Skip to comments.The only quote you need to read from the FCC’s net neutrality meeting
Posted on 05/15/2014 6:38:32 PM PDT by ransomnoteEdited on 05/15/2014 7:07:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler laid out the bright line on his proposed net neutrality rules during the Thursday meeting: "If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Said another way, I recall the libs wanted to strip rights from journalists who were not “professional” (not MSM but independent bloggers) including legal protections. So could they strip high speed internet access from smaller grass roots (republican) venues and hand it to the MSM and it’s deep pockets and “professional” standing?
Nothing is “reasonable” until after a lot of lawyers get rich looking for the answer.
And it has to be done over and over and over again.
There was a lot of scaremongering by those who are losing their free ride on the Internet(s). Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon...the BIG providers of content want to be able to demand the backbone carriers and ISPs ensure ALL multimedia content is delivered equally across all infrastructure...for free.
The carriers want to be able to charge content providers for ASSURED DELIVERY...so your movies don't cut out and flicker...or you don't get pops on your phone calls.
Those additional charges would be used to enhance infrastructure (much of the revenue HAS to be spent there to meet contract for assured delivery) and deliver new, enhanced services.
It is already illegal for any carrier to block content or to so restrict throughput for that content as to be "commercially unreasonable".
Access to FreeRepublic IS NOT AT RISK.
“But if you buy, say, a 35 Mbps broadband plan, your ISP will be required to deliver all content to you at at least that speed.”
Not possible. The ISP can guarantee 35mbps access however they cannot guarantee the speed of the public internet and all sites on the net. If netflix servers are bogged down you won’t get max speed and there is nothing an ISP can do about it. So the FCC is either ignorant about such internet basics or are just lying.
The old “pay for play” scheme.
to hell with net neutrality or whatever they call it . more calls for “fairness” and reigning in the evil capitalists in this case the ISP’s. how many times will you people fall for this same socialist line?
Thanks ransomnote. There will be a fiber buildout, ironically, to support the next generations of faster and faster cell phones. There’s not enough headroom in the broadcast bandwidth to cope with the growth of faster handsets, even with the bogus “unlimited” plans that are actually quite limited.
I don’t understand your post. I was suspicious of the information and was looking at it for various angles wondering what’s the catch - libs wouldn’t cross the room without an ulterior motive (i.e., evicerate conservative access)
Notice how there are still those who ignore what you wrote, so they can continue believing the problem is more sinister than it really is?
When this news hit yesterday I looked into it ans spoke to someone i trust a lot about this stuff.
After our conversation, I must agree with your assessment.
In deference to them, Ted Cruz and Al Franken (yes, they share the same position as the alarmists), it IS complicated. Your average Joe cannot be expected to understand either the technology or the business structure. Sometimes even after considerable study and research.
I hate to see Ted Cruz on the wrong side of an issue, but he is.
As for the alarmists on FR, I guess if you're always looking for a fast ball down the middle of the plate you don't always notice it above the letters.
Swing and a miss.
I don’t think looking it as “build a better mousetrap and people will buy it” way is correct. Government is involved in telecommunications anyway. To lay down the cables you have to dig up the streets and this always needs a government permission.
I don’t trust those already having their cables due to government mercy. “Skype” is a verb now. It pays to look how they became successful. There were several voice-over-internet programs, but their trouble was that telcos were blocking them to hinder a competition to their lucrative long distance call business. Skype became successful because they could camouflage their IP packets so they were unblockable.
Having telcos, who are highly dependent on government permits, free reign would turn internet into something, where you call Papa’s Pizza and the phone company gives a recording that “Pappa’s Pizza has a 1 minute wait ... press 1 to be connected to our partner Domino right away” (example from a poster here, whose screen-name I forgot).
Net neutrality means just that you pay for your internet and get what you want. Provider does not throttle or boost the things based on what they want to push.
I have a question.
What part of Article 1. Section 8. of the Constitution empowers the government to control or regulate the Internet?
No government regulation of the Internet has been a good thing. If they get their hooks into it...
Just lying. The American Aristocracy and their cronies have to get hold of the Internet. It’s the last refuge from Democrats. They need to close it down before you learn too much.
Smart phones in India and Pakistan now run as low as $35-45.
“Net Neutrality” = the “Affordable Care Act”. It does the opposite of what it says. Keep the G out of the Internet and off our back.
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.