that laissez-faire free market capitalism is not always the better choice in any situation. The overreliance on "market forces" to do the right thing without setting up a regulatory safety net to prevent those same forces from exploiting a favourable situation is exactly the kind of thing that will kill the beautiful internet and make us react after the damage has been done. But I don't want to lose the internet just to make sure we don't rub wrong with the competitive market. Its a misnomer to say that deregulation always creates more competition. When we talk of competition in a positive sense we mean basically better choices and products for the consumer, the ultimate supposed beneficiary in the market process. But while the assertion that regulation can have unknown consequences so too can lack of regulation. Its not an either or, but a balance, and history of economics proves that.

Here I think we need to be wary of losing the internet before we worry about prophesied competition.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I The problem with that assesement is that laissez-faire free market capitalism is not always the better choice in any situation. The overreliance on "market forces" to do the right thing without setting up a regulatory safety net to prevent those same forces from exploiting a favourable situation is exactly the kind of thing that will kill the beautiful internet and make us react after the damage has been done. But I don't want to lose the internet just to make sure we don't rub wrong with the competitive market. Its a misnomer to say that deregulation always creates more competition. When we talk of competition in a positive sense we mean basically better choices and products for the consumer, the ultimate supposed beneficiary in the market process. But while the assertion that regulation can have unknown consequences so too can lack of regulation. Its not an either or, but a balance, and history of economics proves that.

Here I think we need to be wary of losing the internet before we worry about prophesied competition.

I have to agree with part of this for sure - deregulation not only made my power bill go up, but it also created ENRON, who's main hobby was pulling the plug on California for fun! There was never any power shortage! It was simply ENRON playing like a baby with the light switch! Then claiming that they needed to raise prices over it! Nice.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Some articles on why this Net Neutrality should have passed:

Why We Don't Need QOS: Trains, Cars, and Internet Quality of Service
Common sense argues against widespread use of QOS techniques on the Internet. It is better to just get more capacity.
http://www.bricklin.com/qos.htm

Why Network Providers Need to Discriminate, Part 27

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/332

Net Neutrality Video

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307

Should the Internet Play Favorites?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032400256.html

Good Fences Make Bad Broadband: Preserving an Open Internet through Net Neutrality

http://www.publicknowledge.org/conte...hitep-20060206

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I have to agree with part of this for sure - deregulation not only made my power bill go up, but it also created ENRON, who's main hobby was pulling the plug on California for fun! There was never any power shortage! It was simply ENRON playing like a baby with the light switch! Then claiming that they needed to raise prices over it! Nice.

-S

I was selling electricity in California when it was deregulated. It was very strange the way they did it.

On an electric bill of $60, $54 was still going to go to PG&E. I couldn't understand how any of the companies selling "deregulated" energy in California expected to make any money.

[Tchocky]

*pictures Heibges strolling around Oakland with a wheelbarrow ful of batteries*