Posted on 02/26/2015 11:01:27 AM PST by Nachum
Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and “your TV as you know it is over” on Thursday’s “Squawk Alley” on CNBC.
Cuban began by predicting “the courts will rule the Internet for the next however many years.” He then explained, “let’s just take it all the way through its logical conclusion. All bits are bits, all bits are equal. If all bits are equal, then let’s look at what a stream bit is an example. So when Henry and I do an interview, and it’s streamed lived on the Internet, there’s a camera, it goes through an encoder, it sends it out via server or some manner to the Internet, you click on Business Insider and you watch the stream, right? Now, let’s look at CNBC on Comcast. There’s cameras right in front of you, they go through a switcher, they go through an encoder, it’s put through a server, it goes to Comcast, and it’s streamed in a managed service environment to television. It’s the exact same thing. And if it’s the exact same thing technologically and all bits are equal, then why shouldn’t CNBC and all TV networks that are delivered on cable, and Telco, and fiber like Verizon, why shouldn’t they be part of the open Internet as well? And if they are and all bits are equal, now, let’s take it one step further. It’s the purview of the FCC now. The FCC, right? So, the FCC now has to apply their same standards to content, don’t they, that they do to television content because that’s where it is and there’s going to be certain citizens who think ‘
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
So your beef is with markets then.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
So what B'Ball team isn't......That's a lame example if you're trying to make an argument......
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” - Barack Obama Oct. 31, 2008
The big issue here for me is process: the FCC just jammed a square peg into a round hole in appropriating for itself (in great secrecy) the power to do so under an unapplicable statute dating from the 1930s.
Cue the image of Arthur crowning himself king. And remember that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also capable of taking away everything you have.
This is a clear intrusion, another such intrusion, by this Administration upon the Constitutional rights, duties and perogatives of the Legislative Branch
As to the functional impact of this, all it does is transfer the power to restrict or deny access to places like FR from the ISPs to the government. I trust the ISPs a lot more in that matter, given past Progressive attempts to use the government to stiffle free speech, like the Fairness Doctrine.
And on top of that, THEY built the networks. Why should they be forced, by government fiat, to provide access to sites if they choose not to?
I’ll say it: Netflix is a welfare queen and the really didn’t “build that” the companies that laid the cable and fiber built that.
Give me an example of unseen opportunity costs.
“Time to bring back analogue TV “
It isn’t gone, that’s what we have and it works fine.
As an owner of a small cable TV company that provides Internet service as well I can say that it is doubtful that the regulation will improve anything. I read that there are provisions to permit private legal action against an ISP if you believe your bandwidth has been throttled - it is then up to the ISP to prove that it has NOT been throttled.
This is just another bone to throw to the legal industry to fund class action lawsuits and extract money from businesses.
My plan, should this actually go into effect is to probably double my rates because my liability insurance will probably double due to the implied threat of lawsuits.
The way I look at it is if I double my rate and lose half my customers I break even. However if I don’t double my rates I lose because of the cost of insurance. I will let the other guys be sued.
I buy a huge pipe to the Internet and between 6 and 10 PM it is at 98% capacity. Further analysis shows that about 50% of my customers are using that 98% - the rest are doing nothing.
Would it be fair to charge Netflix - absolutely! Let them raise the price they charge their customers - that is the most neutral thing to do - let the market play out. Or we go back to download limits - you get X megs/second and can download 50 gigs a month - over that and we charge you an extra $5 per gig - people forget it used to be that way.
Everyone who cheered for this power grab should keep in mind that they will get what they asked for - higher prices, and crappy service - nothing says I MUST buy enough bandwidth to make sure Netflix works - only that I treat everyone equally - and equally crappy will probably be what everyone ends up with.
If a provider wants to sell unlimited service, then it has to be unlimited for all, even Netflix users. If there are too many Netflix users or they are using too much data, they should switch to a metered plan for all. This way low users wouldn’t subsidize us Netflix users. For the record, my cable internet provider offers a high end internet plan for video streaming. I have it and my Netflix movies load instantly, even in HD.
Most people don't know text was invented as a way to make some money with leftover bandwidth..text flys standby..it started as the bandwidth “scrapsmeat” made into sausage
The people pushing the big bandwidth time sensitive apps likes streaming video will hog all the bandwidth and traffic will slow to a crawl...
It in effect just like the freeway at rushhours clogged with big rigs ...
Access has to be throttled and que up in some matter.. today the isp do it by QOS cost...
But what with will happen is in a few years after the internet chokes..
It will be the government doing the same QOS cost via a tax...
With the political favored cronies getting the tax breaks..or "Diamond" lane QOS access
With water you pay for the water you use not for an “all you can eat” pipe to your house.. else you and the farmer are going to pay the same cost for that same one pipe that he uses a 100,000 gallons of water from to ever one gallon you use..
With electricity you pay for the kilowatts you use not an “all you can eat” wire ...else you and the factory are going to pay the same cost for that one wire he uses 100 megawatts from to ever one you use.
But when it comes to that data pipe.. by god everyone is just going to pay for the access pipe..not for the data flowing over it... so the guy pulling or pushing 1000 gigs of data for ever K of data you pull or push are going to pay that same flat cost for an all you can eat data pipe....
yea that makes sense
You’re right. We need the government to step in and stop from happening something that has never happened. FR would cease to exist if not for the magnanimity of Lord Barry.
Again, I admire your blind faith in this administration.
Ronald Reagan didn’t break up Bell, you idiot.
The MFJ was the result of years long lawsuits, initiated well before Reagan was President.
That process was all a part of the justice system and Judge Greene signed the breakup of Bell, with a number of restrictions as well, responsibilities, which included “Equal Access and Easy Access” through Bell and traversing competitive carrier networks.
Glad you self zotted.
Your posting history is one of deceit and agitation
You belong in a pig pen
If all I am doing is Email and web browsing, and all my company is doing is doing is Email and web browsing, then (a) I nor more customers are requiring the owners of the telecom pipes to push through the huge mountains of data connected with streaming video connected to some of the most profitable advertizing on the net, so why shouldn’t I enjoy better rates at a certain speed than hugely profitable Netflix and its telecom pipe hogging business model.
Oh - and all the “net neutral” companies, from Netflix to Google to Amazon DO charge different rates to different customers that make special deals for those rates. They like “free enterprise” for themselves but want the services they need price-controlled as a public service.
Your argument: “You all realize that if there is no Net Neutrality, then Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and etc. could decide to limit Free Republic baud rate just the same as how they would limit Netflix’s?” is a strawman (not realistic) argument used by net neut advocates to bring in the useful idiots who know nothing of what is really going on.
Certain giants of Internet content and function arena, very much like being unregulated true free enterprise companies, but all (Google, Netflix, Amazon) have business models that want the companies supplying a service they need (the ISPs) to NOT be unregulated free enterprise companies but to be price-controlled de facto public utilities.
Why would any ISP seek to “throttle” bandwidth or speeds to or from FreeRepublic? Matter of fact they wouldn’t because a FreeRepublic is like a VW Beetle on the Internet highways, compared to the massive behemoths like a Google, Amazon or Netflix.
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.