Posted on 01/14/2014 11:12:55 PM PST by KTM rider
Thanks for watching that YouTube video! That will be 50 cents, please.
Sound unrealistic? It's actually a distinct possibility, after a Federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down an FCC ruling meant to prevent an Internet service provider -- the company you pay for online access -- from prioritizing some website traffic over others.
And because that rule was wiped off the books, those ISPs are suddenly able to do just that. With service providers suddenly able to charge based on the type of content you watch or the sites you visit, it's easy to imagine a system like that of today's cable television market. Want HBO? It's an extra $5. Want our streaming video package, with YouTube, Hulu, TV.com, and more? That's $5 too.
Don't pay and you can't watch. Period.
The so called “net neutrality” rule, put in place by the FCC in 2010, was intended to ensure equal access to all types of content. Regulators and politicians feared a tiered access to premium content or that ISPs might unfairly fast-track access to their own content over competitors.
'Without these rules, consumers are at the mercy of their providers ... and business arrangements that could severely limit access to certain content.'
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Freedom and Liberty just took another major blow to the head today, Commiecast or any other ISP could just squish Freerepublic.com according to this ruling
I really don’t see this happening as long as there is competition in the market place.
If a ISP puts limitations on what you do with your internet service you simply go to another provider.
I have at least Windstream and Time Warner available to me. Both of them are constantly sending me literature asking me to switch to them or upgrade my service.
As time goes by I can only see the market becoming more competitive in the future (provided government does not get more involved). As technology advances the service should only get cheaper and better.
In my opinion that law was a solution looking for a problem.
Yabbut, the general consensus here and on the right in general, was that Net-Neutrality would crush free speech as well. Maybe people shouldn’t have jumped to kill it before looking into what N-N really did.
Yeah, that worked out real well when airlines starting charging extra for everything. People here said that youu could just go to another aurline and the market would work it out.
Now they all charge. I can list dozens of other examples.
I wish I had just a drop of your optimism and faith in the MSM, could you bottle some up and send some my way please !!![/sarc]
I think it is a big mistake for conservatives to oppose net neutrality. Opposition basically favors government sponsored monopolies over small business. I have a choice between AT&T and Comcast - that’s not competition.
I can live without watching YouTube. But what about the YouTube investors?
Total hot air out of that “article”. Youtube gets a heck of a living from advertisers and doesn’t need to charge for viewing any videos. Net neutrality is all about giving the FCC more power.
Maybe progressives support net neutrality because they see it is a way to get the government more involved in regulating speech. They could see it as a path to eventually banning hate speech, or banning the ability for Christians to proselytize. And that is a legitimate concern. Also, allowing the FCC to implement it unilaterally is problematic. That said, maintaing unhindered access to the internet by anyone is also of paramount importance. It could all end in a giant liberal/google run oligopoly otherwise.
Net neutrality was never about “unhindered access to the internet” anyhow. The more control you give to the FCC, the greater the liberal influence.
Charging a premium for video providers would hurt youtube(google), but they have deep pockets and would figure it out. But if you and I decided we were sick of YouTube, and wanted to start Freerepublicvideos.com, and found out Comcast wouldn’t let their customers view our content, or only allowed enough bandwidth that we could stream low res videos unless we pay them, it might put us out of business before we started.
god IS THIS PONT. GUY A CORPORATE PLANT OR JUST PLAIN STOOOOPID?
I am talking markets and the quest for the almighty dollar.
I won’t bother to mention the right to contract and control ones own property.
You don’t have to give control to the FCC. Just get congress to pass a law that makes sense. You can strip the FCC of all its powers at the same time, it is a useless agency.
The Courts said that any attempt at the government to impose “Net Neutrality” is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
The FCC did it anyway.
So now the courts have slapped them down.
Course, the FCC might just ignore the court like this administration is doing with so many things....
No liberal in DC would agree to that. And frankly, no new laws are needed; many need to be repealed.
Obviously you did not fly back in the 1970s before the airlines where deregulated under Reagan when it cost $450 dollars (1970s dollars) to fly coach from pretty much anywhere to anywhere else in the lower 48.
After deregulation the airlines are charging about a quarter or less of what they charged then and are constantly flirting with bankruptcy, pushing their unions for concessions and always trying to find cheaper ways to do everything.
What the airlines are doing is somewhat deceptive marketing and somewhat trying to cut cost. Yes they charge you for an extra bag but that also encourages you to travel light which saves the airline fuel.
I even think it would be fair for the airlines to charge passengers by the pound.
Given our disposition of the latter issue, we have no need to address Verizon’s additional contentions that the Order violates the First Amendment and constitutes an uncompensated taking.
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.