F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

Smart people are less predictable than those they have been marketing to previously. The biggest downside to this decision comes from the following line:

"But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pricing decisions."

To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs (which is not surprising), yet it seems they're claiming to do this for the benefit of the country. I'm not sure I believe that what benefits the massive ISP/entertainment conglomerates is by proxy beneficial to the rest of us. The state of the video broadcasting industry, for example, would be one piece of evidence to my skepticism of this theory. Over-the-top linear broadcasting via the internet has been possible, at least technically, for a long time now. And we have the bandwidth in this country to pull it off. The roadblock are the major cable companies who are making far too much money in their complete dominative ownership of the infrastructure to deliver video (currently), as they do not want to lose that business. So even if television stations wanted to move to deliver completely over the internet (and apps), they would not be able to due to contractual obligations. Plus, the cable companies have so much money they can literally buy out anyone who tries to compete with them. It's not enough of a monopoly to be illegal, because these companies don't own each other (yet), but there's definitely a lot of collusion and back-room deals happening.

So, while it's not surprising to me to find this little difference in the laws between electricity/gas/water delivery and internet service delivery, it does make me feel a bit sad inside. Because I know, deep down, this law is made for the Comcast/Cox/Charter's of the world, not the people who use the service. Again, we are reminded that the loudest voices in politics are that way because they are the richest.

That said, the idea is correct...the Internet should be a utility, something you definitely need to have but also need to pay for. It's the next logical step to allow the government to provide more services over the Web, which is cost-effective for them, a better experience for us, and ultimately makes the government a much cheaper beast to run. Almost everyone wants the government to cost less, especially with the debt we accrue every year as a country...

However, net neutrality is the bare minimum. We should also advocate for more competition, just not at the expense of neutrality. Imagine we would let a grocery store lax the quality control on their products. They could sell more for cheaper, but the number of people who would get sick (or die) would increase. In a similar way, allowing ISPs to fiddle with throttling would have far negative effects for everybody. (it's not a direct analogy so please don't try to break it, that's not the point).

The $15 price range you mention is very doable, with much faster speeds than we currently have AND without having to compromise on neutrality. Our worldwide ranking is pretty depressing -- compared to what we could/should have. All these foreign ISPs are able to offer cheaper and faster connections without messing with neutrality. If ISPs must segment their offerings in any way then let them do it by speed (which they already do) or by how much data you can download/upload per month, but not by compromising net neutrality.

Honestly though, large utilities are a good case of a "natural monopoly".