Posted on 06/14/2016 9:34:37 AM PDT by PROCON
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a big win for the Obama administration, a federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the government's "net neutrality" rules that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally.The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a victory for consumer groups and content companies such as Netflix that want to prevent online content from being blocked or channeled into fast and slow lanes.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Consumers are not likely to see an immediate impact, since the ruled have been in effect since last June. But it could make some services more expensive or limit some content..
Translation:
HIGHER INTERNET FEES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS
It will be “The Tragedy of The Commons” on the Internet.
It is always what happens when nobody “owns” something, but “everyone” gets to use it.
It gets destroyed.
Of course, that might be exactly what the statist SOBs have in mind.
It’s the socialization of the internet. Now government bureaucrats get to make decisions about your internet access, rather than you simply purchasing what you want in a private transaction between private parties.
Nope. In context, it means “your ISP can’t decide what you can and can’t watch” and “your ISP can’t give fake ‘discounts’ that actually make prices the same on certain selected items and higher on everything else”.
We’ll be paying more and those receiving welfare will be getting it free at our expense.
The judges in this case:
Judge David Tatel: Clinton appointee
Judge Sri Srinivasan: Obama appointee
A lot of ISPs (Charter, Verizon, Time Warner) are also cable providers and involved in entertainment .
They would certainly have an interest in destroying streaming and pushing everyone back into paying for expensive cable.
Strangely this was a case of Obama being reactive.
He really was not pushing net neutrality, until a couple of providers started throttling and the whiney Millenial crowd SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER!
Wanting to hang on to their votes, he directed the FCC to do a 180 (after specifically saying he would NOT do this).
Get ready for a lot more of this as Millenials gain political prominence.
Yep. As I noted, one of their tactics is to create a phony "discount" deal, where they raise their base prices but give their own content "free" in order to channel users of their Internet services away from competition for their cable TV services.
All such sleazy or unethical practices in the internet/cable biz can be traced to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. One of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress.
Brought to you by SEN. JOHN MCCAIN of Arizona.
To some people, it is broken. (Not to me)
In my opinion, if someone wants to buy a strip of land that spans 30 miles of my commute, make it a private turnpike, maintain a pristine surface, and increase the speed limit to 90 mph for paying customers, I might happily pay that fee.
Especially if it parallels the government supplied turnpike with cops all over it writing tickets, and unionized government employees at each junction being paid $30 to hand out a piece of paper or make change.
If my ISP is spending far less on infrastructure, but thinks nothing of piggy-backing off of an ISP that is aggressively trying to upgrade the capability of their part of the network to attract paying customers...well...I am going to side with the ISP trying to attract customers by improving their infrastructure.
Supporting the piggy-backing ISP stinks of socialist policies.
They really cut their own throats by overplaying their monopoly advantage. Worse yet, they carelessly revealed the scam they were pulling:
Comcast Admits Broadband Usage Caps Are A Cash Grab, Not An Engineering NecessityFor years the broadband industry tried to claim that they were imposing usage caps because of network congestion. In reality they've long lusted after usage caps for two simple reasons: they allow ISPs to charge more money for the same product, and they help cushion traditional TV revenues from the ongoing assault from Internet video....
Comcast is of course slowly but surely expanding usage caps into its least competitive markets. More recently the company has tried to deny it even has caps, instead insisting these limits are "data thresholds" or "flexible data consumption plans." But when asked last week why Comcast's caps in these markets remain so low in proportion to rising Comcast speeds (and prices), Comcast engineer and vice president of Internet services Jason Livingood candidly admitted on Twitter that the decision to impose caps was a business one, not one dictated by network engineering....
the DC circuit is the court the obamites and harry reid packed with extremist zealots via the “nuclear option”.
this is just a little icing on their cake.
It turns out (see previous message) that the anti-neutrality ISPs are like the bad cop-infested road.
Nope. In context, it means “your ISP can’t decide what you can and can’t watch” and “your ISP can’t give fake ‘discounts’ that actually make prices the same on certain selected items and higher on everything else”.
—
It’s important to remember that, other than the muslim brotherhood, Google had more access to the White House than anyone. They’re making their own rules.
Why are the lawyers for our side so incompetent they can lose this argument?
You mean the government gets to decide? Oh, that will be nice...
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.