Net neutrality or no, the U.S. Is falling behind in speed no matter how you slice it. At an average of 20.77 Mbps, we’re #31 in download speed, behind Hong Kong (72.49), Singapore (58.84), Estonia, Hungary, Skovakia and Uruguay; and at 6.31 Mbps #42 in upload, behind Lesotho, Belarus, and Slovenia. (From an Ookla Speedtest study).
I guess the question might be how fast do we want to fall even further behind? We’re arguing about having two dirt roads versus one dirt road and one mud path while the rest of the world has paved roads and superhighways.
I think more expensive internet and slower speeds for small business is just part of the issue here. I think the larger issue is freedom of speech itself. This report is yet another in the long chain of laws and rulings that further enshrine the oligarchy that has taken over America. By dissolving Net Neutrality they ensure that those with the most money will have the loudest voices, and those that cannot pay will continue to be marginalized. It is the Money=Speech / Corporations=People argument that has corrupted all three branches of the American government. If this is not successfully fought off the internet will devolve from it’s current form, as a supercharged platform for everyday people to voice radical ideas to the world, into another bland corporate run consumer product where dissent is swept into the corners.
I think the real problem here is the lack of competition in this market. If we had access to more choices for where we got our internet it wouldn’t matter so much what happened at the FCC on this point, but since there is, often, no place else to go for internet when they make decisions people don’t like they can do what thy want and you still end up paying them every month. We need to find a way to make sure that every consumer has more than once choice for good quality internet.
For the first time I am utterly serious in an ironic Thanks, Obama! This didn’t even happen under the horrible Michael Powell, Bush’s nominee. Wheeler is a former lobbyist, and acting in a predictably corrosive way. Agency appointments are one of the best tools a president has to implement policy, and this is what Obama wants.
I don’t understand what the problem is - this will just create a level playing field. All ISPs will have the ability to charge all content providers for access to all of their paying customers. What could be more fair and balanced?
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that. I’d love to have a wider variety of real choices when I vote. That said, this is an issue the market should be able to decide without government having to be involved, except that there really isn’t a market and fixing that should be the priority. Of course until that happens we really need to deal with the FCC as well.
Yes. And if you’re too busy to come up with your own words, feel free to copy these:
Dear FCC Commissioners,
I am writing to express my dismay at the new regulations you have proposed for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Internet is a public utility, and it should be regulated as such. As common carriers, ISPs need to provide their customers access to the internet without discrimination among content sources.
Internet service providers in the US already charge higher rates than in other countries, and fail to invest their large profits in expanding broadband to outlying areas. Now they wish to extort rents from content providers. Consumers pay for access to the internet, and that’s what they should get-- this new rule would create a conflict of interest in which it is unclear whether it is consumers or large content providers like YouTube who are the ISP’s real customers. Consumers do not have meaningful choices among internet providers because, like other utilities, they are a natural monopoly (at best, an oligopoly in some markets). Utilities are widely recognized as a classic example where markets fail to self-regulate. Consumers are not free to choose another provider to punish those who make content providers pay, so regulation is necessary.
These new rules will be a drag on the economy and will suppress competition and innovation. Large companies will be paying rents to the ISPs that they could have invested in productive economic activity, while small companies will face larger barriers to entry into the market.
I urge you to re-consider these proposed rules, regulate ISPs as public utilities, and enforce true net neutrality for the good of American consumers and businesses.
