Posted on 05/17/2014 10:02:55 PM PDT by Nachum
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
As spring unfolds here in the Northern Hemisphere, the future of the free and open Internet hangs in the balance. As such, I strongly believe everyone should have at least some understanding of what is at stake. When most people hear or read the words “net neutrality” their eyes glaze over with a feeling of confusion and despair: “I can’t remember, am I supposed to be for or against this?” This is exactly how the lawyers and lobbyists in D.C. want it, but unless the citizenry is informed we could lose the most important weapon of free speech in the history of mankind.
Recognizing the convoluted nature of the subject, I did my best to lay out what “net neutrality” is and what is at stake with the current FCC rule-making process in my recent post: Say Goodbye to “Net Neutrality” – New FCC Proposal Will Permit Discrimination of Web Content.
Well the FCC voted on its proposal yesterday and it passed with a 3-2 vote. More on that later, first I want to share an article I recently read on The Verge, which is extremely important to understand before you form an opinion on what should be done.
The first buzzword you need to familiarize yourself with is “Title II regulation.” Title II refers to a key section of the Communications Act, which has to do with the classification of telephone providers as “common carriers,” and subjects them to increased regulation and oversight. When the Communications Act was updated in 1996, it appears that broadband providers would not be deemed “common carriers,” which would allow them to be largely unregulated. Yet, Verizon decided it wanted to be regulated under Title II when building out its broadband network. Why would it do
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Despite the lengthy explanation, I still don’t get it. Maybe it’s too late in the evening.
D FCC Band needs to disband.
Start your own ISP then you can offer your own “neutral” internet. Until then, don’t force for-profit companies to be “neutral”. You don’t like it, nobody is forcing your to use it.
Basically companies want to limit how much bandwidth and speed they will give you for what you are paying, including the ability to slow down your ability to surf the net unless you’re willing to pay extra for the speed you are currently receiving.
I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.
no sale blitzkreig blog or whomever you are. not going to sign any petition by “occupy whatever.”
how verizon manipulates the gov’t regs they have been subject to: irrelevant. i say more power to them if they can survive under them. any company in the US has to deal with intolerable regs from the gov’t.
and what business is it of yours or the gov’t’s what verizon decides to charge for it’s network. as long as they’er not colluding with other carriers for price fixing, they are getting what people will pay.
get and keep the gov’t’s hands completely off the internet and it’s providers. period. individuals will leave any company that starts to abuse them.
Thanks. Apparently this is a separate issue from the controversy about the US relinquishing control of the Internet to an international body.
That should also piss people off.
This does looks like a sorta socialist protest.
Companies ALREADY do this.
Verizon's Fios service, for example, has many tiers, from 15Mbps all the way to 250Mbps and higher. Anyone paying for 15Mbps is already being "slowed down", even when surplus bandwidth is available.
But it's not a problem and it makes complete economic sense.
It's a way of getting "elite" users to pay a premium for more while still allowing regular users to pay less to get basic service. It's a form of discriminatory pricing and you see it in most industries. In the book business, you have hardcover books and paperbacks. In the computer industry you have very fast CPUs and slower budget CPUs. In jet travel, you have first class and coach.
Consider CPUs. Suppose 1 million CPUs will sell at $600/CPU but only 500,000 at $1000/CPU.
At $600/CPU, total sales are $600 million. At $1000/CPU total sales are $500 million.
BUT, if the fastest processors are sold at $1000/CPU and slower CPUs are sold at $600/CPU, then the total revenue is $800 million. That might be the difference between making a profit and losing money.
The same sort of thing happens when selling internet connectivity.
Net-neutrality is forcing your neighbors to pay for your Netflix habit.
Governments are extremely intimidated by the free flow of information.
They’d like to close down the Internet altogether.
Failing that, they’ll simply tax and regulate it out of existence.
How do you figure that?
> I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.
Sort of has the same vibe as blackmail ...
I think Charter communications already does that
Increased regulation and oversight democrats need to stop the truth.
The Net Neutrality Debacle: A Submission To The FCC*
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021
Yep, this issue is strictly about the gimme crowd versus the internet providers. Problem is, the gimme crowd has numerous high profile companies and all of the media on their side. Companies like Netflix are at the center of this propaganda blitz and are the primary problem with the current system. Put simply, people who expect unlimited streaming video and the providers of that video need a reality check in the form of unregulated pricing on that kind of service. If they expect a giant pipe they need to pay for it.
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.