Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FCC to cripple the Internet
Fox News ^ | May 14, 2014 | John R. Quain

Posted on 05/15/2014 6:26:13 AM PDT by dayglored

The Federal Communications Commission thinks the Internet in the United States can be run at two speeds. Backtracking from an earlier proposal, the FCC now believes it will be just fine to let Internet service providers (ISPs) control what you access online, with a few exceptions that the FCC would police.

While this new proposal might not kill the Internet, as it exists now, it would certainly cripple it – at least for American consumers and businesses.

Multiple leaks about FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal to the commission, which will be presented on Thursday, indicate that the agency would not allow ISPs to give preferential treatment – faster Internet access – to their own subsidiaries. But it would allow other companies to pay for faster, more reliable access. (No matter that such a similar restriction has already failed in the case of Comcast giving preferential treatment to its own Golf Channel.)

Unfortunately, there is no halfway approach to how data should flow over the Internet. It's a binary proposition: Either access to the Internet is equal, no matter the type or size of the business, or it is not. Letting Amazon have better access because it can pay and because it is not owned by AT&T will not make the situation more equal.

If the Internet does not maintain net neutrality, wherein all digital data is treated the same, countless businesses – tech companies in Silicon Valley, auto companies in Detroit, health care providers in Houston, startups in New York – will suffer. And, of course, you and I will pay for diminishing service and be denied the option of choosing what we want to read, view and listen to at faster speeds.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: fcc; internet; netneutrality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: dayglored
The author does not know what he is talking about and displays flaming, Marxist ignorance.

Allowing a provider to charge more for enhanced services will be good for everyone and will drive additional services and features.

It will also be the final blow to traditional Cable TV and allow everyone to pick their channels ala carte.

Net Neutrality is an unnatural hindrance on innovation and competition.

21 posted on 05/15/2014 8:10:42 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored; Jim Robinson
"The "fast lane" proposal is the death knell for sites like FR. "

That's not at all accurate.

Text-based internet flows are incidental, at best.

Composing less than 5% of all traffic...it is carried without so much as notice by any backbone provider.

Besides, IF a site were to be genuinely "blocked" by any ISP or backbone provider, they would start losing customers right quick.

This fight is about whether backbone providers and ISPs will be allowed to CHARGE content providers for additional, enhanced services...not whether there will be blockage anywhere of anything on the internet.

22 posted on 05/15/2014 8:15:51 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Riflema
True.Also, AMZN is currently a free rider, bandwidth wise. There will be many unanticipated consequences here.

Really? Amazon gets bandwidth from their ISP for free? Wow. I gotta get me somma that! Where do we sign up for free bandwidth?

23 posted on 05/15/2014 8:53:37 AM PDT by zeugma (Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss (I'll see you again someday Hope))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Very funny. Try thinking about it. The premise of the article is that Amazon (to name but one) will happily pay for better QOS into peoples' homes/offices. My point is that AMZN is operating near a loss already and has razor thin margins when it does get through to you, so how exactly can they afford to pay for better QOS??.

To some extent the same issue as NFLX who also pay for a lot of bandwidth at their facilities, but ride for free on the wide pipes into peoples homes.

Same again for all that crap video advertizing that pollutes many sites.

24 posted on 05/15/2014 9:09:06 AM PDT by Riflema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; JosephW; Only1choice____Freedom; amigatec; Still Thinking; ...

25 posted on 05/15/2014 9:28:58 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Ted Cruz Vows To Fight!

Thttp://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adventure-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441

26 posted on 05/15/2014 9:38:16 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Man.. would hate to take my torrenting to TOR.. would be dial-up speed >.<


27 posted on 05/15/2014 9:54:07 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
> This fight is about whether backbone providers and ISPs will be allowed to CHARGE content providers for additional, enhanced services...not whether there will be blockage anywhere of anything on the internet.

With all due respect, I think that is short-sighted. It assumes infinite bandwidth. In fact, although the pie increases as technology improves, this proposal is about giving higher-paying sites a bigger piece of the existing pie, meaning less available for everybody else.

If in fact there was no penalty to the vast majority of smaller sites (whether text-based, heavily-graphical, video-based, interactive, or otherwise), then I would not have a problem with a "pay-to-play" system -- that's just free-market which I whole-heartedly support.

