Me head's a'spinnin', partly because of possible fundamental differences in how we view the real operation of the real world, and logical mis-steps in your argument. A few responses appear below.
crux wrote:Look. If Verizon say, wishes to Deny you access to Google on your Droid, or Apple I-Phones will only let you access Yahoo if you get the Platinum Bundle at $49.99 per month, that just might be a very POOR business model.
Yes, poor in many ways which I'll hold off enumerating. I take it that your unwritten argument is that the market will somehow punish the operators of a "poor business model." This is an article of ultraconservative/libertarian faith but it seems to have little relation to how the world really works.
Kenneth Lay, AIG, and Bernie Madoff all operated "poor business models." Their customers/investors, too late, now wish that sensible basic regulation had applied to all so that reckless gambling with other people's money had been prevented. It would be hard to say that these characters were punished by "the market". More accurate would be to say that their customers, investors and the American public were punished, the perpetrators' punishment being uneven and disproportionally light. In these cases there were at least some laws, not enough, that applied. So far, in the case of internet chicanery, there is no force standing in the way of telecoms doing whatever they damn well please that is unscrupulous, anti-competitive, and usurious.
The glaring flaw in libertarian arguments is a refusal to recognize that some markets lack the elements of diversity and competition that are essential for them to operate fairly. Most telecoms operate in local markets in which they either hold a monopoly, or the number of competitors is 1 so that collusion (active or passive) allows rapacious treatment of the customer. A responsibility of government to the taxpayer is to recognize monopolistic and oligopolistic markets and to prescribe rules that protect the public because the market does not operate normally.
crux wrote:The Telecoms will not shut down free speech... You, nor They, "can stop the signal", I am guessing, without the collaboration of Ponderous Big Government, and the FCC. A free and informed people will clamor for the Signal...
Yes. And how do they do that? By crawling on their knees the the monopolist, crying "Please, Sir, more porridge?" Or by asking their elected officials and public commissions to act in the public interest through sensible regulation of harmful practices? The first way is a fool's errand, and the second at least has a chance even though the regulators these days are sometimes in the pay of the monopolists.
crux wrote:The Federal Government is constantly Regulating the consumer into higher prices, Picking Corporate Winners in the marketplace when "striking deals", and stifling innovation.
A free and innovative business community will create the solutions you look for much quicker than Big Daddy Obama. If it is an insurmountable hurdle of technology to create enough wireless bandwidth for say, doctors in the midle of an operation to use their wireless device to pull up patient history, the survice provider just might have to charge more if it gives the doctor more access...
This is ideological diatribe. Both private and public sectors contribute, each in its way, toward innovation, efficiency and progress. The commercial products and services and organizational behaviors that had their origin in both sectors are many and important and valuable.
crux wrote:It was the Federal Court which slapped Obama's FCC Regulatory hand, and told them to leave Broadband alone...
You are correct as to the facts, if hyperbolic as to what actually happened. The court found that the FCC law as written and applied, for fairly narrow technical reasons, did not extend to the precise action that was challenged. It is misleading to imply that the FCC has no authority over broadband communications.
crux wrote:Look at Cable... and satellite TV. Compare this to the 19-70s say. We have WAY more content. I look for Power Over Folks at the FCC, or in the Federal Government to use their Power, Rules and Regulations to Stifle Free Political Speech.
Correct as to cable producing much content. What is mystifying is conflating ideological bias against regulation with stifling free speech. You didn't quite do this explicitly, but righties are fond of attacking the "fairness doctrine", as if there were anybody on the planet favoring it any more. There aren't. It existed long ago, in an era when one or two TV stations held monopolies in local markets, acting themselves to stifle speech not to their liking. Because we did not then have the diversity of communications channels that now exist, the FCC briefly acted to create a more open approach that would allow and encourage free speech and a diversity of views. Because we have a multiplicity of communications channels and modes, it is no longer necessary. Even then, the Fairness Doctrine did not "stifle free speech," it promoted it by encouraging a platform for many views.
crux wrote:The Telecoms and Wireless Networks, and technology itself will continue to Innovate, Create and Grow. All the while SELLING the Stuff you love...Central State Planning didn't create Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.
True, but a red herring because nobody would argue to the contrary, certainly not I. All of the examples you cite are riding on technologies that had their origin in federal government research and development.
crux wrote:The Federal Government DID create TOO BIG TO FAIL however...
Wrong. By using their political power to cause the dismantling of sensible financial regulation that would have prevented the financial collapse, the big financial institutions themselves created this concept and reality.