All very good points. Your logic could be extended the other direction as well, however, and everything should be a utility. This is why I am very reluctant to cede power to a small group of people unless absolutely necessary.

Absolutely, it should be regulated. It should be regulated against third party intrusions and, in this case, some standard of transmission should be recognized. That's really about it.

Just because we do everything on the internet does not make it essential to live.

I wouldn't call it grey, however both my feet are definitely in it. My premise is based on the definition of essential as 'required to stay alive'.

Very well articulated. Thank you for the contribution.

You most certainly can say that about a lot of things, and you would be correct.

I disagree. If the internet goes out, you won't die. If the gas that's heating your home suddenly cuts out in the middle of winter, you very well might. Internet is not essential.

...OK. I gotta do it. Assuming a 'few milliseconds' is 3ms, stretching that up to 6 hours would be ~7.2 million times longer. Not 100.

Yup. You got it.

First of all, the FCC provides no licensing to ISPs currently. Again, you need NO license from the FCC unless you are broadcasting something wireless, and they must regulate who gets what spectrum of wireless communication, obviously. Wired internet has no regulations or licensing.

You can not operate without a license from the FCC. That's about as regulated a point of entry can get.

Because the point of entry IS highly regulated. The telecommunication industry that delivers the internet is what is regulated. This is bad enough news, but the internet has still flourished regardless because government policy has yet to get its hands on the content (with a few exceptions — primarily copyright…

There are many things they should get their hands out of, so I will just generalize — the FCC should regulate communication standards so we're all on the same page and protect against 3rd party interferences (e.g. keeping your equipment from knowingly/unknowingly interfering with the transmissions from my equipment,…

The FCC regulates the telecoms. The telecoms own the ISPs. You're correct, the FCC/government hasn't figured out how to directly regulate the internet, but that is exactly why they're chomping at the bit to do so AND the reason the internet has flourished.

I really wish I could buy you a beer and parse through everything you just typed because it is so far away from how things work that I can't properly address everything here. And I mean that with zero dis-respect.

Ah. I concede on the strawman argument in my phrasing, but that was not my intent. I mentioned cable TV because most internet provides also provide cable access and it is already deemed a utility.

Jeebus Rice ....

Deregulation would be the FCC stopping its pandering to big business. This would allow more entries into the market and more choice for the consumer, preventing a situation where ISP could flourish under unfair practices. Implementing policy to control the market so it does your bidding is ...regulation.

The capital required to lay the lines is high. However, I would bet the cost for all the permits/licenses/red tape/legal fees/etc.. is no cheaper, if not higher. ...at the very least, high enough to make it extremely difficult for any start-up or small operation. That's aside from all the back door tactics like…

I don't think you're grasping what I am asking for. Yes, telecoms have the ability to do whatever they want because they have no competition to stop them. Where I live, I have one option for internet. ONE! If they want to fuck me, I have to grab my ankles. Am I pissed because there isn't a law that prevents them from…