Democrats Propose "Internet Affordability Protections"

[NightHawkeye]

From the "With this kind of help, be very afraid", files: Schumer: Consumers May Need Internet Affordability Protections

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), says that the internet is a necessity and the government may not be able to let providers charge whatever they want for the use of what is an essential service, like a utility or road.That came in his floor argument for a Congressional Review Act resolution that would nullify the FCC's reclassification of ISPs out from under the Title II, utlility-style regulatory regime that allows for rate regulation, either before or after the fact.​

I remember when the government decided it was necessary to control the price of cable TV. Within a year of that my cost doubled. Apparently, price control was always the plan with "Net neutrality". Censorship would be next.

 

[Hank77]

I remember when the government decided it was necessary to control the price of cable TV. Within a year of that my cost doubled. Apparently, price control was always the plan with "Net neutrality". Censorship would be next.

Why do you think your cable company doubled their charge to you?

 

[Nithavela]

Why do you think your cable company doubled their charge to you?

Easy government scapegoat...

Happened here when the Euro was introduced. One Euro is worth roughly 1.8 DM, but many buisnesses just replaced Mark with Euro. And people got mad at the EU.

 

[football5680]

Sounds like a good idea and it should definitely be treated as a utility with their prices being regulated.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Sounds like a good idea and it should definitely be treated as a utility with their prices being regulated.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Tanj]

Apparently, price control was always the plan with "Net neutrality". Censorship would be next.

Evidence please.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Evidence please.

Title 2 explicitly calls for price controls and censorship.

Although the Obama administration denied any intention of implementing price controls and censorship over the internet ... it was always just a matter of waiting for the right time. By classifying the internet as a common carrier subject to Title 2 the government gave itself carte blanche to implement price controls and censorship at any time it wanted ... without the unpleasantness of having, you know, a national discussion on the matter.

Now that the Trump administration has declared its intention of negate this so-called "net neutrality" action of Obama's FCC, it appears that Democrats are going to use the idea of price controls as a hail-mary to muster a little more support for their duplicitous mis-named net neutrality ... which was always about price controls anyway, despite all the earlier denials.

 

[Kentonio]

Title 2 explicitly calls for price controls and censorship.

Although the Obama administration denied any intention of implementing price controls and censorship over the internet ... it was always just a matter of waiting for the right time. By classifying the internet as a common carrier subject to Title 2 the government gave itself carte blanche to implement price controls and censorship at any time it wanted ... without the unpleasantness of having, you know, a national discussion on the matter.

Now that the Trump administration has declared its intention of negate this so-called "net neutrality" action of Obama's FCC, it appears that Democrats are going to use the idea of price controls as a hail-mary to muster a little more support for their duplicitous mis-named net neutrality ... which was always about price controls anyway, despite all the earlier denials.

Amazing how all the organizations that fight constantly for freedom of the internet are all vehemently in support of Net Neutrality, yet according to your good self it’s removal (which was lobbied for by the big corporations who stand to profit from the change) were the real ones standing up for freedom for the little guy. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense when you stand back and think about it?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Amazing how all the organizations that fight constantly for freedom of the internet are all vehemently in support of Net Neutrality, yet according to your good self it’s removal (which was lobbied for by the big corporations who stand to profit from the change) were the real ones standing up for freedom for the little guy. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense when you stand back and think about it?

Noting that those same organizations also universally expressed concerns about using the 1934 communications act Title 2 as the vehicle for "net neutrality".

 

[Kentonio]

Noting that those same organizations also universally expressed concerns about using the 1934 communications act Title 2 as the vehicle for "net neutrality".

Ok, so take the logic further. These organizations share your concern about Title 2, yet are still 100% supportive of Net Neutrality. This would seem to suggest that despite them not finding the implementation perfect, they still think the overall concept is vitally important.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Ok, so take the logic further. These organizations share your concern about Title 2, yet are still 100% supportive of Net Neutrality. This would seem to suggest that despite them not finding the implementation perfect, they still think the overall concept is vitally important.

Yep. I support net neutrality, too, but I understand the concept that the more bandwidth one uses the more that costs the service provider. There is no free lunch.

Internet content has always been categorized by priority. That's just a fact.

 

[HannahT]

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), says that the internet is a necessity and the government may not be able to let providers charge whatever they want for the use of what is an essential service, like a utility or road.That came in his floor argument for a Congressional Review Act resolution that would nullify the FCC's reclassification of ISPs out from under the Title II, utlility-style regulatory regime that allows for rate regulation, either before or after the fact.

The internet maybe an essential service, but many areas of the USA don't even have access to it yet.

I guess he never heard of the digital divide?! They need to work on making sure people have access to something before they dream up some regulation on a service they claim is 'essential'. Can't be all that essential if you live in areas - no matter your means - and you can't get the service at all.

He is putting the cart before the horse here.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The internet maybe an essential service, but many areas of the USA don't even have access to it yet.

