What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
110 Comments
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -5/+96I'm glad to see some one from the FCC lashing out over the gross level of consolidation and deterioration going on in the broadband and media industries. Too many politicians embrace 'de-regulation' with so much excitement that they wet themselves, and don't realize what is really going on. Open markets and Laissez-faire only work when there is abundant competition in the marketplace. But too many corporations merge and conspire to keep standards low and prices high.
When there are physical constraints involved (like laying wire for phone and cable lines), it is nearly impossible for a newcomer to get into the game. That is why these companies are Utilities. The government regulation is actually supposed to protect the consumers when there isn't any other way for us to fight back. This is why we need the FCC - and why we need to keep it working for us, not the companies. - o0joshua0o, on 10/10/2007, -6/+50In modern America, broadband penetrates YOU!
- Peteostro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+44Some one should get pissed. The only options we have here is $60 cable or $35 DSL We need more competition. The FCC screwed us again with the 700mhz spectrum. They should have gave a slice of it away for public use (free) but no the US government needs its billions from the auction of the spectrum to fight our lame ass wars.
- gavin422, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30Some ***** competition in the industry would be nice. Where I live, I have the beautiful choice of an ISP that throttles BitTorrent traffic and one that bans it.
- dodgydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25If ony we could form some type of Federal Communications... Commission or something to protect us...
- Son0fJorel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Right wing moron doesn't understand the issue so he resorts to name calling.
News at 11. - catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Most cities are not an open market for cable and internet. Most cities will grant a "franchise" (i.e. government-granted monopoly) to a single cable provider. In Madison, WI our provider is Charter and ATT wants to come in and compete with them. However, the city will not allow competition unless the company will agree to service all areas of the city, which would be unprofitable. We have a government-mandated monoply that can literally do anything it wants without any recourse from the customers.
- shiftt, on 10/10/2007, -9/+25The US House of Cards will inevitably collapse. The nation cannot maintain is industrial superiority if the government restricts immigration for skilled professionals, strikes down on scientific education, and encourages oligopolies to control entire markets. When the commercial advantages enjoyed by the US population are diminished, the nation will resort to evermore ambitious empirical desires to capture foreign resources and the domination of foreign markets through force.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17We don't need the FCC. Just like we didn't need the government giving handout to the companies laying the fiber down only to ***** everything up later.
***** the FCC for dictating what we can and cant see. ***** the FCC for whoring itself out to the top telecommunications bidder. ***** the FCC for its members being granted positions as political favors.
Small taste of what I am referring to:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-lobbyist-pres-20060213/ - tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I've heard in Seoul they get speeds over 100Mb/s. That's insane!
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14If only there was a way we could work together and get our voices heard.
- Ethek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15My take on government is that it is best when it stays the hell out of my everyday life. However, I am certain that it is the best entity to do certain things. National Defense, Protection of common resources and protection from big business are pretty high on my list. I think that in the case of the internet and spectrum those could be considered a common resource. They definatly should not be monopolized by big buisness.
Ubiquitous information exchange is just now reaching critical mass. It enables people to make informed decisions in a way never before possible. When cooperations control when and how someone accesses information in a world like that they effectively are telling people what to think. If congress whats to try and tighten control on it I am sure all of the opportunities offered by free open ubiquitous information exchange will just move on and U.S. citizens will be left behind. The U.S. may have helped fuel the creation of the internet but it no longer controls it. - Codee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It's about time someone at the FCC gave a damn. It's even more stunning when it's the commissioner.
I like this guys' attitude.
Good luck, Mr. Copps and welcome to capitalism.
BTW:Mike Powell was a prick. Good ridding. - terminalpariah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Hear hear! I'm in Canada and Ted Rogers has got us tied up. Nobody in our government stops to think for a second that this ludicrous overcharging on broadband and wireless could be hurting our economy across the board.
More power to your FCC! Show Canadians how it's done!
Then maybe Verizon can come up north, roll out FIOS and give Mr. Rogers a little heart attack? Please? - j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16You have no idea what you're talking about. Laissez-faire means zero regulation, and yet you're talking about a regulated market as if we really have an open market. The FCC creates monopolies, it's a corrupt government organization and it always will be no matter who's in charge. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when there's politics involved there will never be true competition or Laissez-faire or the government "protecting us" from anything. When you give up liberty for "protection" you will get neither.
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Very few people realize how much like the old soviet union this country progresses towards on a daily basis. Except instead of communism, the people will probably blame the market for problems that the government created.
- Prod_Deity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10http://www.digg.com/hardware/We_ve_all_paid_for_45Mbps_to_our_homes,_now_demand_it_
Or a direct link to the article titled : "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal." -- AKA Where's the 45MB/s I Already Paid for! .....
http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/5011
The FCC should have been all over this from the beginning....... but what do you expect with (now former?) conglomerate companies like Clear Channel in it's back pocket. - pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10They need to do the same thing when Electricity was just starting out in the last century. They had to make it a utility and say that everyone had a right to it, not just the ones the companies thought they could make a profit on. That's what will cause the use of broadband to go up in the US and for the connection speeds to go up.
