Posted on 09/20/2009 11:51:47 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, an official at the agency said Saturday.
The Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announce the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, the official said on condition of anonymity because news of the announcement had not been formally released.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
AntiMullah is a good example. For a long time, when it had a fraction of the current viewers it would appear among the first five top articles on islamic or political subjects.
Instead of the many articles posted daily, now an occasional article shows way down the list that comes up, mostly buried by the site's articles from last two years or even farther back.
Google openly admitted it was doing this, which is a form of censorship by withholding access to the information, which their technology does easily.
AntiMullah is a good example. For a long time, when it had a fraction of the current viewers it would appear among the first five top articles on islamic or political subjects.
Instead of the many articles posted daily, now an occasional article shows way down the list that comes up, mostly buried by the site's articles from last two years or even farther back.
Google openly admitted it was doing this, which is a form of censorship by withholding access to the information, which their technology does easily.
This is exactly what will happen. As well as prohibit advanced new services that offer differential performance for increased rates.
That is the socialist solution for everything: limited and mediocre resources for everyone, which is a self-fulfilling solution, namely everyone realizes that working harder is pointless, so the point becomes to see who can work the least hardest. (See "Atlas Shrugged")
"Net Neutrality" is akin to telling the airlines that first class and business class are prohibited, and that only one class of service will be allowed. There's nothing wrong with multiple service classes in any industry as long as the service levels are understood by all involved, and as long as there is no discrimination about who can buy which services.
(Nonetheless, a very minimal amount of new regulation would be a good thing to prohibit the kinds of abuses and favoritism already exhibited by several carriers, including Comcast and others, and which can be expected to only get worse. Really, all that's needed is a requirement of non-discriminatory universal contract rates for a given service class, prohibition of interfering with types of services and data, and prohibition of deliberate rate-limiting for any reason for any ingress or egress end-point, when a nominal bandwidth is contracted and paid for.
Go ahead, do a search(Google).
LOL! I watched google 'disappear' over half a million hits on image searches for "Obama Birth Certificate" in mid July '08.
I'm not the only one who has noted that google systematically eliminates any unfavorable data relating to 0bama. See also post #30 on this thread.
google? You're recommending google as an unbiased source???
No seriously, google?
Did I miss your </sarcasm> tag?
For some reason that brought this to mind...
Any legislation will inevitably lead to government censorship. This is but the first step.
Thanks for that wiki on net neutrality. Good information.
If telecoms really need more money they should charge heavy users more. I suppose a heavy user is someone downloading DVDs and TV shows and porn movies
If I had as many choices for broadband as I have in airlines I can fly, cars I can buy, or cell phone services, I would agree with you 100%. As it is I have as many choices for broadband as I have for electricity, water, or sewer service.
>>>> I suppose a heavy user is someone downloading DVDs and TV shows <<<<<
Which for example would include Netflix, which happens to be one of the big proponents of NN.
I literally just now finished watching a streaming Netflix movie (Bridge On The River Kwai), with my puny 1.5 Mbit DSL connection which gives 75 percent movie quality. Folks with faster broadband can watch 100 percent quality and even HD movies, which I cannot. So just to take this small example, streaming movies are running continuously for 90 minutes to 3 hours at 2 to 5 Mbits/sec
In some ways the Verizon and Cox arguments are legit... it’s their broadband plant and they are letting Netflix take the end-user movie distribution revenue for free.
On the other hand I have zero sympathy for them, they are both basically monopolies. We don’t let the electric company sell us lightbulbs.
Yeah . . . if they said they were for Mom, Apple Pie and the flag, I’d be wary.
The Number 1 Rule that applies to ALL Rat regulations or legislation: NEVER, EVER trust them.
Thanks for the ping!
Interesting
I literally just now finished watching a streaming Netflix movie (Bridge On The River Kwai), with my puny 1.5 Mbit DSL connection which gives 75 percent movie quality. Folks with faster broadband can watch 100 percent quality and even HD movies, which I cannot. So just to take this small example, streaming movies are running continuously for 90 minutes to 3 hours at 2 to 5 Mbits/sec
I have the same level of DSL and cannot get faster due to my neighborhood's wiring. Netflix is moving in this direction and so is Amazon.
Computer users of 10-20 years ago would be shocked to find that a prime use of the home PC is to bat around music and movies around the internet. That this is the vital "information" being exchanged
In some ways the Verizon and Cox arguments are legit... its their broadband plant and they are letting Netflix take the end-user movie distribution revenue for free. On the other hand I have zero sympathy for them, they are both basically monopolies. We dont let the electric company sell us lightbulbs.
It would more fair to charge monthly by how much you download. But that would violate the tradition of all the internet you want at a fixed price each month. So the ISPs want to make up for the heavy downloaders (bring in more revenue via stealth).....by charging NetFlix and others
>>>> the ISPs want to make up for the heavy downloaders (bring in more revenue via stealth).....by charging NetFlix and others <<<<<
That’s the essence of the issue. The Internet has never before been a content-based or content-regulated enterprise, and that’s what the larger carriers want to start doing at several different levels. On the other hand there are big upgrade costs for the larger shift to broadband movies in particular.
IMO there are good arguments on both sides, and it’s almost irrational to support one versus the other.
Its a trojan horse.
The feds need to stay away from the web, and leave it alone. Next thing we will have a federal tax on every purchase made on the web.
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.