lachisbackisback wrote:Buc2 wrote:And what might Elon Musk's vision of launching hundreds of Internet satellites mean to this whole discussion?
That's what I'm saying with the wireless thing. But I still think a compelling argument could be made that allowing a company to place infrastructure that operates in your country, whether it be a physical wire or a radio wave or anything else that just happens to not be seen by the human eye, should not exempt you from regulation.
And of course it already doesn't, with stuff like the FCC and the CRTC in Canada.
As I say, it sounds compelling to say that simply because you establish infrastructure, you should have complete control over what you do with it, but it has never been the case and probably won't ever be the case. That argument is a red herring. But it does seem more compelling when the government doesn't really have to do anything in terms of establishing the infrastructure, like with satellites.
There are many who believe that instead of a red herring it should be the norm, hence the legislation that is being debated. There is a large group of individuals who want less government intervention into the markets. This is a great example of that. The opposition is highlighted by MB's post where people feel extorted by large corporations because they lose entitlements. It's the basis of much of our debate on these forums. What should the government provide? How much should the government be in our lives?
In the case with net neutrality many of the cable companies have established natural monopolies in some areas with their infrastructure, they should be able to charge Netflix, sling tv, etc. to use their resources much like power Co-ops pay to use larger electric companies to use their lines. While the government allowed the large power companies access to easements, provided tax breaks for infrastructure, etc. it's still their equipment and have control over it. This is obviously not an apples to apples comparison as NYBF already pointed out with coffee shop. The cookie had to be introduced to make it similar, but the cable companies originally established their infrastructure to supply video entertainment over cable lines, long before internet. It's their original base of revenue and they have advanced to supply internet on the same infrastructure.
Overall I would be happier if I could continue to stream Netflix, Sling TV, etc., but I don't think it's the governments place to step in and prevent the cable companies from regulating how their product works. I also don't think that the government should be able to tell LLCs or other "government helped" companies how they can run their business, which is something else we will see regulation change in the near future and I'm sure will create new debates.
I do respect the opinion of those who don't like net neutrality, because on a selfish personal level...I get it...**** the big companies, right? I just have a differing opinion on government intervention. I'm willing to pay more to get what I want from internet and TV if I deem it necessary. I'm not really concerned if the cable companies are making too much money. If I am priced out of television, then they will lose me as a customer and will suffer because of it.
Also, I'm sure many more places will be installing fiber on a state, city/county level. I believe if a small town in SC is doing it, we will see it elsewhere.