Posted on 12/14/2017 10:54:49 AM PST by heterosupremacist
I think it remains to be seen what it means, tbh. I’m not quite celebrating yet. Companies like Comcast have lied and played fast and loose with the truth in the past, I’m not so sure them “freed” so to speak is a good thing. In theory, they could slow access to whatever web site they don’t like. Maybe web site like free republic becomes critical of Comcast, and a user of their service (becasue it is the only high speed service in your city) starts getting “issues” accessing it. In fact, no one really knows what it all will look like let us say, three years from now. Most is conjecture.
again... I would argue the market will correct for that.
if company A start slowing service to netflix or whatever..
word will spread and competitors will pop up claiming uncapped speed access to those sites, and people who want top speed access to those sites will switch providers, or pay more for unrestricted access using current provider.
But why should I for instance... have to subsidize people who want to stream sports events 24-7 on 4 screens? Make those people pay more, and I will gladly pay more for Netflix access, ect.
Why does the government care if the Net is controlled by Google and Facebook (net neutrality) or ATT, Comcast and Spectrum?
I say the same thing. “Certain content” is pretty sketchy.
,,,,rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.
If this is true then how was net neutrality bad I wonder though??
I don’t want anyone blocking CONTENT!
Good!
We’ll see.
"It's for the children!"
George Soros must be very sad...
The libs want the broadband system, a system built mostly by private companies with at risk money, to be free to everyone.
Is that like them? You work your ass off to make something no one else could make...and then the government declares that you have to give it away.
If the government built the broadband system to the home, they could do that. But the government (in most places) does not do that.
To add more unnecessary government regulations as in Soros’ net neutrality only cripples the Internet even further and decreases freedom.
This is what marxists did to U.S. healthcare. An operation costs $80,000 because of government regulations
You all should maybe listen to Reagan : government is not the solution to our problems government is the problem
LOL.
You don’t actually believe that this will be reality, do you?
“Hoo boy, I just downloaded a 2 hour movie to my 4K TV and it looks great and... what’s that? I hit my data cap for the month? My montlhy bill will octuple? Oh well, sure is fast though!”
And the ability to compete with entrenched companies, and the availability to massive financing, and access to infrastructure. Monopolies and duopolies will always be willing to take a short term loss to squeeze out weak players, just like Standard Oil did. And if the FCC is mandating something, then you can by definition say that government regulation is not going away. It's just going to favor a different set of players.
Excellent news!
Who do you want to pay more, movie producers or those who rent movies?
Which do you believe will pay more based on this change, and why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.