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 ...
DSL is broadband - And as I said, soon they will be back in the competition, delivering close to cable speeds...
Hypothetically, without net neutrality, an ISP could team up with, say, Amazon and offer access to Prime Video in their basic tier while blocking out Netflix until you pay for an extra package. Same bandwidth, so you can’t trot out the erroneous “free ride” epithet against NN. That’s what this is about.
Well, they want to control bandwidth and speed. It’s not so much content as it is flow.
The Internet providers are pushing to get you to pay more for services delivered over the networks they built.
Fixed it for you.
There. I fixed it.
They already have speed tiers. They know customers hate bandwidth caps. They want to get paid to allow access to content. Read post 142, he gave a better example than I have been able to.
It’s not happening yet. He’s saying that’s where cable ISPs want to go in a few years.
Not true.
An ISP is already a regulated entity with a public franchise. All access providers are already regulated. Locally.
They can be sent packing and their franchise turned over to another provider...IF they are the only provider in town.
In most cases they are not and the customer has control over what provider they use.
This is about CONTENT providers in a row with Backbone Providers. It has nothing to do with access. that's a non sequitor.
What you cite is a prima facie anti-trust case against Comcast.
Comcast is an access provider and they are already regulated. Locally.
Net Neutrality is about how the Backbone providers treat Content providers and whether they can offer an increase service level for more money.
NN says they cannot.
Sure! let’s take the law of supply and demand completely out of the equation - ok?
All animals are equal after all. Just some are more equal than others. I bet their ‘net neutrality’ rules are exempt for them.
Yes, my space hamster, Boo!
The goals stated may be laudable but federal regulation is not the answer. Additionally, I do not for an instant trust Obama or believe that the stated goals are the only goals.
I hope that gets here soon. As always, competition is the answer to sort this out.
Obama want to do to the internet, what cable TV has done to broadcast television and radio.
You’ll get a thousand channels after paying 1/3 your take-home pay and only get 1-3 channels you can watch if you pay an extra surcharge.
Pretty much the same thing.
What are they accessing Netflix for, if not to stream video and use more bandwidth?
You're worried about freedom?
You think the internet will bring you freedom?
LOL
Internet and technology in general is hemming all of us in--taking one option after another away from each of us--until one day you will awaken to the fact that technology has you cornered with nowhere to turn.
I don’t live where cable is accessible (rural).
I have satellite TV.
I used SkyBlue for awhile (I had other options, the TV provider for one. SkyBlue seemed the best of bad options). I paid something like $100/month with a bandwidth limit that made streaming impossible. For the year plus I was using that service, netflix was a DVD account.
Then.
Local company. Over the air internet. (Antenna to receiver) Unlimited bandwidth with the provision that during peak times, bandwidth may slow equally for all users at the single antenna if demand is high.
Now. I stream netflix by receiver. I’ve never had a problem with speed, or if I did, it’s so rare I attributed it to a problem with my modem/box. Cost: $84/month and no bandwidth limit.
My old system sucked. Some entrepreneur noticed and provided a better system. I’m happy now.
The free market worked.
And I didn’t need govt regulation. Not only that, I strongly suspect regulation would have done little more than force me to pay more for SkyBlue.
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.