Posted on 11/24/2010 5:58:44 AM PST by PJ-Comix
What you say is true, but only part of the story.
The REAL story is that they want to charge a toll for content that isn't their own. It's not about video bandwidth -- it's about censoring so that you are forced to watch what your carrier wants you to watch (unless you pay ever-increasing fees for the content you prefer).
That, my FRiend, is censorship.
Now, if you've got your choice of half a dozen carriers, great, choose one who gives you the closest match to the content you prefer.
But what if you only have one or two carriers to choose from (like us out here in the boonies)? And suppose they are a bunch of left-leaning types who don't like providing FreeRepublic to you? You're screwed.
Wouldn't it be better if we kept things the way they are now, which is that you get your choice of ALL content, regardless of carrier?
Don't let the "bandwidth" argument distract you. They lie. It's about the CONTENT, and making sure you watch THEIR content and THEIR ads.
Nothing more than your post has to be said on the matter. Nailed.
You are talking about the ISPs here. Right?
If what you say is true then Glen Beck and others bellyaching about the Obama administration's push to get the internet in the domain of the FCC and to foster and keep our current net neutrality....This push is benign. You might be right but I don't trust these snakes. They have some larger schemes cooked up for the FCC once it gets control of the internet. All liberal power grabs start small. Look at civil rights for blacks which started off as a push for equality. Today its a never ending quest to sideline white males. Everyone else has some kind of affirmative action racket going for their little minority group. Even women do and they outnumber males. Not to mention nearly all 3rd world immigrants here are instantly eligible for AA preferences over white natives here for generations, which was a lot more tolerable before the wheels flew off the American economy
Sort of. "Internet Service Providers" may include carriers. But not local ISPs, the local company who supplies your DSL or cable to your home. The problem is higher up in the chain.
Part of the problem is the combination of "carrier" with "content provider". It's the content providers who get the advertising, and want only their own content fed to the users.
> You might be right but I don't trust these snakes. They have some larger schemes cooked up for the FCC once it gets control of the internet.
Well, you are correct to be highly suspicious of these snakes, and I certainly share your suspicion.
When the long arm of the FCC starts doing more and more, they I too will raise my voice in protest.
But as far as I can tell, the current reach is just to keep the content providers from slicing up the internet into a bunch of separate fiefdoms which are like little islands, where you get to see only what the owner of your island wants you to see, unless you pay more to see what's on the other islands.
That's not how the internet works, and slicing it up to create these content "islands" will destroy its usefulness.
Why is this the only place I have heard this?
Could it be because the FCC doesn’t want Americans to know Before It’s Too Late (TM)?
you are wrong...very mistaken. 
..b/c the Government Marxists, already control
the Broadcast / Print Media...& the Schools.
the free / open internet, is about freedom...the flow of information...
"Progressive Elitists" hate that....but you know that.
They already get all the revenue to which they are entitled -- FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS. They wish to steal and extort (no lesser words will do) more money from the content providers.
Fixed it for you.
It is, in fact, the anti-neutrality faction that supports Big Government corruption.
The republicans had better do something about ALL the rogue agencies in the federal government. FCC, EPA, NEA, DOJ, EEOC - and many, many more. They have unconstitutional powers as it stands now and need to be drastically restrained or eliminated.
Netflix stock is up 273% year to date. I have zero problem with Comcast getting a big bite out of that revenue stream since more and more of it comes from streaming movies. From bouncing gigabytes of mostly mindless data around the WWW. If you like streaming movies then Netflix should take it out of your hide when Comcast charges them. Why should I subsidize you? I have blazing fast (20mb) Comcast and I never stream movies and don't want to subsidize those that do
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.