Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.
Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.
Comcast welcomed the ruling in a statement that said: "Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation." The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry's lobby group, elaborated by saying that Comcast and its other members will "continue to embrace a free and open Internet as the right policy."
Supporters of Net neutrality claim that new Internet regulations or laws are necessary to prevent broadband providers from restricting content or prioritizing one type of traffic over another. Broadband providers and many conservative and free-market groups, on the other hand, say that some of the proposed regulations would choke off new innovations and could even require awarding e-mail spam and telemedicine the identical priorities.
Net neutrality proponents responded to Tuesday's ruling by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency "should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation," Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn said. The Media Access Project said, without mentioning common carrier regulations directly, that the FCC must have the "ability to protect the rights of Internet users to access lawful content and services of their choice."
In a statement on Tuesday, the FCC indicated that it was thinking along the same lines. The DC Circuit did not "close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," the agency said. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate.
Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services." Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that "the FCC should not reclassify" broadband providers as common carriers; Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican, added that such an action by the FCC "would be illegal"; Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, called the decision "good news for the future prosperity of the Internet."
But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the (FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer--it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.
Broadband providers have found allies among free-market groups that worry about the FCC expanding to become the Internet Regulatory Commission. Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation wrote that if the agency deems "everyone under the sun to be a common carrier, it will become Regulatory World War III." Thomas Lenard, president of the Technology Policy Institute, said in e-mail that, contrary to what Public Knowledge claims, "it is obvious that applying common carrier regulation to the broadband sector is regulating the Internet. To suggest otherwise makes no sense."
The FCC had known all along that it was on shaky legal ground. Its vote to take action against Comcast was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the agency's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority "is sure to doom this order on appeal."
The ruling also is likely to shift the debate to whether Congress will choose to explicitly grant the FCC the authority to regulate companies' network management practices. One wildcard: Unless there is a groundswell of complaints about a specific company, as there was with Comcast throttling BitTorrent transfers, there may be little appetite for controversial legislation. And cable providers have renewed their pledge to keep the Internet open.
In 2006, Congress rejected five bills, backed by groups including Google, Amazon.com, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations. Even though the Democrats have enjoyed a majority on Capitol Hill since 2007, their leadership has shown little interest in resuscitating those proposals.
"We must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices," Tatel wrote in his 36-page opinion on Tuesday. "The Commission may exercise this 'ancillary' authority only if it demonstrates that its action--here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers' use of peer-to-peer networking applications--is 'reasonably ancillary to the...effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'"
In August 2005, the FCC adopted a set of principles saying "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice." But the principles also permit providers' "reasonable network management" and, confusingly, the FCC admitted on the day of their adoption that the guidelines "are not enforceable."
The FCC's 2008 vote to punish Comcast is based on those principles and stems from a request from Free Press and its political allies, including some Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law school faculty.
This is not the first time that the FCC has been rebuked for enacting regulations without actual legal authority to do so. In 2005, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the agency did not have the authority to draft its so-called broadcast flag rule. And a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled in the Janet Jackson nipple exposure incident that the FCC's sanctions against CBS--which publishes CNET News--amounted to an "arbitrary and capricious change of policy."
Update at 9:15 a.m. PDT: History and more details added.
Update at 11:21 a.m. PDT: More reactions, including Comcast statement, added.
Update 11:25 a.m. PDT: Here's e-mail I received from Sam Feder, a former FCC general counsel who's now a partner at the Jenner and Block law firm in Washington: "There are no great paths forward. The court decision is not broad enough to have a good shot at overturning it in the Supreme Court, and for the same reason, it is unlikely to prod Congress into enacting legislation. Reclassifying broadband (as a common carrier) -- a path advocated by some public interest groups -- might provide a more sound legal basis for moving forward, but the politics of that move are awful. The ISPs would fight tooth and nail to avoid reclassification, and the public interest groups are unlikely to be happy unless reclassification is accompanied by significant regulation. In the end, that move makes nobody happy."
Update 1:10 p.m. PDT: Added more analysis, reaction from NCTA.
Update 3:05 p.m. PDT: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the court's ruling. He replied: "We have not had an opportunity to fully evaluate the FCC's decision -- the decision affecting the FCC, which, as you know, is an independent agency." When asked whether the administration continues to support the notion of Net neutrality, he replied: "It does, and the president discussed that, obviously, in the campaign. We're committed to that and committed to providing businesses with the certainty that they need as well."
Update 3:30 p.m. PDT: Added more background.
CNET's Marguerite Reardon contributed to this report
Maybe McCullaugh needs to adopt some neutrality in his reporting.
>(Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg, for instance, has said that new regulations would stifle innovative technologies like telemedicine.)
That was the insertion of the political beliefs of the author. He included the position of the Verizon CEO while entirely omitting any disputation of it. An objective reporter would not have included the line at all, given that it has no purpose aside from communicating the sympathies of the reporter.
How about this quote?
"Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules-"
Where is the documentation that Net Neutrality will fix anything, let alone allow more innovation?
Maybe you just aren't tolerant of opposing views. How liberal.
Look, I can understand the frustration of having to pay a big bill for the bandwidth being used, but don't we do that with electricity? You can use as much as you want as long as you have the infrastructure and the money to pay for it.
I'm not comfortable with government forcing a company to give away its products or services. Comcast serves us by providing a service, we serve them back by paying for it.
Wouldn't you rather competitive pressures force Comcast to change its stance? Leaving neutrality out of the pictures allows someone else to come along and offer net neutral services for free or at a discounted rate.
I much prefer the free market to dictate this, because the alternative is under force of the law, which (if you follow it through) by definition means it is done at the end of a gun.
If the government can do it to Comcast, it means they can do it to me. I much rather have to deal with an arrogant company like Comcast than the government.
"Net neutrality proponents responded on Tuesday by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates."
So it is OK to insert the statement that apparently agrees with you but not insert an opposing view? That seems a bit intolerant to me. As a conservative I am comfortable with others expressing views that I do not agree with. Would you be so kind as to extend the same courtesy to me?
Net neutrality proponents responded on Tuesday by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency "should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation," Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn said. The Media Access Project said, without mentioning common carrier regulations directly, that the FCC must have the "ability to protect the rights of Internet users to access lawful content and services of their choice."
Fair comment applies to both pro and con sides on the question.
When moderates or even liberals do, it is biased favoritism.
The truth is some ideas are more valid then others. No one would really
expect the concept of a flat earth to be given as much credibility as the
current model but that is just what so much news amounts to. When both
sides are given equal time it is assumed by listeners both ideas have equal
merit and this is exactly what is wrong with the current situation.
Before news became a money making enterprise the job of the reporter
was to cut through the smoke and get to the truth of the matter. That is
precisely why journalists like Edward R. Murrow were so revered, they
cut through the crap and gave people the real deal.
Unfortunately today, in the name of fairness, we let those people with
vested interests confuse the issue to the point that no one really knows
what is going on. Take nut jobs from the far ends of the spectrum and
let them have at it. This is what passes for popular journalism . No
wonder it is practiced mostly my dimwits who couldn't find their way
out of a dark closet.
The truth is that IT IS THE JOB of the reporter to give their opinion because
they hopefully have studied the issue more then most of us and can get to
the heart of the matter without all the hype. As long as I know where they
are coming from I can make up my own mind. Just don't censor the issue in
the name of equality and replace it with a circus side show that then claims
to be fair and balanced.
I don't like agencies just making up the own rules but this seems like it might be the lesser of two evils.
The tyranny that makes us fell morally superior is the tyranny we embrace. You think comcast is evil. Therefore, you are willing to allow tyrannical government in this instance.
Let's have Obama try and pass net neutrality legislation in place of something far worse like cap and trade.
I just can't wait for November. If the House doesn't flip, I'm moving to CANADA!
Cable companies either need to drop the protections or add the restrictions; they can't have a protected monopoly and simultaneously pretend their government giveaway is the same as a regular business that's subject to competition.
What you are asking is not possible. Telephone carriers can do this as their main switch can re-route information down the same lines, rf signal doesn't work that way, therefore two cable companies can not share the same cable lines without causing problems. And they are not forbidden, I know of several towns that have dual cable systems (Waco Texas is one of them). Problem with America's broadband is that private companies have to foot the bill to build their infrastructure where as in other countries that have higher bandwidth at lower prices the government footed part or all of the bill. So those costs are passed along to the subscriber.
