Net Neutrality: LA Times Wants To Regulate Internet Like Any Other Utility

It’s been two years since the FCC killed of the latest version of Net Neutrality, which was never about neutrality, but giving the federal government massive new powers over the Internet, Internet companies, and what you see on the Internet. We were all supposed to die from the ending of NN, but, we’re still here, right? Doom didn’t happen. Stateists won’t give up, though, on their big government ideas

Column: It’s time to regulate internet service like any other utility

Speculation has been growing in recent days that struggling satellite-TV provider Dish Network could merge with AT&T’s DirecTV satellite service.

Dish’s chairman, Charlie Ergen, fanned the flames last week when he told financial analysts a deal with rival DirecTV is “probably inevitable” as both services navigate an increasingly challenging competitive landscape.

I don’t know about inevitable, but I suspect the smart money is on Dish, which also owns Sling TV, climbing into bed with someone (if not DirecTV, maybe Amazon?).

My typical reaction to any news of possible market consolidation is that consumers could be about to get hosed. Less competition almost always means diminished service and higher prices.

Not necessarily.

Moreover, perhaps a bigger worry isn’t that cord-cutting is taking a toll on traditional pay-TV providers. It’s that telecom companies, seeing how the wind is blowing, are responding to the rise in streaming services by jacking up prices for broadband internet access.

If their costs go up because more bandwith is used, well, yeah. Are they supposed to take losses? The cost of the LA Times has gone up, right? Anyhow, David Lazarus yammers about that, then the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger, more on Dish, till finally

Which brings us to broadband.

Telecom companies will do everything possible to protect shareholder value. For the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter/Spectrum and others, that means offsetting losses in TV subscribers by increasing revenue from fast-growing internet-only customers.

Spectrum, the dominant cable company in Southern California, announced last fall that the cost of its standard internet service was rising by $4 a month to $69.99. If you use the company’s gear for Wi-Fi, your monthly cost rose by $5 to $75.99.

OK. Prices rise. Costs go up.

When it comes to internet access, though, we’re not talking about a luxury, such as subscribing to HBO. We’re talking about a necessity. (snip)

Service providers should have to justify rate increases just like other utilities. If higher prices are warranted by legitimate operating costs, so be it. (snip)

It also means consumers need to be protected from price gouging for something they can’t live without. Give state public utilities commissions the power to oversee internet pricing.

You know what’s pretty much a monopoly? Water, garbage, sewer, and energy. Do you have a choice in who you pick? Nope. Government controls that. Yes, price rises in Internet service are annoying. Would you want government regulating it? Because what comes next when they get their claws into pricing? Mission creep always happens.

And you know what’s happened since NN was done away with? Nothing.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

Comments are closed.

Pirate's Cove