I curious to get your thoughts as to why you believe that the gov't won't ruin the internet with Title II. It seems that in most other areas that the gov't deals with you both seem to think that it's pretty incompetent, and that it fails pretty hardcore most of the time when it comes to tech. I mean, even in the coverage of ISP's being ridiculous you admit that the gov't doesn't even have the wherewithall to enforce the '96 telco act and make sure that the ISP's are upgrading their infrastructure.
Why do you believe that putting these companies under Title II will result in positive outcomes for U.S. internet? If the gov't can even handle the little bit of tech that it tries to deal with now, how do you expect them to deal with the whole of the internet, in a manner than doesn't kill innovation? To take it a step further. Why would you want a man like Tom Wheeler to have effective absolute control over the direction of the internet. As you've covered, he's been bought off by Comcast (being a former lobbyist) so how could it possibly be good for the consumer if now a company like Comcast has complete control over the direction of the internet?
Ultimately I think we're all stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this issue, but I'm wondering why you so firmly believe in Title II; I just can't see the benefit with how cynical I am about the gov't.
We can't really vote with our wallets on this one since they have little to no competition and we all want internet. Heck I'd sooner break in to my closest fiber node and try to patch myself in than switch to say AT&T with there super fast 5mb/s connection they offer in my area. But on the other hand if your local congress critter was now your isp customer service rep even the people who couldn't care less about net neutrality or what not will give a damn when their local speeds are falling behind and someone can get voted out of office for not getting infrastructure upgrades done. And with that fear Tom Wheeler could be in senate subcommittee hearings until the end of time or this whole mess is sorted out. So going title II could give us back some more power in deciding these matters for ourselves.
Here is where I really take issues with Libertarians. They are way too into the whole, "let the market take care of itself". Well, that would work in a perfect world, where all the corporations behaved themselves. Unfortunately the corporations are sociopathic and are playing for maximum immediate profit. So, they disregard the long term health of the earth, the system, etc. It's all about maximum profits asap.
The government is supposed to be on our side. It is not, but it is supposed to be. We all need to remember that they have no money on their own. All their money is from us. Anyway, they are supposed to work for us and protect us from sociopathic companies that dump sludge into rivers and such. They rarely do, but if they did it would be nice.
Now, the ISPs are behaving in a way that would severely damage the internet, small businesses, the free flow of information, etc. etc. etc. The government has helped these ISPs rig the market against us (allowing these mergers and such). At this point, one of the only things they can do to help is to reclassify them under Title II. I do not trust the government because they have not been working for the people for a long time, but I still think we need to do anything we can to preserve the internet, and this would help. The other thing that needs to happen is that we need local internet companies to stand up. We needs states, cities, and towns to take action.
I'm a casual viewer of your site and I do not understand why you are supporting the classification of the internet as a utility. This is why:
>One of your main concerns about the internet was that ISPs have monopolies, and new entrants are not allowed to build new infrastructure due to legal action
In my mind, reclassifying the internet as a utility would only strengthen the monopoly power that ISPs have. New entrants are not allowed in the other utility markets. Also, utilities are generally not concerned with innovation or upgrading their infrastructure to competitive levels.
I don't see how reclassifying the internet as a utility would allow local governments / small companies to introduce fiber and compete with ISPs. If anything, the "utility" label would hurt this effort because governments / ISPs have more power to keep out new entrants since they're a "utility."
I think you guys need a video that explains your position in detail and addresses some of our concerns. Doesn't it bother you that Obama would bring this up NOW, right after he becomes a lame duck with no power, and after he appointed Tom as the FCC chair? It seems to me that if he actually believed in this, he would not have put Tom in power and would have pushed the issue when he had control of Congress.
See but that's my point. Our politicians don't represent us, so why do we want to give them more power? It's just another thing they can put on their resume to corporations: "I can get you some kickbacks, etc, because I control what you do. Pay me lots of money while you're at it." I think this wouldn't be such a problem if they did in fact represent us, and did adequately take care of the country, but they don't and you seem to agree.
As for the first paragraph, I am a self-proclaimed libertarian, but I would agree that the market can't really correct itself in the current state. A lot of places have bans on competition in their areas. As you mentioned at the end, small areas need to be educated to realize that they are being fleeced by the companies that are servicing them currently. Why shouldn't we focus on doing that, instead of giving more power to people who don't give a crap about us? I mean, Google Fiber is just a simple example that competition does indeed still work in this market. Places like Austin etc have seen Time Warner drop prices and increase speeds by there being someone else in the market place.
I feel like education is a longer fight, but it's also a longer play. It begins to make the internet more decentralized, more free, etc, for the users of the future. I don't see the future of the internet in centralized government controlled places, I see it as a mesh-network, ever changing, ever evolving.
This is all besides the fact that if cable companies are now common carriers, does it become easier for NSA wire-tapping etc to happen? There will be fewer and fewer companies that need to be watched, making it easier and easier to aggregate data for consumption. At that point those companies also would have a cop-out to stock-holders etc by saying "Hey, we HAVE to comply with the government because if we don't we lose our 'internet license'." I mean, they already work with the government now, but usually there is a backlash by consumers because the business right now is in control of its future, it could actually fight these things now if it wanted to.
All in all these are just things I've been thinking about lately and I was curious about your take on the issue.
This whole argument is running around the fact that we have a dingo in the FCC.
We need him removed. We need someone like Susan Crawford in his chair. If you watch some of her interviews, you'll realize shes basically tek syndicate... in the formal government approach (not sure how to word that one).
Examples:
Why the internet is slow, costly, and unfair: http://vimeo.com/m/59236702
Interview with The Verge on broadband: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216184/susan-crawford-interview-broadband-video
And she has a published book on all of this. Called "Captive Audience" ... brilliant title if you ask me.