And the whole Net Neutrality issue is a slippery slope on both sides of the argument. On the ISP side you have people and applications that suck up huge amounts of bandwidth and ruin it for the rest of the subscribers. They should have the ability to manage their network so everyone gets an even slice of the pie, and that includes throttling certain types of traffic that eat up bandwidth. Why should I go slow because some idiot down the street is running limewire and eating up huge chunks of bandwidth?
On the other side, companies like Comcast have not been honest in what they are doing. And yes, it can be abused. I feel there should be some leeway given to the ISP's to manage their network without letting them throttle whatever they want in the guise of network management.
I favor net neutrality, but I believe the FCC has repeatedly abused its power. I think this is a good ruling, but now I want Congress to pass neutrality regulation.
Our country is being run by hippy radicals. Funny: http://www.funnyconservatives.com/?p=397
Not even close. This is not about blocking freedom of speech, and Bush was far more radical than Obama.
contrived) in order to achieve deregulation ... contrary to the best interest of
millions of Americans ... with a loss of service, quality and higher costs to those
less able to afford this essential service."
- JUDGE CHARLES R. RICHEY, 1982
That is simply ridiculous. Spend about 5 minutes to actually think through what you've just said. Keeping the internet more free so big companies don't decide who can access what content is 'blocking freedom of speech'? Also, if anyone should be watching how companies impede your free-speech, who is going to do it but the government? You realize, that IS actually the role of government, not the many other things they do today.
Seriously, just spend a few minutes thinking about it.
Plan A - Companies who provide the 'pipe' to the Internet get to decide what you do and how much you can do on the Internet for what you pay. They can also use their control to decide which services to allow you to access.... for example: Comcast could set up a music store and then make the pipe good to their store and bad to Apple's iTunes. Or, maybe your provider's CEO is convinced by reading Dawkins' 'God Delusion' and decides it would be best if they blocked access to Christian web sites.
Does this sound fair? Does it sound like freedom? Is this how you want your Internet?
Plan B (Net Neutrality) - Internet providers have to simply provide a 'pipe' to the Internet.... you pay X, you get X amount of bandwidth which you can do with as you choose. The 'pipe' provider can't decide to limit or give priority to certain traffic. Ex: you want to use a certain VoIP provider, your ISP can't limit or block access to that service in order to twist your arm into buying their Internet phone service.... or, The ISP can't decide to block your access to a web site which which they don't agree or belongs to a competitor.
Doesn't this sound much more like it SHOULD be? Does the electric company just provide you with electricity, or does it tell you how to use that electricity? Maybe this is why everyone from the most liberal groups to the most conservative (like the Christian Coalition) support Net Neutrality.
Frankly, the only people opposing Net Neutrality are the big telcos and those they have paid or brainwashed into being their lobby support. I'm a pretty conservative person, a Christian, and hold American freedoms dearly.... and I strongly support Net Neutrality. Don't let idiots tell you it is simply some kind of leftist scheme or to oppose it if Obama admin supports it. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
@ Thad Boyd -
Yea, I'm also a bit conflicted as to where this needs to be decided... but all I know is that the Internet is going to be a horrible place if the telcos get legal support to making the Internet their own. They have already been toying with it, and I think the only thing holding them back has been a combination of pubic outcry along with the uncertainty of Net Neutrality legislation. If the law comes down firmly on their side, I think they will be much less hesitant to proceed.
I want ISP's to actually let me use the full internet. The same one the government gives them the right sell folks like me access to. Not that hobbled down version I'm getting now.
So, I guess where are you willing to take your chances?
I can't say I trust the government that much either, but ISPs like Comcast have already proven that they WILL interfere with your Internet use, and have already and are willing to throw lots of the money that you pay them into technologies to further control what you do with the Internet. They have a vested interest in promoting their services and the services of the partner companies.
On the other hand, with Net Neutrality, we have a law which says that these companies have to just provide a 'pipe' to the Internet without being able do the above type of things. That isn't exactly giving the government control over your Internet. I suppose they could ultimately do that, but having Net Neutrality laws in place doesn't seem like it would have impact on that either way.
