Border fence is referring to the fact that back in the 60's there was legislation that included said fence, which was never actually built. Govt said one thing, did another. Thats where that comes from.

I am reading through this updated FCC NN crap. Will see if its better than it was the last time I read it, which was 2009 or 2010 or something.

-----------

Core issue: In some areas, certain telecoms are able to engineer a monopoly for practical purposes. We all know what happens when an entity is able to get a monopoly on an important service. Subsidies play into this as well.

Solution to problem: Ensure that telecoms are not able to effectively shut out competition. This can be reasonably easily accomplished in an even handed and transparent manner, antitrust and other existing law can also come into play.

Addressing symptom: Grant telecoms their monopoly, ignore the fact that monopolistic service will suck in general, have FCC claim additional power to regulate how the monopoly behaves.

-------------

I would be more predisposed to go with FCC NN plans, if the FCC had proven to be a competent actor in the past.

But this just has not been the case. And even if the FCC is sensible today, does not mean it will be sensible tomorrow.

http://news.cnet.com/Covad-tries-an-end-run/2100-7352_3-5306231.html

http://news.cnet.com/FCC-loosens-broadband-rules/2100-1037_3-985313.html

http://news.cnet.com/Baby-Bells-win-another-FCC-victory/2100-1036_3-5298098.html

http://news.cnet.com/New-broadband-rules-draw-criticism/2100-1034_3-5066885.html

Hell, many (non rural) areas STILL have shit for internet a decade later.

Also, a good paper on subsidies I dug back up :

http://www.ericchiang.org/files/Chiang_Hauge_Jamison_JRE.pdf

-----------------

Hopefully the FCC aims are true, and the actual regulatory enforcement details are good and workable. Thats the thing, the devil is in the details - you can have the highest minded goals on the planet, and still utterly fail, and cause even more problems that you had before. I would say that at *least* 60% of our major societal problems are iatrogenic in nature, where various pols thought they could "play doctor".

The bottom line is that I would be a lot more comfortable with a system that relied on competition to foster service and prevent douchebaggery, than I ever will be by leaving that task to politicians.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)