Posted on 03/01/2015 6:34:08 PM PST by Chris in VA
In a landmark decision on net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) declared the Internet a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act as reported by CBS News. The 3-2 split decision forces Internet service providers to not actively discriminate in terms of what content is transmitted at what speed.
Obama issued a statement supporting the net neutrality decision.
“…will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs.”
Just like Obamacare has? Just like the stimulus package?
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
When I read the proposed fiduciary interest for one’s 401K rules, all I could think was “the federal government says you have to have X percent in bonds to protect from stock market volatility - it’s the law.”
I’m sure the plan will have many effects: knocking people off the internet entirely, throttling free speech, paying off Obama’s cronies, paying off big donors to the DemoCommunist party, etc.
I’m quite sure that a major purpose of this plan it to throttle the flow of information as the final crackdown begins, guns are confiscated, and counter-revolutionaries and slanderers of the prophet are taken off for beheading and burning.
Net-Neutrality has liars on all sides. What we all want is cheap unfettered access to the web. And we want others to have the same. So, new companies have the same rights as big companies. So Foxnews.com can’t pay for better service than Freerepublic.com.
But the government and the cable companies want control. Both tell the truth when it comes to the fears of the other getting control. The government does want to spy and tax. The cable companies want to charge dot.coms for access, getting paid on both sides like a newspaper charges the reader and the advertiser.
As consumers we have good reason to fear both sides. Neither can be trusted. As freepers we should not be clearly on one side or the other. Comcast, the owner of MSNBC should not be able to select winners and losers on the Web. And the government should not be able to hide taxes in our internet bills like they do with the phone bills. The internet is cutting into the money governments made on phone bill taxes.
This issue is like the keystone pipeline. Both are fights between big business and big government. We should not take sides when two thieves are fighting over which one has the right to rob us.
Remember there is nothing free market about the web. Comcast pays a license to local governments for the right to sell us cable and the internet. The Internet comes to us because the government forces the phone/cable companies to provide the service.
There was compuserve in the old days. If you want to complain about something you should complain about compuserve being put out of business by the internet. You paid for the service. Then you paid the phone company for the phone call at around $.25 a minute.
And Comcast is run by very liberal democrats who give to the democrat party like George Soros. As republicans, we have no dog in this fight.
If you have service at 768 Kbps and no land line then that would mean you’ve got cable. With that, you can get a deal with cable and they bundle services, and you can get a free land line with that. You won’t need a cel phone since you’re not leaving your house any with your 768 Kbps service ... :-) ...
It is an ill wind that blows no good at all. The problem with this ham handed approach is that it will probably shoot a fly with a cannonball, and at a concomitant cost. Instead of Netflix paying, everybody will pay, through their taxes.
In the long term competition would even out the problem. If Comcast won’t show you Netflix, then Cox might. It is cases where the local infrastructure is a monopoly that create problems. I am not altogether unsympathetic to the idea of treating these monopolies as monopolies. The problem again is trusting a Democrat approach to do it. We will pay for a lot of overkill that way.
They’ll still have the different levels of service and the different prices for the different services.
At least with two competing thieves, they can vie for who offers the most economical support...
but again the government has an advantage in being able to print money.
You’ll be posting here on Free Republic, next year and the year after, and so on ... just as freely as you are today ... pictures and words and all ... :-) ...
I commented before, but nobody addressed the question I raised. Namely, what about DSL? I had DSL and it kept getting slower and slower, but for what reason? My surmise was and is that the servers were declining to serve the lower speed connections in favor of the higher speeds. This makes sense from the POV of maximizing total throughput.
So, it seemed to me that DSL was being “kicked to the side of the road”, just like dial up had been. If somebody knows anything about this, one way or the other, I’d love to hear it.
I don’t have cable. I have a modem that gets a signal from a tower. It connects to the computer through the thing-ummy-jig connector—the one they use for DSL. There are four or five such transponders around town.
It’s unlikely that a small service like FR would suffer. Someone like Fox or Townhall might. After all, FR does not live on ads for 4 weird ways to lose weight.
I would suggest reading it, in about three weeks. Then you’ll see what it’s about. The FCC is gong to continue to be around, that’s a given ... but Obama will be gone, and then you’re talking about a Republican President ... :-) ...
What you say sounds good to me!
Where is Boehner? Capitulating again. What a POSITIVE ROLE MODEL!!
the typical way its explained is with the analogy of a bucket of water.let say your have a CIR for water.. it fill your bucket at a steady state.. but your do not use the water at a steady state.. you use it in burst.. the fastest you can drain from the bucket is you burst rate.. this is faster then your CIR.. keep running at you burst rate and you empty the bucket.. now your running at the slower CIR rate the rate that bucket can fill at..the effect is your download rate becomes throttle back ....
but still there's another thing called over-burst...
the Internet pipeline come to your house is a shared media with other people and as long as no one else is using a shared media the company wants to let you use that empty bandwhith
They'll start feeding you data into your bucket at your higher burst rate in other words faster than your Cir because no one else is using it on the back side so they can fill that bucket as fast as you want.. however that overburst to you is marked discard eligible in other words if anybody else needs data you get drop back to the slower speed ...that over burst is flying standby
And the kicker.. this just apply on your connection to your ISP..because the ISP does not own the Internet end to end so they can only guarantee up to their door they cannot predict what the traffic is on the overall internet no more than you can predict what the traffic will be on the freeway with everybody going for it..your ISP the best is what's called an AS autonomous system in the Internet is made up of multiple interconnected AS’s that your traffic might pass through
The flip side these content providers like Netflix...if the stream... they need a guaranteed bandwidth all CIR in the pipe end to end passing through multiple AS that your ISP is no control over to begin with and they have to come first and their bandwidth hogs they don't play well on shared media there data is special has to pay a higher rate..
this is a highly highly highly simplified version of what really goes on I'm not going to get into multicast QoS traffic shaping policies inter AS routing all the different formulas .... traffic shaping is a highly complex subject this is just insane what they're trying to pass ...
The problem is ... I don’t like what is going on right now with throttling, speed lanes, extra charges by the telcoms by holding their customers hostage, and no ability to get competing services ... these are problems that have been going on for a while and need to be stopped.
I guess we’ll see what’s going on with this in a few weeks.
You hope. I hope, too.
I think you severely underestimate the desire of the left to shut down conservative conversation.
The FCC can ban Obama? In three weeks?
I have NO confidence that 1) “Obama” is leaving the WH in 2017; or 2) that if he does, a “Republican” will be anything other than ANOTHER agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.
At least, socking Netflix was a crude proxy for pay for service. In principle, Comcast could then upgrade its interface to the backbone to handle more Netflix traffic and then everyone is at some kind of crude balance.
I don’t know what are in these rules, but seeing that the Dems won the FCC vote on party lines, I would not at all be surprised to see vast overkill.
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.