Posted on 02/27/2015 11:59:42 AM PST by Kaslin
How predictable… The Federal Communications Commission voted on strict party lines to adopt Obama’s 332 page “Net Neutrality” proposal. Given that everything the government touches ends up as a rousing success-story, I’m sure you’ll be able to keep your internet if you like your internet. According to Fox News:
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote. On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
Of course… Because if there is one thing the government is known for it is protecting truly free markets, right? At issue is a concern that service providers might unfairly target certain companies for preferential (or discriminatory) treatment. However, I can’t help but notice that this is largely a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Apparently the big government fanatics over at Obama’s FCC believe it is prudent governance to restrict freedom because someone might (someday) abuse it.
How terribly Orwellian. I think George Washington is credited with a quote about such overzealous governance:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
Democrats fear that a lack of competition within the industry is leading to monopolistic injustice; and evidently believe that slapping a 21st century technology with rules designed for rotary telephones, will somehow level the playing field. (I call it socialism for broadband… Let’s make sure everyone has equally atrocious internet service.)
On almost every level, the proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. While the Liberals at the FCC opine about too few service providers, it’s probably worth pointing out that affordable access to the internet has been growing exponentially for years. Over the course of the last 20 years, the internet has become more accessible, substantially faster, and profoundly more user friendly. In today’s America, quality access to the web is almost considered a given. Heck, even remote corners of rural America tend to have Wi-Fi hotspots at local coffee shops, public libraries, and public schools. And almost anyone in America can get their hands on a web-enabled smartphone.
Moreover, it should be worth noting that “competition” isn’t exactly suffering among service providers. While certain companies might have relative control over small geographical areas, innovation has been shifting the balance of power for the last few decades to more dynamic competitive methods of delivering the internet. (Remember when cable providers weren’t the ones who you called to get hooked up to the interwebs?)
America’s transition from dial-up, to DSL, to cable, and now to fiber, seems to demonstrate that competition and innovation are alive and well within the industry. As a result, the consumer is routinely introduced to new and improved methods for watching Netflix and checking their status updates. Accessibility to quality service has never been greater, and as a result the richness of the internet has fundamentally impacted the way Americans interact with the world.
Due to such stunning advancements in accessibility, the internet has become the largest democratizing machine for information since moveable type. The internet is an entertainment hub, a news source, the world’s largest library, a communication device, a soapbox, and a conduit for information. This great explosion in tech, industry, and democratized accessibility did not happen because of government “oversight”… It emerged due to government’s general inability to regulate, tax, and control the 20th century’s most influential contribution to human discourse.
And now Obama’s FCC will get their bureaucratic hands on it in an effort to fix an injustice that doesn’t even seem to exist. In an effort to ensure an “open” internet, the FCC will impose upon an already-unfettered marketplace regulations originally written for telephone companies in the 1930s. If you like your internet as it is, you’re probably in luck… Nothing will be changing anytime soon with the FCC breathing down the necks of would-be innovators. After all, there’s probably a reason that our home phone service has remained largely unchanged while the unregulated interwebs have become an exponentially growing marketplace of ideas and innovation.
Far from being “progressive”, Obama & Co seem dedicated to clinging to an early 20th Century model of centralized power, and restricted free-market advancement… All in the name of preventing an abuse that hasn’t even materialized in the real world.
In fact, the term “progressive” is almost as misleading as the term “Net Neutrality”.
Gimme gimme.
I want more food for the same price as someone else who consumes less food.
Gimme gimme.
Whaa whaa whaa.
Further: internet access is not a necessity for life.
less food s/b more food
Alright, that got messed up.
Should be:
I want more food for the same price as someone else who consumes less food.
I don’t care what kind of content anyone wants to provide, as long as all the data travels across the network without being throttled because it’s “this kind of data” or it’s “that kind of data”.
They all get to travel the network equally ... and no one kind of data gets a “fast lane” ... because the telecommunications company has said to another party (like Netflux for example) ... “Give us a few million dollars and we’ll speed your data to our customers faster than Amazon or Apple, because Apple or Amazon has not paid us a few million dollars MORE!”
The levels of service that a customer consumes is charged differently ... according to EXACTLY how much is consumed by the customer or the business.
I can pay for $10 service, or I can pay for $20 service, or I can pay for $30 service, or I can pay for $60 service or I can pay for $100 service ... ALL ACCORDING TO HOW MUCH I CONSUME.
It’s exactly the same kind of differentiated levels of service with businesses, too!
Everyone gets what they pay for and it’s according to what is consumed.
You said ... “I want more food for the same price as someone else who consumes less food.”
— — —
That’s not the way it’s sold, though. There are different levels of service and everyone can choose to pay for whatever level they want!
If I pay for steak and you pay for hamburger you ain’t gettin any of my steak.
> kind of data gets a “fast lane”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Even though I gave an overview to you.
Why don’t you go over to DU where commies are at home. Or better yet: build your own network so you can charge Apple, Amazon, Netflix however you please. You might have heard about these things called free market and competition. It is what built the internet you enjoy but complain so much about. Why not do without then?
> That’s not the way it’s sold, though. There are different levels of service and everyone can choose to pay for whatever level they want!
No sht Sherlock. It’s what you’ve been complaining about.