If you're opposing Net Neutrality... you're not saying to the government, 'keep your hands off', but are saying to the government, 'don't try to keep the greedy telcos from doing evil.' Certainly you must realized that what the government is actually supposed to be doing is enforcing justice. Why would you tell the government not to prevent evil? Respectfully, I think you're more than a bit confused.
One thing you seem to forget is that companies usually trample on people when there aren't regulations. Like it or not, regulations are a necessity.
http://johngalt.podomatic.com/
If you like your unlimited internet to be unlimited, unthrottled and uncapped (except by the bandwidth you are paying for). It actually takes a government rule to say "Yes, that's how it should be".
Comcast and others left on their own seem to want to sell you an ulimited promis, then cap what they deliver, throttle content they don't like, block ports that limit your access to the entire internet, block your outgoing emails that fail a 'filter" (as opposed to you actually spamming or having a trojan generating emails) cooperate ith the RIAA, impose a Terms of Use limiting your use of the internet to their own versino of what htey think you should do (instead of say "have at it, if you break the law it's on your head" and so on.
I would much rather comcast and other ISP's not need regulating. That they clearly do...I hope Congress passes an INTELLIGENT law to empower the rules the FCC was trying to lay down instead of the normal ISP /RIAA lobbied law that you can expect anymore.
Comcast wants to throttle peer-to-peer traffic, and other traffic, because they know they have a captive market who cannot get similar service from any other business. They know, and rely upon, the fact that it is illegal for anyone else to run lines and offer better service for a cheaper price. They are attempting to protect the revenue stream from the other arms of their business. They are using the monopoly power they are given by the government to make it impossible for consumers to enjoy online video content, because they would prefer those consumers be paying them for their On Demand service instead. With a name like "John Galt Podcast" I would expect you to be more cognizant of the extreme corruption of capitalism at play in the case of companies like Comcast.
Freedom means if one company or service does something you don't like, then you choose a competitor who more closely resembles what you seek. If none of them meet your likes, then take the initiative to create your own company, complain, etc... but don't get big brother to force others at the point of gun to meet your needs. GOV'T is not your mommy and they don't promote freedom.
Truth is.... I don't like Comcast's methods but so be it. Find a competitor. If you think they run a monopoly in your area (which thanks to satellite is no longer true), then more often than not, you will find that regulations from your beloved gov't help them keep the monopoly. Promote competition... not gov't control.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington
net neutrality isn't about government controlling the internet. net neutrality is government mandating that no one can control the internet.
I agree with small government and such. Government exists to do for the people only that which they cannot do for themselves. In this instance net neutrality is like regulating air pollution. Air should be free for anyone to breathe.
As the market in which ISPs effectively control is not free, someone needs to prevent them from abusing their positions. For many, switching providers is not an option as the number of providers in a given area is limited by government regulation.
"Net Neutrality" is a poor term for the concept of allowing freedom on the Internet. Internet Non-Discrimination or Internet Non-Interference are probably better terms although they do not roll off the tongue as easily. Whatever you want to call it, the customer should get what he (or she) pays for. If you pay for 12 Mbps (or other bandwidth), you should be able to use that bandwidth for anything that you desire, with the exception of illegal activities (child pornography, soliciting illegal drugs, and the like). The ISP should not discriminate against the customer's wishes and/or favor their own services over others.
The answer to this issue is NOT for the government to control what is, and is not allowed by a private company....
The answer is for the government to FREE THE REGULATION you talk about, locking out others from either, running lines to sport competition the free market would resolve, or to just step out altogether and let people demand it. The answer is not, and never was, more government involvement because of one simple fact: The governments goals are not to create an environment to allow the people to decide for themselves.... it is for the government to find ways to gain more power to control...
The very thing you worry about these PRIVATE ENTITIES doing, is the same thing you are then transferring to government control instead. Learn to actually think like our original fathers thought. Find ways to allow the people, and free markets, to make this decision, not find ways to get the government MORE power....
You make a good point regarding gov't regulation of fiber lines, but your conclusion seems odd to me. If gov't regulation has created a situation where Comcast essentially has a protected monopoly, then it seems that MORE gov't regulation is not the solution. Unfortunately, the gov't seems mostly interested in getting their foot in the door any way they can. This is what has happened with certain banks and car companies. Now that the gov't owns a share of those companies, they can determine how much the CEO's can make, how much they can charge for their products, and on and on. I digress.
I don't think the issue is really competition. Where I'm at, at least, I have several choices for ISPs. The problem is that most people are just looking for the cheapest bandwidth. So when Comcast shuts off your peer to peer service, you might get mad about it, but you won't go pay a premium price to get satellite internet from another provider. That's not an abuse of capitalism, that's just capitalism. But if you really think gov't regulations are preventing direct compeition with Comcast, then I suggest you vote for politicians who will get the gov't out of the way and not force even more regulations on the rest of us. If you allow the gov't to start telling ISPs what service they MUST provide, then it's only a matter of time before they start telling companies what service they CAN'T provide.
The only thing that keeps our free market free is government intervention. All business would tend towards monopoly given time and chance.
We do not have a purly capitalist system. We have a regulated capitalist system. It works best when the Government regulates no more than it should. It fails when government doesn't regulate enough, or regulates too much. It's not an easy balance.
Here is an irony for you. The CAPITALIST system failed at the internet. Back when the BBS was king and the internet was not yet what is iw now. AOL, Compuserve and Prodegy were the big boys slugging it out for domiance. Along came a tweak to the internet and all of the sudden ISP's sprang up all over selling access to a government service. This was good. Yet Capitalism failed to deliver a viable alternate to the very same internet we use now and which you are teling me the government should stay out of. Consolodation of those ISPs (see my first comment about biz tending towads monopoly if left alone) has narrowed my choices to variations of "how are they goign to actually get in the way of delivering what the hell I'm tying to buy. Access to the internet.
You have a nice mantra, but don't confuse it for our system.
One thing you forgot to cover. Government has the ablity and option to increase the number of competitors so that we can turn to someone else if we don't like Comcast. They can also say no to consolodation and keep the number of competitors healthy. Healthy meaning viable and yet enough to give us some choice. Or course if the government does do this the existing businesses will cry like babies and spend record amounts on a lobby designed to circumvent whats best for us all instead of suck it up and compete.
While most government solutions involve yet more rules and regs, it's not the only thing they can do.
Please someone wake me up when America finally decides to put people before profits.
You don't believe companies should put people before money?
Whenever I hear a rant like yours, what you are really saying is that someone else should give you what they worked for. Adults call this being a parasite and view it with the disgust it deserves.
So, you are in favor of removing monopoly protection from comcast (which, by the way is granted at the local level, not the federal level).
Or are you one of those people who thinks that government should step in to fix (net neutrality) the problem it created (artificial monopoly).
NeoLiberal Obama Socialism: just another fancy scheme to steal other people's money.
Under Bush it was letting the companies steal from the poor and give to the rich. That's not a good thing.
Obama isn't bringing socialism, he's trying to bring a balance that the rich constantly try to block.
But then again, I specifically chose an ISP for their more agreeable acceptable use policy.
And why is it that you assume the market for ISP services would not yield one or more providers will to sell 'Neutral Network' service to those consumers who wanted it?
Where are you that you have a choice between ISPs? In almost all of the country, there is no choice. There might be some simulated choice between a telephone company offering Internet and a TV company offering Internet, but there isn't, and can't be, any ISPs for whom Internet access is their product for most Americans. Most Americans live where it is illegal to run new lines, and only 1 or 2 companies are given monopoly power to do so. Any company whose primary product is not Internet access who happens to also sell Internet access is a bad choice. No one would go with them if there were an option - but thanks to the government, there is no option. Therefore, those companies that get government favor and rely on government favor for their income, need to be regulated to prevent them from exploiting their monopoly position.
Conservatives caused a huge market crash and try to blame it on Obama.
This decision is meaningless. Just watch.
the words you read, the songs you sing
the pictures that give pleasure to your eye
oh what a nice contented world
let the banners be unfurled
hold the red star proudly high in hand.