The problem is that this is NOT a free-market for folks like me. I have only one practical choice for ISP -- the local phone company's DSL-over-copper offering. As a result, if they decide to play "extra-nice" with (say) Netflix and Amazon, they're going to have to get nasty with everything else because there just isn't a bigger pie to divide up.

And all the nice talk about ISPs remaining fair because of pressure from customers if they get unfair -- that's just talk out here. It'd be great to have a lot of choices, but the fact of Internet Providers is that most of the country doesn't have a wide enough range of practical choices to make a free market operate correctly.

Trust me, I wish it were otherwise. I hate regulation, and accepting any of it as a necessary evil makes me very unhappy.

28 posted on 05/15/2014 9:57:28 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
> Just wait until a Lois Learner is in charge of which web sites are allowed to vend bits.

Anybody who thinks that this won't be abused -- whether by high-rolling liberal media interests, or liberal government bureaucrats -- is living in a dreamworld that will collapse in a matter of a few years.

29 posted on 05/15/2014 10:01:57 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

It is sad the yutes only care when it effects their “stuff.” Owebama is destroying their future in a free, powerful and prosperous America and not a peep. Oh look, squirrel.


30 posted on 05/15/2014 10:06:50 AM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


31 posted on 05/15/2014 10:12:46 AM PDT by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; Jim Robinson
>> "The "fast lane" proposal is the death knell for sites like FR. "

> That's not at all accurate.

You're correct -- in a technical sense.

But I wasn't talking about the technical aspect of text-based HTML being low-bandwidth -- I was talking about the fact that the high-rolling liberal media interests who can, and will, take advantage of a "pay-to-play" system represent a political threat to sites like FreeRepublic.

A lot of FR's readership is like me -- not in the big cities, but out in the more rural areas which don't have multiple ISPs competing for my internet-service dollars. I only have ONE practical choice, and if they decide to start limiting bandwidth to some sites to give more to the liberal media higher-payers, well, that'll be a damn shame for the conservative political sites, won't it?

(Jim: also pls see my comment above, #28)

32 posted on 05/15/2014 10:15:09 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

Most of the cabinet departments including the FCC are unconstitutional, oppressive, a waste of money and should be nuked.


33 posted on 05/15/2014 10:15:42 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
No, you can't say it too much.

Most of the cabinet departments including the FCC are unconstitutional, oppressive, a waste of money and should be nuked.

Shout it from the rooftops.

34 posted on 05/15/2014 10:17:39 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I’ve done that... Luckily, my neighbors don’t seem to mind the noise.

:-)


35 posted on 05/15/2014 10:20:37 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Riflema; zeugma
> To some extent the same issue as NFLX who also pay for a lot of bandwidth at their facilities, but ride for free on the wide pipes into peoples homes.

I thought one of the basic premises of internet service was that each site or consumer paid for the bandwidth from their ISP and last-mile, not the bandwidth of the remote places their content was coming from, or going to.

The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that it allows moneyed liberal media interests to not only get great bandwidth at their own end, but also at their consumers' end, which unbalances an underlying condition in the original intent of the internet.

36 posted on 05/15/2014 10:20:42 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cizinec
do you believe in the free market, or do you believe government regulators can best control the economy?

That's the crux of what the American People have to decide. Freedom from government or dependence on government and oppression. The Constitution is against government and on the side of freedom. Will people embrace the Constitution or let the Progressive Socialist tyrants have their way?

37 posted on 05/15/2014 10:22:28 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

TOR is also a protocol. I’m sure they would throttle that as well.


38 posted on 05/15/2014 10:22:56 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
But what would be their incentive? To bring FCC down on their necks? To get in the newspapers?

No, what it will do is fund upgrades for more advanced services wile leaving the current content unaffected.

39 posted on 05/15/2014 10:29:01 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
Don't get your point here. You think we're better off with the FCC regulating the internet becasue of those who have limited choices? I can't agree. The free market isn't perfect but it's way ahead of stupid mindless wasteful government regulations that almost always make matters worse.

The overall picture is much better off without the FCC. It's not perfect, but it's way ahead of government interference. And with government out of the way, sooner or later, you'll probably have more of the choices you want.

40 posted on 05/15/2014 10:31:02 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson