FCC Could, But Probably Won't, Do Anything About Net Neutrality
from the i-hear-you-but-i'm-not-listening dept
Michael Copps, one of the four current FCC commissioners, says that while the commission currently has the power to punish broadband providers who break network-neutrality principles, it needs to adopt stricter, more enforceable rules to protect content providers who don't want to pay the providers protection money. This stance from Copps contrasts greatly with that of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, whose no-regulation-is-good-regulation mantra (except when it's convenient, of course) helped kick off this whole mess by classifying DSL and cable modem networks as information services, meaning they no longer had to follow common carrier requirements -- like network neutrality. The dichotomy between the Democrat Copps' and the Republican Martin's views highlights the vast ideological disagreement on the issue, as well as the partisan split. But Martin's viewpoint that nothing good can come of regulation is flawed -- just ask the telcos that built their businesses on regulations that gave them monopoly protection and kept their would-be competitors at bay.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
first!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How so?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Neocommies UNITE!
By the way, business/corporate concerns didn't drive the fascists or the communists to starve millions of their citizens. It was for the good of "everyone" that those people had to die. Businesses had even less to do with the virtual world-wide ban of the insecticide DDT which costs 100s of millions of lives EVERY YEAR. Find something better or as good BEFORE you ban a life-saving product "for the good of everyone"!
Maybe instead of trying to wrest control of all-power government agencies for "the people", we should eliminate them altogether as unnecessary infringement on the freedom and rights our government was formed to protect.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
flawed logic?
Please reexamine this argument. Martin's viewpoint isn't the only thing flawed here -- unless you are arguing that regulation creating and enforcing telecom monopolies is a good thing as well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Neocommies UNITE!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: flawed logic?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
no regulation is good regulation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: no regulation is good regulation
In a "free market" which does not exist in most markets in the United States your argument might work. However, since gov regulations created the bells and comcasts then we are stuck with oligopoly not a free open market.
You suck just like all you other newbs who know shXt about FXck my man.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: no regulation is good regulation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: no regulation is good regulation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
wtf
Perhaps instead we should all be thankfully that it has lasted as is for as long as it has and move on with our lives. Things change. Before the Internet life went on and long after it shall continue. The Internet has made us lazy so perhaps it is truly in our best interest for the Internet as we know it to be a thing of the past. ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wtf
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment