For the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has enforced a view of broadband regulation that emphasizes competition between types of broadband while effectively ruling out meaningful competition within broadband delivery methods. Hence the ruling that cable companies and DSL providers need not lease their lines to competing ISPs if they don't want to (and why would they?).
By the FCC's reckoning, that means I have broadband choice here on the northwest side of Chicago. Well, sort of. For cable, my sole choice is Comcast-and that's what I use, with few service complaints. On the other hand, DSL is not an option for me because of the lousy infrastructure in my over 80-year-old neighborhood and my distance from the DSLAM. Broadband over power lines? Not yet. Citywide WiFi network? A gleam in Mayor Daley's eye. WiMAX? Some day, maybe. Broadband choice? Not in any coherent sense of the word.
You should read the article linked to in the header as well as the rest of this column. To me this is not some abstract issue of free-market vs. regulation because you can't even begin to make the argument that consumer choice exists. And when your cable company decides what content to prioritize (or shut off access to it completely), it's anything but free.
Save the internet
PS: The Save the Internet movement is an activity of Moveon.org. They're not attempting to hide it, but if you didn't get that, now you know.
2 comments:
I'm sure republicans are somehow to blame, right? lol
Anyway, this does sound awful. I support some internet rules, like forcing adult content into its own domain (.xxx) but this crosses the line big time. Sure, the internet needs regulations of some type, there needs to be a way to prosecute criminals in the virtual world.
But for goodness sake, don't start ripping consumers off even worse than you do now!
I wouldn't say Republicans are to blame, although they do tend to get more money from the big corporations so they're probably going to be more supportive than Democrats. It's really just a money thing, with businesses wanting to charge even more. I guess the question is whether it's really theirs to do with as they please or not. You pay for the bandwidth and I think you ought to be able to apply that bandwidth to any site you want. I mean, it's yours! You pay for it! In what way would it be fair for them to limit the speed you get from different websites?
Post a Comment