Posted on 12/23/2010 9:22:04 AM PST by Silverfiddle
"Usage-based pricing is a clear positive for cable, telecom, and wireless providers, but it also might be a concern for Netflix," said MF Global analyst Paul Gallant. "Depending on where the tiers were set, usage-based pricing on wire line broadband could end up deterring some people from dropping cable for over-the-top video."
An FCC official said in a statement that it would be a "cop on the beat" for "arbitrary, anti-consumer, or anti-competitive tiered pricing plans."What a moron. What company could make money with "arbitrary" or anti-consumer pricing? Has this imbecilic statist never heard of Walmart, Amazon, or Priceline.com? They would go broke if they were stupid enough to do what this FCC bureaucrat suggests! This is one more reason why government has no business intervening in the free market. These petty dictators dont even understand basic economic fundamentals.
What I also see is a world in which absolutely EVERYTHING, every television show, movie, music video, what have you, is made available for mass consumption online. Because theres no distribution costs beyond converting to the digital file necessary for streaming, we could see, for example, complete episodes of Johnny Carsons Tonight Show made available.Unfortunately, many Americans are more interested in professional ball sports or the Kardashians than they are in their freedoms. Perhaps we could get their attention by giving them a glimpse of what their entertainment future could look like if the government would just get out of the way
With very little upfront investment, anything and everything ever committed to film or video could find itself monetized again. And of course all of it would be available in the best sound and picture quality available.
And for the consumer? Well, thats the best part. No more video collections clogging up the living room. For X-amount of dollars per month everything ever put on video will be one click away. For a monthly fee, sites like Netflix or Amazon will store your video collections for you.
I watched Robert McDonnell’s statement on this ruling today on CNN (from Tuesday’s meeting) which was quite direct and forceful. Republican congress-critters could learn from him.
whether every child has a right to surf YouTube all day
Net neutrality doesn't address any right to an amount of service. You still have to pay if you want to surf all day.
ISPs and content providers pay the backbone operators for the bandwidth they use. They then pass the cost on to us.
Sort of. When it comes to large networks connecting together, they do so under peering agreements. Sometimes the backbone operator is paid, sometimes not, depends on the circumstances and how much traffic is flowing which way. Comcast is actually wanting backbone operator L3 to pay them, and they do have some good arguments for that.
The important point is that the ISPs have been calling the likes of Google "freeloaders" for supposedly using their lines for free. But Google already pays for its bandwidth, and the consumers already pay the ISPs for theirs. That's the way the Internet works. Comcast would like for Google to also pay them because Comcast sees the customers as assets to be held up for ransom.
Depending on where the tiers were set, usage-based pricing on wire line broadband could end up deterring some people from dropping cable for over-the-top video
Clear pricing structures for level of access to consumers, whether it be bandwidth or usage, are not part of net neutrality.
Remove the regulations and let each ISP come up with their own pricing plan.
There are no regulations in place, nor are there any proposed by government, that would overall regulate ISP pricing to consumers. The only thing happening here is that, for example, Comcast can't charge you more for them to unblock Vonage VOIP so that they can push their own VOIP service. That is anti-competitive and violates the openness the Internet was built on.
Charging more for enough bandwidth to handle HD streaming video is not a net neutrality issue. Charging even more for a higher download limit to handle a lot of HD streaming video is not a net neutrality issue.
Now that isn't to say the FCC won't get a wild hair up their ass and go trying to do these things now that they've claimed unlimited power. But that's what the telcos get when they pay their congresscritters to block sensible, narrowly-defined net neutrality legislation in Congress.
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn at the 2010 Facing Race Conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMeuhGC2dgA
You are clueless if you think the Orwellian named “Net Neutrality” really is about net neutrality.
And there are indeed regulations in place, have been for years.
I guess you’re one of those who still doesn’t have enough government in your life. Have fun with that...
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.