Who Should Regulate the Internet — Big Government or Big Business?

There is no case for regulating the internet - only the politicos fear an open unregulated net.

only the politicos fear an open unregulated net

Why pick sides?

The corporate types fear a truly free market. The only regulation they ever want is the kind that gives them a competitive advantage.

Big Brother ought to regulate it--who else?

Oh, wait a minute--let Big Mama do it!

big sister?

This announcement is a broad subject with no info. The FCC reassert it's authority over the Internet? Is this to mean it's content? That would be them saying that the would now be recording or listening in everyone's phone conversations. What about the right to privacy? That is not the scope of what the FCC was created to do.

I am more incline to think it is some greedy bureaucrat looking at means to get a piece of the action. More regulation means more people to do the regulating. More people to supervise means more authority and better pay.

And then a special comission will be created to supervise that special comission, which only reports to the special comission of that matter, which in turn...

Yahlasit

To the extent that the FCC encourages competition (e.g., breaking up Ma Bell) it's actions are essentially good, and within it's charter. From Wikipedia: The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

The emphasis is mine, that it may regulate interstate communications. So how does it justify regulating the internet within a given state; California, for example. It asserts its right, (apparently?) going beyond its charter and beyond what Congress has authorized it to do. I'm not a lawyer, so I am only speculating on this.

Part of this task the FCC has taken on is to ensure 'net neutrality', which means that my ISP can't block my access to any (legal) website I wish to visit. Offhand I think that's a good thing.

So I guess the questions are: how much regulation is going to occur; will these regulations encourage or discourage competition, will free speech and free access be stifled, and how much of this is actually within the FCC's charter to do? I think more information about these regulations is needed.

I forget the details buy I think that USBport in #9 is pretty close to what is really going on. I don't think that they are talking about regulating the words/pictures on the internet. I think that the biggest thing is preventing big telecom companies from passing, blocking and slowing down traffic in what ever manner helps to force us to buy whatever "bundle" they want to sell.

Some of this is going on now with VOIP traffic. Telcos are not allowed to slow down the VOIP traffic of others but they are allowed to provide "preferential service" to their traffic. So, in the spirit of fees, dealer surcharges, shipping and handling extra, fine print, etc. what is happening is Telco's slow down all VOIP traffic and then speed up traffic from people that spend extra for their bundle.

Over the years many of us have noticed that some people get their email through much faster than other people. Sometimes this has an innocent explination, but sometimes it doesn't.

I don't know how much of the internet backbone was paid for by investors and how much was paid for by OUR government TAX DOLLARS, but either way the internet should be a fair and honest telecom pathway. The users may be honest or dishonest, but the transmission should not be full of extra charges and service problems like car dealerships, cell phone providers, airplane tickets, one-eight-hundred comercials (call in the next thirty seconds) etc.

I think that the push for the regulation change is to keep access to the internet understandable and honest. You either pay per month for access (nice), or pay based upon transfer speed or total traffic per month (not as nice but hard to argue against).

I suspect that the overall intent of the change is good. But, it is never wise to be quick to trust someone who says that they are from the government and they are here to help us. Either the government or special interests will try to "craft" any new laws to benefit them. This does need to be watched and questions asked.

How about big people?