- Feedback65, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Hmmm what ever happened to Fiber optic? All that ***** they laid in the 90's . And Charged us for .
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9AT&T demanding competition? *head explodes*
- boyasunder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I hear the internet there gives out free blowjobs!
We are so far behind. - abandonedhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7As cool as FIOS is, Verizon can be just as evil. But nothing is evil when compared to AT&T's spy tactics.
- Infinite84, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11***** the FCC
- stalefries, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You may want to look into the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Not the part: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Unless, of course, you forgot to put in a [/sarcasm] tag at the end of your post. In that case, just ignore all of this. - notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, my provider has been in and out on the west coast for the last few days. I know many people with the problem, we have no course of action but to complain which just further jams their support lines, and you speak with inept tech support who don't know what to tell you anyway.
- dgp1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Sure, Verizon has that, but if you're in Gay-T&T territory (like I am), in which case you get "Your world, delivered(tm)...over copper...at 5mbps on a good day, 2mbps when we screw up. Who needs fiber? We're the phone company and we decide when you get fiber and you'll get it...NEVER."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7for like ten bucks a month
- AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Atleast you have Verizon FIOS (fibre)
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's because the providers have stakes in media companies. Take Time-Warner, they own everything from the movie studios, to the news channels (CNN), to the gossip websites (TMZ), to the providers, and the broadband infrastructure itself.
Then you have Rupert Murdoch with a similar empire. Don't you people see how everything you consider to be "reality" is controlled by a few corporate interests? Your news, your entertainment, YOUR POLITICIANS. - whisperedlie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I _AM_ outraged...
- nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He's criticizing the FCC
- Son0fJorel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He started it.
- noblepaladin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Japan too. We are decades behind them in technology.
- blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I love irony
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If only the FCC didn't pay attention to boobs on TV and the fraction of less than a percent who complain about it, and concentrated instead on getting the most people access at a fair price...
- halligan00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Giving it away for free would have the same results, except whatever entity that got the rights would have a greater profit margin.
What needs to be done is to eliminate monopoly privelege where possible, and where this is not possible, to publicly collect the financial benefit of monopoly.
A proven way to do this is to only 'sell' the monopoly right for a limited time (1 year, 7 years, or something). At the end of this time, re-auction the right, giving the incumbent right of final bid. 1) this would cause a stronger incentive for economically using the rights, e.g. more information bandwidth in a give spectrum band and 2) This would increase the costs for incumbent firms while opening access for new firms.
Remember, the price of service isn't determined by the cost of production, but rather by the price of alternatives. (This is why giving it away for free wouldn't lower prices). - NICU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hey at least you have a choice, I only have 1 ISP that 'throttles' BitTorrent traffic, and by 'throttle' my modem stops working 2 minutes after I start a BitTorrent download - regardless of what I download.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4A sort of Jedi Council or Rebel Alliance perhaps.
- tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not really. We could have that technology in a few years if we didn't waste money on other ***** (like the war).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't MAKE me stop this car!
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Making something like basic internet access free (or cheaper, either via a tax-funded model, a subsidzed model, or some kind of more competitive model) benefits everyone, generates more innovation and revenue, and, yes, aids pr0n distribution. There's really no down side, unless you're currently a corporation ass-raping your customers for so-called "high speed" access because you're the only game in town.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Touche.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5@ j0keR
Perhaps you should READ my comment before railing against it. I know what Laissez-faire means, and I was saying that it doesn't apply here. There is no open-market when utilities control all the access to their customers. Also, the FCC doesn't 'create' monopolies - and if it were working properly, it would keep them from forming. But because it has been corrupted, it often lets companies do whatever they want, often despite the people's best interest. If you re-read my comment, I think you will find that we are in agreement. - vastrightwing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Iraq is about oil. The FCC is about power. Who ever pays off the FCC the most wins. There's no mystery here!
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, let's let the FCC get their hands on the internet so they can censor that too.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3::blink::
You know, in GB and Europe, they have >10M broadband at something like $15/mo (currency equiv). I'd like a piece of that action, myself, wouldn't you? - Erunion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4 It didn't happen like that.
- nakani, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Or download Linux distros. Or legal music download torrents seeded by labels. Or...
- dot19408, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let the municipalities build their own infrastructure!
Let all residents have cheap internet ($10mo 128k/16k)
+ full bandwidth access to local TV & Radio broadcasts.
Let any service provider offer any service to any resident at any price...
Stand back and let the free MARKET decide the rest... - WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Allowing the government to set "plans" surrenders individual liberty. The functions and actions of government should not be dictated by a set of desirable outcomes but on maximizing individual liberty. If the price of inexpensive, widely available broadband is centralized planning then that price is too high. *Even if the price is is a loss of competitiveness with the rest of the world*, it is too high.
We have poor broadband because we are more free. For this I am grateful. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is