I guess he never heard of the digital divide?! They need to work on making sure people have access to something before they dream up some regulation on a service they claim is 'essential'. Can't be all that essential if you live in areas - no matter your means - and you can't get the service at all.

He is putting the cart before the horse here.

It's much better than just a few years ago. I now have internet access via wireless at my country cabin. Streaming video included.

My sister and brother-in-law who live out in the country down in Texas went for years without internet which wasn't available in their area. Now, they have a big-screen Roku TV and have fully endorsed streaming video. Again, via cellular wireless.

All accomplished without government intervention.

 

[HannahT]

It's much better than just a few years ago. I now have internet access via wireless at my country cabin. Streaming video included.

My sister and brother-in-law who live out in the country down in Texas went for years without internet which wasn't available in their area. Now, they have a big-screen Roku TV and have fully endorsed streaming video. Again, via cellular wireless.

All accomplished without government intervention.

Yep, there are many electrical cooperatives that are stepping up to the plate to help as well.

Wireless can be very expensive - along with Satellite. Those maybe the only options that are doable for last mile circumstance, but it shouldn't be for middle mile, etc.

I have a friend that has a cabin, and you have to walk down the road to get a signal on your phone. She was attempting to use DSL for years, but speed is pretty much non-existent. She lives in a nice subdivision of a rural town. To many schools don't have access to the internet, and those that do? They have to be careful how they assign homework, because the kids in many cases don't have it to do research etc at home. Those that have time will go to the local library - if they have internet - to do their homework in the parking lot.

The government programs that are to help these areas are a joke! Connect America for example that helps bring broadband to unreached areas? Their mapping is inaccurate. If one person in your census block has broadband of any type? They see it as the entire census block. Connect America claims they are NOT underserved. So your area can't even apply. FDA has some grants - or assistance programs too. Yet, if you have an area that gets wireless reception? You again aren't underserved even if majority of the census block can't get a signal bar on their phone.

Yes, it is better than it was. Yet, not even close to acceptable. lol now they want to regulate it like a utility? When its readily available...lol we can talk about that. IMO!

 

[Aldebaran]

It's much better than just a few years ago. I now have internet access via wireless at my country cabin. Streaming video included.

I see AT&T is charging $60 a month for that here. They call it affordable: AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - Rural Internet Without a Satellite

 

[NightHawkeye]

I see AT&T is charging $60 a month for that here. They call it affordable: AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - Rural Internet Without a Satellite

Looks like pretty good pricing to me. How much do you pay?

Here's what I pay:
Cable internet: $55/mo with 250 Gbyte monthly data cap
Wireless mobile+unlimited hotspot: 4 lines for $160/mo, no data cap

I'm darned lucky to get wired internet for $55/mo. Most people pay more ... though they usually get at least a 1 TByte cap. From my perspective, wireless is cheaper. Though admittedly less convenient, wireless has the advantage of mobility which is nice to have sometimes.

 

[HannahT]

I see AT&T is charging $60 a month for that here. They call it affordable: AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - Rural Internet Without a Satellite

I saw that service as well. I keep looking for reviews, but there isn't any.

 

[Tanj]

Title 2 explicitly calls for price controls and censorship.

Although the Obama administration denied any intention of implementing price controls and censorship over the internet ... it was always just a matter of waiting for the right time. By classifying the internet as a common carrier subject to Title 2 the government gave itself carte blanche to implement price controls and censorship at any time it wanted ... without the unpleasantness of having, you know, a national discussion on the matter.

Now that the Trump administration has declared its intention of negate this so-called "net neutrality" action of Obama's FCC, it appears that Democrats are going to use the idea of price controls as a hail-mary to muster a little more support for their duplicitous mis-named net neutrality ... which was always about price controls anyway, despite all the earlier denials.

Just to clarify, could I get some evidence which isn't just you typing words onto the page? Like links to reputable sources explaining how title 2 explcitly calls for price controls and censorship, and also explains exactly how many years after Obama is out of power is the right time for Obama to do it

 

[NightHawkeye]

Just to clarify, could I get some evidence which isn't just you typing words onto the page? Like links to reputable sources explaining how title 2 explcitly calls for price controls and censorship, and also explains exactly how many years after Obama is out of power is the right time for Obama to do it

Look up the Communications act of 1934, then fast-forward to Title 2. It's in plain English. You can read as much of it as you want.

Reading it directly from the source is better than letting someone else paraphrase it for you.

Here's a link to the Communications Act of 1934 (FCC website): https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

 

[Tanj]

Look up the Communications act of 1934, then fast-forward to Title 2. It's in plain English. You can read as much of it as you want.

Reading it directly from the source is better than letting someone else paraphrase it for you.

Here's a link to the Communications Act of 1934 (FCC website): https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Thanks for the link, It was indeed quite easy to read. I have a couple of follow on questions:

If, as you claim

Title 2 explicitly calls for price controls and censorship.

Why hasn't it happened in the 84 years since the act was enabled? Is this the Obama time portal in action again?

Second question, title 2 says the exact opposite of what you claim. Have you actually read it?

For instance:

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.