Posted on 12/21/2010 10:43:13 AM PST by DBeers
Then you better start paying closer attention here...It is whatever they say it is, once they pass this law.
actually, it means that the cable companies can’t pick and choose what web sites to favor. they have to keep the web largely as it is now, rather than letting Comcast control content.
It all boils down to who gets to decide, the government or the private sector. Go back and read some history of early radio and the attempts by the Marxists to control it.
Had it been left up to them, we would today be listening to nothing but NPR.
Like they give two shits what the Constitution says. We murder millions of infants every year, give gays the green light in the military, cp is rampant, and we have an usurper in the WH. I think we have bigger priorities.
thank you. people don’t seem to understand the FCC is the good guy in this one. It is Comcast who is making this nessecary.
If you were a Vonage and a FIOS customer, would you want Verizon blocking your VoIP traffic because you weren’t using Verizon’s VoIP? If you were a Comcast and Netflix customer, would you want Comcast blocking or restricting your access to Netflix because Comcast thinks they should control your Internet service and that you should be going to them for streaming movies? That’s where we were heading and a lot of people can’t change providers. Comcast knows many people can’t move. Why do you think Comcast has gotten away with such crappy service without worrying about losing customers? Internet providers are providing other services than just network access and they don’t want you going to their competitors. Do you want to be able to access more than just Cox’s services if your only access to the Internet is via Cox? This is a preemptive move. I’m not sure the FCC should have the authority to do this but it’s something that needs to be done.
As a satellite broadband user I'm a little sensitive to what is available and at what cost.
There are folks here who immediately jump up and down just because this administration or one of its entities acts on an issue.
I have a five year old granddaughter who acts exactly like that (replacing, of course, the government with mommy).
Comcast is simply an excuse
for the feds to step in and determine who gets to see/publish what on the internet.
The Constitution tells me that I do not have to abide this illegal ruling. It is illegal and the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Odumbo is striving to say that the people he has appointed to non elected offices have greater authority than the courts There is a sysytem of checks and balances Legislative Executive and the Court. I will no0taccept the lso called it has nothing do with it is claims It is a control issue.
You are missing the point
The fight over net neutrality means a fight between NetFlix and Comcast (in essence)
NetFlix want to turn into a cable TV provider of sorts. Starting with streaming movies but soon it will stream TV episodes and more
Comcast already does exactly this by making movies and various TV channels available and then even video on demand. Net neutrality means Comcast cannot charge NetFlix (who will then charge you) for all that streaming of content (which is very high bandwidth) into your house that Comcast is already willing to provide. This means people have an incentive to just get Comcast internet and not Comcast TV too
Net neutrality means Comcast has to host a parasite (and competitor) within its operation that has never paid for laying cables, for infrastructure or for service technicians who visit you when your internet goes out. Comcast wants to be able to at least charge this parasite who will then have to jack up your prices making them less competitive.
Net neutrality means people have an incentive to get rid of Comcast altogether and get internet via AT&T (we have Comcast and ATT here) and have zero cable TV. But then selectively stream in movies and CNBC (in the future) via NetFlix or a NetFlix competitor such as Amazon
Comcast could care less about low bandwidth sites like Free Republic or Politico. What they care about is high bandwidth rivals such as NetFlix and others who will stream content into your house.
Say you only really watch 5 TV stations out of your cable lineup. In the future you may be able to get those five via NetFlix and pay only $15/month instead of paying 65$/month for Comcast cable TV
Either you believe in the free market and the rule of law or you do not. A government agency that arbitrarily 'interprets' at the behest of its boss or at the beset of a mob or special interest group is tyranny and and a system ripe for corruption -NOT the rule of law, NOT American...
After all, if Comcast can put you in the slow lane if you don't pay expensive extra fees for your website, they can also put you in the slow lane - or the parking lot - for running a website or hosting websites that are, say, not gay positive, are pro-life, are pro-gun, or anything else that left-wing pressure groups can lean on Comcast to reject as "socially unacceptable."
A classic case of the camel’s nose getting in the tent.
Gatekeeper control?
Gatekeepers? Bringing warders aboard the Internet to be gatekeepers? NO! No Warder boarding the Internet!
The whole dang ball of wax is a constitutional crisis. They’re trying to make it so all the other boxes don’t work. Or haven’t worked.
If the new Congress loses their spine/guts etc when they get to DC - I can’t imagine the hell that’s going to ensue.
I’ve got a lot of young firs on my property, already felled.
It's not. You have net neutrality right, but much of the opposition comes from attacking the fairness doctrine strawman or improperly applying slippery slope. But even as a net neutrality supporter, it would be interesting to see exactly how the FCC claimed this authority. Bureaucratic overreaching is still just as bad even when it is for a good cause.
What you think “Net Neutrality” is and what government thinks “Net Neutrality” is are two completely different things.
There is a market solution that involves retaining net neutrality. It's called charging by usage rather than by bandwidth, or charging extra for usage beyond a set amount. Most people already get charged this way on their wireless data plans. Nothing in net neutrality even addresses this. Instead, ISPs would rather interfere with commerce, hinder competition, and destroy the normal functioning of the Internet.
That's aside from the fact that the only reason it overwhelms the network is because Verizon over-sold its capacity to consumers. They sold X megabits per second to Y consumers at the same time, but they only have the capability to provide X/10 Mbps to those consumers at the same time. Forgive me for not having much sympathy.
How about I open an all-you-can-eat buffet and sell weekly full-access tickets to people. I do this hoping they won't actually come every day for all three meals, but they do. Now I decide I don't want to honor our contract because I'm not making much money, so dishonestly I start refusing service or have almost no food available at times. An honest company would have renegotiated the contract, you can only come once per day unless you pay extra.
There's a good case for the FCC having overstepped its bounds, but this is clearly within the bounds of the federal government. The Internet is absolutely interstate commerce. It is also commerce with other nations and with the Indian tribes. It is subject to the commerce clause with original, pre-New Deal intent.
I posted this a little while ago, I'll paraphrase. I pay TWC, headquartered in New York, for Internet access. I click to watch a movie, I invoke a business relationship with Netflix in California to deliver a movie from a server in some state over a nationwide network owned by L3 in Colorado to be delivered to me in my state by a TWC subsidiary. That's not interstate commerce?
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.