SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (369257)6/17/2010 6:39:39 PM
From: Snowshoe  Respond to of 793955
 
Good questions. I wonder how much transparency there will be with the fund disbursements? The claims will be largely based on lost income, but the tax records are confidential...



To: Brumar89 who wrote (369257)6/17/2010 7:05:04 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793955
 
High-Speed Internet Rules Might Prove Costly

Giving the FCC the authority to impose net neutrality on broadband service could cost more than $62 billion if providers pull back, a study says

June 17, 2010, 12:01AM EST

By Olga Kharif

businessweek.com

(The first paragraph of this story was corrected to show that the study was released by New York Law School.)

Proposed regulation of high-speed Internet service providers by the U.S. government could cost the economy at least $62 billion annually over the next five years and eliminate 502,000 jobs, according to a study released by New York Law School.

The report estimates that broadband providers and related industries may cut their investments by 10 percent to 30 percent from 2010 to 2015 in response to additional regulation. At 30 percent, the economy might sustain an $80 billion hit, according to Charles Davidson, director of the law school's Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, which released the report on June 16.

"There will be follow-on effects in the whole ecosystem," said Bret Swanson, president of technology researcher Entropy Economics in Zionsville, Ind., who co-authored the study with Davidson. "A diminution of investment by the big infrastructure companies will reduce network capacity, new services, and investment by all the ecosystem companies," such as application providers and device manufacturers, he said in an interview.

On June 17, the Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on taking public comment on Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal to give the agency greater authority over broadband service providers such as Comcast (CMCSA), Verizon Communications (VZ), and AT&T (T). The agency wants the power to impose so-called net neutrality rules that would require providers of traditional broadband and wireless services to allow all applications and devices onto their networks. In April, a court ruled that the FCC currently lacks the authority to impose such regulations.

Some House Democrats oppose FCC move
FCC commissioners may vote to grant themselves authority to regulate the Internet as early as this summer. "It's not a lengthy process," says Darrell West, a director at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "They'll make a decision in the next few months. But it could be years before the issue could get resolved." Lawsuits or Congressional actions challenging the FCC's authority are likely, he says.

On May 24, 74 House Democrats sent a letter to the FCC expressing "serious concerns" about the proposed regulation. "We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come with it," the letter said.

The FCC aims to allow companies such as Google (GOOG) and Skype to offer their services freely on the nation's wired and wireless broadband networks. Today service providers can ban or degrade the quality of certain services. "Google believes that forcing people and companies to get permission from—and pay special fees to—the phone and cable companies to connect with one another online is fundamentally counter to the freedom and innovation that have defined the Internet," the search giant wrote in a 2006 blog advocating net neutrality.

The FCC may also be striving to lower the price of high-speed Internet access for consumers. In a May 28 report, Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett pointed out that about one-third of Americans can't afford broadband access, which the new regulation could change. Still, his report begins with the sentence: "The road to Hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions."

a wave of negative reports
The study's authors believe regulation would reduce service providers' willingness to invest by shrinking their revenue opportunities. For example, they say service providers wouldn't be able to offer a hospital a higher-quality network service needed for telemedicine applications. "A lot of telemedicine services are real-time in nature," says Davidson. "If network owners are not allowed to manage their networks to allow for reliable delivery of those services, then we'll see those services not developing as they should."

The study is one of several in recent months to warn that net neutrality regulation may lead to lower investment and job losses in telecom and other industries. In May, consultant Frost & Sullivan released a study that said additional regulation would increase business risks for service providers, forcing them to pass certain costs on to consumers. "Net neutrality could, ironically, have the effect of actually reducing broadband penetration," cautioned Frost analyst Mike Jude.

In April, the Brattle Group released a report that said net neutrality regulation "could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs." Broadband industry job losses could reach 14,217 in 2011, and 342,065 in 2020, according to that report, which was sponsored by Mobile Future, a coalition of companies that includes AT&T and T-Mobile. "The possibility that such losses would be offset by gains in other parts of the Internet economy is remote," according to the report.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (369257)6/17/2010 7:38:10 PM
From: MrLucky3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793955
 
The difference is I don't have confidance the Obama people will use that escrow fund for only the damages BP has caused.Obama will use this as another opportunity to spread wealth and will give first priority to those who support the regime. Think back to GM/Chrysler and all the dealerships which lost their license. They were mostly non-supporters of the messiah.

They already said people thrown out of work BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S POLITICAL MORATORIUM should be compensated. I can only imagine what else they'll do ..... will local governments with Democratic officials get a lot of it dumped in their bank account? .... will Democratic motel owners in FL get damages for their vacancies? Yes and yes. If democrat supporters of the regime, they will be made whole - either by the first BP fund or by the second BP fund or by the trail lawyer version of the BP fund.

GUIDING REGIME PRINCIPLE: Never fail to take advantage of a crisis!!

The regime is in command. The GOP knows it and has taken the weak-kneed stance of a "deer in the headlights".

I'm not impressed and question if we will be successful this Fall. Good grief GOP leadership! Lead or get the hell out of office and let someone in who is willing to stand up.