Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the tip-your-hand dept.

Senate Democrats have put together 50 votes for a measure meant to block the Federal Communications Commission's December decision to end net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration.

Democrats are just one GOP vote shy of the 51-vote threshold for a Senate resolution of disapproval, which would strike down the FCC's December rules change.

"With full caucus support," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "it's clear that Democrats are committed to fighting to keep the internet from becoming the Wild West where ISPs are free to offer premium service to only the wealthiest customers while average consumers are left with far inferior options."

The Democrats' effort won the support of its first Republican backer, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), last Tuesday.

The Hill


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:21PM (9 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:21PM (#623640)

    It took quite a while (decades) for telephone to be mandated as an essential service to be delivered to all homes regardless of how remote, and at an affordable price. And that was in a regulated monopoly atmosphere that allowed long distance charges to be > 10 hours of minimum wage pay for 1 hour of long distance conversation.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:46PM (5 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:46PM (#623678) Journal

    That's why we need a more sensible division of services this time. More like in the era where local service was the monopoly but anyone could provide long distance.

    One example would be where local governments provide last mile connectivity (perhaps just dark fibre to the home). Anyone could use it to provide ISP service to a group of subscribers.

    That would return us to the state of the mid '90s where ISPs were a dime a dozen and competition drove costs from a typical $50/month down to $9.99 or so and most people had a dozens to choose from.

    Note that local government providing could be direct, contracted, or through a regulated natural monopoly.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:00PM (4 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:00PM (#623685)

      I've got multiple sets of wires running into my home and a monopoly service provider on each.

      Somehow the Houston area managed to allow a dozen electric power service providers to compete, while sharing the same infrastructure. I'd like to see more of that model for internet service delivery: no monopolies, period.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (3 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (#623786) Journal

        Houston's grid operator is a regulated natural monopoly, not unlike my proposal for last mile internet.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:42AM (2 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:42AM (#623971)

          This only works if the "grid operator" accounts for a small fraction of the total bill.

          If you put Comcast in as our "grid operator" we'll get arbitrary grid charge increases every 6 to 12 months amounting to 30% annual inflation.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:22PM (1 child)

            by sjames (2882) on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:22PM (#624225) Journal

            That's why the grid operator must be regulated as a natural monopoly, like Texas does with the electrical grid.

            Or better, contracted by the government so they can just put it out for bid if they don't like the encumbrance's latest rate hike.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:33PM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:33PM (#624234)

              Oh, but, regulation = BAD... yet, somehow, in the most industrial-money-greased corner of the reddest state in the Union, they managed to regulate an essential service like electric power.

              I agree, cost of broadband delivery to the home is well understood at this point and should be regulated - and periodically re-evaluated / put out for bid to take advantage of future cost efficiencies. Good luck pushing that agenda when net neutrality can't even settle.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:11PM (2 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:11PM (#623895) Journal

    Sometimes, Government monopolies can be a good thing..
    Australia had a Commonwealth Post Master General running the telephone system from Federation in 1901.

    Calls were charged based on distance, but not at the exorbitant rates that seem to be charged to US phone users.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmaster-General's_Department [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.telephonecollecting.org/Bobs%20phones/Pages/Telecom/telecomhistory.htm [telephonecollecting.org]
    https://www.vintagephones.com.au/ccp0-display/history-of-the-telephone-exchange-in-australia.html [vintagephones.com.au]

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex