Posted on 11/10/2014 11:38:48 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."
In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable "to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas."
Obama wades into a contentious debate that has raged over how to treat Internet traffic, which has only heated up as the FCC works to prepare an official guideline. Those rules were expected to be made available later this year, though reports now claim they may be delayed until early 2015. The debate has centered on whether broadband should be placed under Title II regulation under the Telecommunications Act, which already tightly controls phone services.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnet.com ...
Not really. Netflix had to start making some deals to pay but what they are paying and what the real charge should be is nothing.
If Netflix had to pass along that cost alone then we should be paying $30 or $40 a month to have it instead of $9.
That kind of real charge will destroy Netflix and every other streaming business.
Any monies being paid are more lip service and do not reflect the real cost of any streaming done.
That IS one of the issues, yes. If they are providing a service it is up to them to keep their infrastructure up to date, much like the electric company or the gas company. It’s a very complicated issue and I’m frankly shocked Obama came out the way he did on this.
There is a confluence of forces pushing for regulation: cable companies protecting their TV business by exerting their near monopoly position as incumbent ISP, and central planning controllers such as Obama.
What's the functional difference between FaceTime and a "traditional" website? They're both simply some service that utilizes broadband bandwidth. Read the link above on the Netflix blog. Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs can't regulate what their consumers want to consume with their bandwidth.
Think of it this way: would you find it acceptable if your power company decided that their basic tier of service only covered your lights, oven, and A/C, but if you wanted to run your microwave or coffee machine, you'd need the "premium kitchen" upgrade? If you'd say that's outrageous, then you should be FOR net neutrality.
Didn’t you have a rodent at one time?
I’m sure Netflix pays plenty and has SLAs with their ISPs for capacity and QoS.
banking, wall street, automotive...
Very few places have a single ISP. I have several wireline and wireless ISPs to choose from so I can’t even relate to this edge case. But for the sake of argument let’s go with your hypothetical scenario - an area where there is only one ISP. I would trust the ISP more than I would trust Obama. Thus I see little reason to run to government.
I think “free” is the key word — means no cost.
Democrats have been trying to make Internet access free to people on welfare, etc. I presume that that means giving them a free computer too.
And by the way, if pushed through, the FCC will apply a 16 PERCENT tax on usage in March 2015 ... after that bandwidth, content, access will be strictly limited, as it will be as a regulated utility under Title 3 of the old Bell Telephone Act from 1935. It will quickly then be subject to international rules and regulations as a regulated utility - according to a former FCC commissioner this AM.
In short, the internet will no longer be free, open, or accessible to most current users.
I would point out that if left alone, even if 'they' are doing this, rouge mom and pop ISPs will rise up to provide what the big guys won't (it has already ever been the case... AOL went this way long ago, and local ISPs gave a better product)
The minute it is regulated, the big guys will get their way through lobbying and crony capitalism. Leave it be, and the marketplace will decide.
Cable companies are both ISP and content provider. IMO they are trying to leverage their ISP position to protect their TV business. They (and others) need to divest either one or the other.
I might be in favor of the the internet being a utility.
But the reason regulating utilities works is because people are generally charged in proportion to how much they use a given utility.
So there is no reason someone who is always streaming video should pay the same low price for the internet as someone who is mostly just sending emails.
Working for everyone in Obola speak means working for China and Russia, not US citizens - which is what the sound bite is meant to convey to stupid voters and other nonthinking citizens.
Everything touched by Prez Obola turns to fecal matter.
Throw this into the mix. Once the FCC becomes the arbiter of all things internet, how froggy do you think a provider will feel when confronted by a request from the NSA to snoop?
The First Fecal President?
The rich, of course. The other guy and not me. Obama promised and I believe him. That is why I voted for him.
Signed... The Democrat Voter.
Comcast throttled Netflix traffic on Comcast's network UNTIL Netflix paid a fee to Comcast.
Comcast exerted it's last-mile control to extract payment from a service.
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.