Posted on 04/23/2014 10:32:56 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The Federal Communications Commission is getting ready to propose new rules when it comes to net neutrality, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are reporting based on unnamed sources.
Late Wednesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler called the reports of a turnaround “flat out wrong.”
According to the Times and the Journal, the FCC is planning to allow Internet service providers to sell a faster pipe into people’s homes to content companies willing to pay for it. In other words, content providers could pay for preferential treatment into American homes. …
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
In other words, customers won't get the speed they are paying for unless the content provider (and ultimately the customer a second time) pays extra for it.
Any bests on whether the ISP's own services will get priority. Ooops, sorry Netflix is dropping so many packets. Have you considered Time Warner's pay per view service instead?
bests->bets
They are simply herding everyone toward a cable TV/internet package, if you ask me. Perhaps the insider relationship to Comcast is finally paying off?
Words are power and thus highly esteemed by those who desire control over others. The Word of Truth is most powerful, and will thus be most unwelcome where the rulers, powers, and principalities of this world are concerned, yet already has the victory in a way the world does not know.
Brian Roberts is in deep with the Obama Regime.
“Imagine if the water company could detect if you were using their water for a specific brand of sink and charge more for it. Does that sound ridiculous? So does this.”
Someone even made the comment about Netflix's packets being dropped without net neutrality to protect them, as if congestion and packet drop at edge routers doesn't already happen right now.
Netflix is having trouble precisely because all packets are being treated equally.
Net neutrality supporters don't realize that their rules threaten to hold back all sorts of applications that work like garbage under the current "all packets are equal" philosophy.
It's sounds ridiculous because it's a poor metaphor.
Let me give you a better one.
"Imagine if the water company could detect whether or not you needed water for drinking, water for irrigation, or water for sewage and charged you a different price for each one."
Statism never sleeps.
Traffic shaping is inevitable and good. But allowing ISPs to discriminate like this is going to shut out competition - it’s just another form of corporatism/crony capitalism where entrenched incumbents (Comcast/TW offering its own VOD, Netflix who can afford the highway robbery) outcompete startups.
A competitive ISP market would solve the issue, because people would choose ISPs that had responsible and open-market traffic shaping policies. But, of course, due to the infrastructure limitations for running an ISP, our only hope is that google, verizon, and AT&T will build-out fiber and compete.
That’s why ISPs should be regulated as common carriers.
They're already prohibited from intentionally degrading traffic.
So long as non privileged bandwidth is treated as best-effort I don't see what the problem is.
I get the impression that some supporters of net neutrality are really afraid that someone else might receive better service beyond best-effort and they consider that unfair.
It's a bit like those that don't mind everyone being poor so long as everyone is equally poor.
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.