Can the FCC Really Own the Internet?

[allingeneral]

The following story seems to point out just how much government intervention the Obama administration wants to have over our everyday lives. The FCC is trying to vote on a "takeover" of the internet TOMORROW! This takeover will result in more bureaucratic BS from the progressive left. Roadblocks on the internet will result in making it more difficult for businesses to thrive. Another lynch-pin in the Obama administration's policy - choke off the capitalist free market and cut out American businesses anywhere possible so that we can continue to globalize the economy and get rid of the American way of life as we know it.

Keep government out of our internets!!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... -fcc-vote/

[Kreutz]

Sounds so familiar...........

Published 15 October 2008 ( you know, the Bush years?)

Earlier this year Director of U.S. National Intelligence Mike McConnell said the government would require broad powers to monitor all Internet traffic in order to secure the U.S. critical information infrastructure; Chertoff outlines a more modest approach

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/che ... t-security

[OakRidgeStars]

The FCC doesn't need to own the Internet in order to choke it with nanny-state regulations. Once they have control, they will never give it up.

For the first time in our Nation's history, free speech will require a permission slip.

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/1 ... intenance/

[OakRidgeStars]

Once again, the Government's motto is "If it ain't broke, let's fix it so it is".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 48540.html

[gunderwood]

The law of unintended consequences will slap these idiots hard...

[KaosDad]

I dunno - I am really torn on this one. Some of the shenannigans that the backbone and last mile providers were talking about making were rather onerous. For example - Comcast blocking NetFlix traffic due to them being a competitor, cell phone providers blocking calls from competitors on smart phones, tierd Internet access ala the cable TV industry. And it will only get worse as cable TV, cell phone usage and Internet usage continue to converge into one, blurred mess.

The net should be a free highway for data, period. It was much more fun when "WWW" stood for "Wild Wild West." Yes, there were hooligans and nare-do-wells, but their actions were fodder for innovation. I was hoping that the mere threat of regulation would cause the backbone owners to back down, but it looks like they're willing to take their arguments to the courts and bog this down for years - which is fine, I'm happy with the status-quo.

[zephyp]

@Kaos - I agree however "free" will fly out the window if the FCC gets their grubby hands around this first reg. More will surely follow.

[CowboyT]

Sounds so familiar...........

Published 15 October 2008 ( you know, the Bush years?)

Earlier this year Director of U.S. National Intelligence Mike McConnell said the government would require broad powers to monitor all Internet traffic in order to secure the U.S. critical information infrastructure; Chertoff outlines a more modest approach

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/che ... t-security

Yep, I remember that. Regardless of which party is in the Executive Office, bureaucrats will do anything they can to increase their personal power.

The problem is that KaosDad's points are also well taken. I remember what Comcast did, too, with not just throttling traffic, but actually terminating connections! A buddy who has Comcast was downloading a Slackware Linux DVD image using Bittorrent and found that his connections got terminated, which of course, killed his download. A packet analysis found that Comcast was spoofing IP addresses and killing his connections with RST packets. Not cool. Later, it was discovered that Comcast was sending these spoofed RST packets not just to their customers, but to both sides, i. e. NOT THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.

So, how do we balance government control with the providers doing snarky, slimy crap like Comcast did?

[VBshooter]

LIke everything else we know is wrong,It has to first br brought to right group or person's attention and then WE have to keep the pressure on them to get it fixed.Additionally if we feel strong enough about it ,be prepared to shout down and out fight any opposition to get to the ends we desire... As we elect new representatives we also need to inform them that BAU (Business as Usual) is history and we will longer tolerate it or them practicing it.;;This administration has got far too many screwed up ideas to be allowed to enact them..But if we merely sit on our hands it's the same as opening the door for them and letting them come on in to do as they please.

[gunderwood]

There are a lot of problems and most of them are due to governments handing out monopolies IMHO. I've seen the telcos use those monopolies to strangle competition, provide kickbacks, etc.

I own the lines in my house and I should own the lines on my property, but the house makes for a nice demark point and it works well with the logistics of running comms lines. I'll come back to this.

For lines that run on public property, which is most of the right-a-ways the localities have granted should not be owned by private companies. Much like the public roads, I don't want a company owning I-66. However, if a private company has the means to purchase, fairly on the free market, all the land and build a toll road or lay their own cables, that is their business...just as it would be for any privately owned land.

However, the government should not be in business of providing services on those lines. I think the road analogy is quite good. The government taxes and provides for the public roads, but the free market determines what actually moves on them and how. Private roads on private property can do whatever they want. Any private ISP should be able to lease BW from the locality and provide service to customers. However, the contracts must be a straight up. No kickbacks, no special donations, just a price for leasing BW on a line.

Ideally, like private roads, the cost of maintaining the cable should be on the private owner when it reaches their property. However, unlike physical roads it probably is better to use the house as a demark point rather than your properties edge. While not ideal, I think it is the best compromise. Alternatively, the locality could run to a aggregate demark for a community. E.g. a large development can have a common demark and lays cable to each of the homes from that demark. Thus, the small community owns and maintains the lines to each house, but the locality owns and maintains to the demark.

Basically, I think the locality should run cable (preferably WDM capable fiber) much like roads. Property owners should take over when it hits their private property, but I'm willing to concede the locality owning and maintaining the "last mile" because of the logistics of creating demarks at the edge of each property vice each house.

The locality aggregates those links to a common facility(ies) and ISPs lease space and BW at that data center. The locality provides the roads, but the free market provides the services which travel on them. Right now we have a problem because the localities gave special rights to certain companies to lay cable and now are locked in. Of course the politicians did that for a variety of kickbacks and such. Like the public roads, no special treatment or access should be allowed (I don't like HOV and such for exactly that reason).

I can provide a more technical answer, but that is the 10,000ft view.