The way Net Neutrality works is that I pay for the level of service I want, which is priced according to how how much I consume. Netflix pays for the level of service it wants, priced according to how much they consume.
And that’s exactly how we want it to be.
What will NOT be allowed is the SCAMMING CHARGE which ... even though you have paid for what you use, and even though Netflix has paid for what they use ... a telecommunications company wants to bill a THIRD CHARGE in addition to what you already pay and in addition to what Netflix already pays ... charging you for a “fast lane”.
AND I’m more than happy that I won’t get scammed ... even AFTER PAYING for what I consume!
No, I have no problem for paying for the different levels of service.
I have a problem with being scammed out of my money AFTER I have ALREADY paid for what I use and consume ... namely that THIRD CHARGE for the “fast lane”.
You said ... “If I pay for steak and you pay for hamburger you ain’t gettin any of my steak.”
— — —
Right now I’m paying for Filet Mignon, and receiving a “veggie burger” ... LOL ...
AND THEN, I’m getting a “special surcharge” (in addition to my bill for Filet Mignon) ... just so I can get the Filet Mignon I originally paid for ... :-) ...
“Scamming charge” “fast lane”
You’re buying into rhetoric.
Good night/good morning what ever it is where you are.
> Right now I’m paying for Filet Mignon, and receiving a “veggie burger”
Really? Why not go find a better deal then? Or build it yourself.
Let's take Comcast here in South Florida as an example. It possesses (has been granted) a virtual monopoly on broadband connectivity delivered over cable to physical locations (homes and businesses). Such consumers can choose from a competitive array of wireless providers, but not so for wired bandwidth. And that's what pretty much every American household or business uses for their stationary internet service.
Thus, if Comcast decides to offer a streaming service (Xfinity) virtually identical to what Netflix offers, it would be unfair business practice for Comcast to restrict Netflix's bandwidth, because it would thereby be degrading Netflix's service, rendering it artificially inferior to Comcast's competing Xfinity service.
Thus, "free market" competition for such services would be crushed, which would accrue greatly to the advantage of the entity with the (essentially government-granted) monopoly power, and greatly to the disadvantage of the consumer, since their free market choices for such services would dwindle.
Allowing a large corporation to "stack the deck" against competition in this way is not what I would consider a situation which offers "free market" benefits to the consumer.
I haven't formed a final opinion or understanding of the overall Net Neutrality issue, but the debate should certainly include consideration of the fact that there are potential monopoly abuses to safeguard consumers against.
To me, this challenges the rather oversimplified notion that Net Neutrality is simply about crushing a free market. because some internet markets are certainly not free under current conditions.
I just don't see the benefit, or even the legality, of allowing large broadband providers to use their monopoly power to crush competitors. I'm not saying that Net Neutrality is the answer, but these situations must be evaluated with a view towards allowing the consumers as much choice as possible. That's one of the benefits free markets are supposed to offer...
That’s what happens with “throttling” and “fast lanes” and the “third charges” ... which have been explained above.
TO MAKE IT CLEARER ... and more specific and to the point ... it’s the following.
A customer pays for 150 Mbps down. It is desired (by the customer) to get a high definition movie, which requires at least 15 Mbps down. The customer actually has ... in excess of 135 Mbps over and above the required 15 Mbps ... so everything is “theoretically” fine ... with lots of room to spare!
Now on the “movie side” (for example, it would be Netflix), the business service had paid for adequate speed on their side to service all their customers and do so in high definition. Again ... everything is “theoretically” just fine ... as everyone (on both sides) has paid for the speed and capacity that they need and is required.
HOWEVER ... when the Filet Mignon is asked to be delivered, what arrives is a VEGGIE BURGER (instead of high definition, they get a grainy and jumpy picture).
NOW ... BOTH the customer and Netflix try to find out why only a VEGGIE BURGER is being delivered, when it should be Filet Mignon!!
The telecommunications company tells them ... “If you pay us a few million dollars MORE, we’ll give you a ‘fast lane’ so that you get the Filet Mignon you originally ordered and paid for!”
SO, the telecommunications company gets their few million dollars more, the “throttling” of the movie is removed, they set up the “fast lane” for the movie ... and now the Filet Mignon that was originally ordered and paid for ... “actually” gets delivered!
AND ... “THAT” is the practice that will be outlawed ... :-) ...
Net Neutrality means that when you order and pay for Filet Mignon, you will get that, and not a Veggie Burger. And there will be no additional SURCHARGE to actually get what you ordered and paid for.
You’re getting the basic idea. Net Neutrality has always been talked about and supported (by the proponents) of having all different kinds of data transacted the same way over the network ... that is, not throttling one kind of data or another kind of data. And then not forcing another company to PAY MORE (even though they have already paid for adequate service) for a SURCHARGE in order to get a “fast lane”
Throttling and fast lanes are the games that some of these telecommunications companies have played in order to EXTORT MORE MONEY ... above and beyond what has ALREADY BEEN PAID for adequate service levels!
The caption on my Mozilla Firefox homepage this morning reads:
“Victory! The FCC has voted for strong net neutrality protections! Thank you to everyone who clicked, shared and signed in support of net neutrality protections and an Internet where public good comes first.”
We are doomed. The fix is always in.
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.