FCC

How about we just kill the FCC entirely -- an agency that has long outlived its usefulness. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That's a great idea!

That way we could have 50 individual states plus Guam and Puerto Rico all making up their own rules about spectrum, billing practices, content, etc, etc, etc.

Wouldn't it be convenient to have a cell phone that works in Atlanta but not in Newark?

Or how about the fun of paying a tax on VoIP calls placed to New York but not Minnesota?

How great would it be for businesses if they had to register, pay a franchise tax, and agree to collect local sales taxes just to have their e-commerce site accessible in California?

Think I'm exaggerating?

All of the things I list would have happened if the FCC hadn't stepped in and exerted commerce clause authority to stop them.

The FCC has it's problems, but when you live in a federation you sometimes have to regulate to avoid regulation. The FCC is a the poster child of that idea. We need a federal regulator in this case in order to keep the states from screwing it up even more.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Yes, this is one absurdity of the whole debate, because "net neutrality" as principle has nothing to do with it and as DG and /me agree is an important issue.

But the FCC "net neutrality" will be only for "lawful traffic".

Another issue is the FCC procedure is to vote on a draft, and after the vote the draft is formed into the actual final form.

Other issues are outlined here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/0...ls-and-promise Originally Posted by ..

Oh good, I’m glad I can still provide you something to condescend to. If you’d not taken my comment out of context it would be clear that I agree with some regulation. But regulation, no matter how well intended, is never benevolent. Speeding up the signal to the preferred customers and slowing it down to others is pretty much the same as charging large customers a volume price and smaller customers less. It will work itself out in the wash or anti-trust laws already on the books can deal with the issue. First it will be the speed, then the price and then the content. Not saying it’s the Night and Frog Decree, but it’s the first in many steps that will lead to regulating content. Period.

Most of this discussion ignores the fact that more often than not, regulations are used by the dominant players to stifle competition, not to protect consumers. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ makes the same point I made albeit it in a more succinct way. Again, I do agree in limited regulation, but if the internet has been around these many years without significant interference from the man, why start now? Monopolies? Like I said, we have laws to deal with that already. What we don’t need is information of any kind being stifled in a labyrinth of bureaucracy.

How about we just kill the FCC entirely -- an agency that has long outlived its usefulness. Originally Posted by pjorourke

In south Texas, aren’t many American stations presently being “drowned out” by Mexican border blasters? Similarly, I’d hate to be driving along listening to AC/DC and have some Jimmy Swaggartish ilk “drown them out” simply because he can afford to pay for the extra mega watts. The FCC does meet some needs.

That's a great idea!

That way we could have 50 individual states plus Guam and Puerto Rico all making up their own rules about spectrum, billing practices, content, etc, etc, etc.

Wouldn't it be convenient to have a cell phone that works in Atlanta but not in Newark?

Or how about the fun of paying a tax on VoIP calls placed to New York but not Minnesota?

How great would it be for businesses if they had to register, pay a franchise tax, and agree to collect local sales taxes just to have their e-commerce site accessible in California?

Think I'm exaggerating?

All of the things I list would have happened if the FCC hadn't stepped in and exerted commerce clause authority to stop them.

The FCC has it's problems, but when you live in a federation you sometimes have to regulate to avoid regulation. The FCC is a the poster child of that idea. We need a federal regulator in this case in order to keep the states from screwing it up even more.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You left out American Samoa, the Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands...but who's counting??

But regulation, no matter how well intended, is never benevolent. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I don't agree with this point at all.

How about child labor laws? What would be the vested interest in government regulating in that area other than benevolence toward children?

Cheers,
Mazo.

You left out American Samoa, the Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands...but who's counting?? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Well, I was going to add Canada but I didn't want to piss off Lauren.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Well, I was going to add Canada but I didn't want to piss off Lauren.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Just by saying that you've implied the US influence there and at the same time said Canada isn't important enough to be a US Territory.

I don't agree with this point at all.

How about child labor laws? What would be the vested interest in government regulating in that area other than benevolence toward children?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I think you are right. And I also think benevolent is poor word choice on my part. Perhaps without consequence intentional or otherwise is a better way to describe my thoughts on the regulation no matter how well intended. Regardless, we do need rules and laws and the regulation of said laws. No doubt about it. But, the internet has hobbled along well enough without it. Why start now.


Actually, I almost gave examples of, in my opinion, that are good and bad regulation. Child labor laws were what came to mind as an example of good regulation. The intent and result are moral and admirable.

The government gave us Ma Bell and years of little to no improvement of service for the customers. Remember the days of long distance charges that were so high that folks who weren't rich talked on the phone while someone else held a stopwatch so they didn't go to long. That was a product of government controlled monopoly. Spell that many millions in payoffs from Bell to the politicians. Does anyone believe this would be any different - until the ideologues get hold of it! Then it will be different and say goodbye to any site they don't like.

And as we saw with the wikileaks thing where they tried to shut down sites linked to wikileaks, government censorship is not a pretty site. Of course, it would have been much worse if W had done it.

Just by saying that you've implied the US influence there and at the same time said Canada isn't important enough to be a US Territory. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

IMPLIED?????

Cheers,
Mazo.

We need a federal regulator in this case in order to keep the states from screwing it up even more. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Good point. Never underestimate the ability of government at any level to fuck up.

PJ makes the same point I made albeit it in a more succinct way. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Brevity is my bag.

How about child labor laws? What would be the vested interest in government regulating in that area other than benevolence toward children? Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

How about protecting the wages of adult labor.

Hell, it's often the government which holds down adult wages.