"We have assumed control..."
The US isn't turning Communist by any remote stretch.
"If they aren't forced to have an open internet then they should be forced to lease their lines for competition."
Are you a politician?
"I want away from the cable/DSL monopoly."
If there is a choice, it isn't a monopoly.
You're in college, right?
Wait ... huh?
Internet service providers and web browsers should provide people with the ability to choose what websites are accessible, but it should never be something that is forced upon the people. Even the most horrific content should remain untouched. Parents can controls what their kids see, businesses can control what their employees using computers can access and schools can control what their students can access. Thats fine. But once the government tries to control the internet, you can kiss freedom goodbye.
It should remain as cheap as possible as well. :)
Do you have another option of providers who will not set themselves up as the gatekeeper between you and the internet? If you do, you are lucky, because I don't.
Network neutrality is the government saying to your provider "you will NOT tell TwoOneFive what he can and cannot do with the internet.".
Opposition of network neutrality is support for regulation of the internet.
What was being done was a violation of the U.S. Constitution by a government agency that was acting without the authority of law. Do we really want to establish this as precedent?
- by lee7ns April 6, 2010 9:43 AM PDT
- Umm you know ISP's will raise their rates now and provide less service you dumb right wingers. Great win moron's
- Like this Reply to this comment 6 people like this comment
-
-
- by TowerTone April 6, 2010 9:56 AM PDT
- Umm, no I don't. They will charge what the market will bear.
- Like this 3 people like this comment
-
- by lt x April 6, 2010 10:01 AM PDT
- No need to worry about the ISP's. A free market will keep them in check. Raising rates will decrease viewership, which will decrease demand, which will decrease advertising sales, which will decrease profits. ISP's know not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. ISP's understand basic business principles. Liberals don't.
- Like this 5 people like this comment
-
- by lt x April 6, 2010 10:10 AM PDT
- A free market will keep the ISP's in-check. ISP's aren't going to raise rates to the point of losing viewership and profits. ISP's understand basic business principles. Liberals don't.
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by jsjag April 6, 2010 10:59 AM PDT
- Why would they do it? They haven't done to this date. I have found that things are a lot more robust than the days of bulletin boards and 2400 baud modems.
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by ddesy April 6, 2010 11:07 AM PDT
- Don't listen to the others, you hit the nail on the head. That is what has been happening by and large, and the right wingers continue to bury their heads in the sand.
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by DaSicilian April 6, 2010 11:08 AM PDT
- Let me see then...you'd like to see a monopoly formed of those internet providers...perhaps a single company like the old telephone company. One that was regulated to death and offered little or no competition. It seems to me that liberals at the time of divestiture were chomping at the bit to break up old Ma Bell....to interject competition into the marketplace...now you want to regulate the hell out of another industry. Hmmm...I guess the liberal back then had capitalist leanings....now...Ma Gubberment will take care of me forebber....hmmmm
- Like this
-
- by nkawtg April 6, 2010 11:49 AM PDT
- What makes you believe that? What was stopping them from raising their rates before now? The market, that's what. That think you hate so much.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (222 Comments)Have you volunteered for a pay cut at work lately?
I think a liberal (who many years ago I once was) thinks that the only way to keep markets balanced is to government balance them. Could it be that the reason liberals don't trust private markets is because they don't trust themselves. That they have a mind set that makes them want to take....take....take....take from the labors of others.
There was a time I hung out with the liberal set, even had Socialist and Communist friends. It ma be anecdotal but they were often the laziest groups of people I ever had the pleasure to meet. The Haight district in SF is probably still full of them and Berkeley, well enough said!
Although I think the Haight got cleaned up and cost money to live in so those Communists probably had to move. They were the people who at age 22 were already bilking the social security system, food stamps, etc. They were also the number one reason that I turned from the emotionally based liberal mindset.
Hey, here is another great idea by another loser liberal at the LA Times. Job Sharing. Give up half of your job so someone else can work the other half of your hours. Wouldn't that be great? So your boss would have to hire twice the employees just to get the work done. Of course you would lose all your benefits because you'll be only part time. You would make half your pay so you would lose your house. But hey, you?re taking one for the proletariat so smile and be happy.