Skip to comments.Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn
Posted on 01/14/2014 11:12:55 PM PST by KTM rider
Thanks for watching that YouTube video! That will be 50 cents, please.
Sound unrealistic? It's actually a distinct possibility, after a Federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down an FCC ruling meant to prevent an Internet service provider -- the company you pay for online access -- from prioritizing some website traffic over others.
And because that rule was wiped off the books, those ISPs are suddenly able to do just that. With service providers suddenly able to charge based on the type of content you watch or the sites you visit, it's easy to imagine a system like that of today's cable television market. Want HBO? It's an extra $5. Want our streaming video package, with YouTube, Hulu, TV.com, and more? That's $5 too.
Don't pay and you can't watch. Period.
The so called net neutrality rule, put in place by the FCC in 2010, was intended to ensure equal access to all types of content. Regulators and politicians feared a tiered access to premium content or that ISPs might unfairly fast-track access to their own content over competitors.
'Without these rules, consumers are at the mercy of their providers ... and business arrangements that could severely limit access to certain content.'
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Freedom and Liberty just took another major blow to the head today, Commiecast or any other ISP could just squish Freerepublic.com according to this ruling
I really dont see this happening as long as there is competition in the market place.
If a ISP puts limitations on what you do with your internet service you simply go to another provider.
I have at least Windstream and Time Warner available to me. Both of them are constantly sending me literature asking me to switch to them or upgrade my service.
As time goes by I can only see the market becoming more competitive in the future (provided government does not get more involved). As technology advances the service should only get cheaper and better.
In my opinion that law was a solution looking for a problem.
Yabbut, the general consensus here and on the right in general, was that Net-Neutrality would crush free speech as well. Maybe people shouldn’t have jumped to kill it before looking into what N-N really did.
Yeah, that worked out real well when airlines starting charging extra for everything. People here said that youu could just go to another aurline and the market would work it out.
Now they all charge. I can list dozens of other examples.
I wish I had just a drop of your optimism and faith in the MSM, could you bottle some up and send some my way please !!![/sarc]
I think it is a big mistake for conservatives to oppose net neutrality. Opposition basically favors government sponsored monopolies over small business. I have a choice between AT&T and Comcast - that’s not competition.
I can live without watching YouTube. But what about the YouTube investors?
Total hot air out of that “article”. Youtube gets a heck of a living from advertisers and doesn’t need to charge for viewing any videos. Net neutrality is all about giving the FCC more power.
Maybe progressives support net neutrality because they see it is a way to get the government more involved in regulating speech. They could see it as a path to eventually banning hate speech, or banning the ability for Christians to proselytize. And that is a legitimate concern. Also, allowing the FCC to implement it unilaterally is problematic. That said, maintaing unhindered access to the internet by anyone is also of paramount importance. It could all end in a giant liberal/google run oligopoly otherwise.
Net neutrality was never about “unhindered access to the internet” anyhow. The more control you give to the FCC, the greater the liberal influence.
Charging a premium for video providers would hurt youtube(google), but they have deep pockets and would figure it out. But if you and I decided we were sick of YouTube, and wanted to start Freerepublicvideos.com, and found out Comcast wouldn’t let their customers view our content, or only allowed enough bandwidth that we could stream low res videos unless we pay them, it might put us out of business before we started.
god IS THIS PONT. GUY A CORPORATE PLANT OR JUST PLAIN STOOOOPID?
I am talking markets and the quest for the almighty dollar.
I wont bother to mention the right to contract and control ones own property.
You don’t have to give control to the FCC. Just get congress to pass a law that makes sense. You can strip the FCC of all its powers at the same time, it is a useless agency.
The Courts said that any attempt at the government to impose “Net Neutrality” is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
The FCC did it anyway.
So now the courts have slapped them down.
Course, the FCC might just ignore the court like this administration is doing with so many things....
No liberal in DC would agree to that. And frankly, no new laws are needed; many need to be repealed.
Obviously you did not fly back in the 1970s before the airlines where deregulated under Reagan when it cost $450 dollars (1970s dollars) to fly coach from pretty much anywhere to anywhere else in the lower 48.
After deregulation the airlines are charging about a quarter or less of what they charged then and are constantly flirting with bankruptcy, pushing their unions for concessions and always trying to find cheaper ways to do everything.
What the airlines are doing is somewhat deceptive marketing and somewhat trying to cut cost. Yes they charge you for an extra bag but that also encourages you to travel light which saves the airline fuel.
I even think it would be fair for the airlines to charge passengers by the pound.
Given our disposition of the latter issue, we have no need to address Verizons additional contentions that the Order violates the First Amendment and constitutes an uncompensated taking.
It may be hard to believe, but the airlines we deregulated in 1978. It was a broadly bipartisan vote, and Carter signed it.
this whole issue is a phoney problem.
bandwidth hogs like youtube
expect to get the same priority as email.
but youtube needs 100000X as much bandwidth.
If Comcast tries something like that you still have options.
You can get with other members of your community and solicit other providers to come to your community to provide competition.
If you community has is one that contracts with Comcast that gives them a monopoly on providing service to your area petition your community leaders to pressure Comcast not to prioritize their own PPV service. If they do not relent your community can contract to another ISP.
My home town has had at least 3 cable service providers that I can think of in the last 40 years. Your area is not stuck with Comcast. If you dont like them get involved and get rid of them.
The issue isn’t Youtube versus email, it is YouTube versus Breitbart. Google can pay whatever extortion Comcast or Verizon demands to carry Youtube, but Comcast and Verizon could probably squeeze Breitbart or RedState or any other uppity small company out of business given the chance.
The top 5 ISP’s control 65% of the US market. That’s Comcast, Time Warner, SBC, Verizon, and Cox. To say people have a choice is deeply disingenuous. Because of the build out cost, and control local government asserts, competition is pretty much dead. There is just consolidation at this point. The last time there was real competition was during the DSL heyday, but notice how the big telcos were able to kill the competition by blocking the smaller companies using their lines.
Dont forget that you control the local government.
It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams ...
I personally would rather have a corporation be in control of the internet than have the FCC deciding what goes on with the internet.
Once the FCC has the power to issue regulation governing the internet you will see a deluge of regulations similar to what we have with the EPA.
Good! Folks will pay what content is worth. Smart purveyors will maintain free access...like Amazon, eg. And a lot of dreck may go *poof*. Cuz Aadvertizers will pull ads from sites that absolutely no one will open.
Free market is good. I’m for it. As of now....with what I understand of it.
How many providers go by your house?
If there was ever an argument for government regulation, it should be that internet service providers provide internet service. PERIOD.
ISPs are the modern equivalent of the "common carrier". In return for the physical monopoly they enjoy, they must be required to provide equal access to any and all sources of carriable information.
I've always hated telcos, just behind the gubmint.
Two, but the technology exist for a third.
The technology exist for electric companies to provide Internet Service of power lines.
Regulations should always be the last resort.
There was some virtue to the equality paradigm.
However, if this is just traffic based, FR has little to fear. It’s very texty (at least as far as its main server hosted content is concerned) at a time when everyone and their aunt and uncle have splurged on graphics.
I understand there also is a lot of dark fiber out there.
Price competition will very likely, as before, help sort the issue out. Someone wants to tax You Tube, they either need to make up for it with a lower fee basic package, or lose business.
I am sitting here using a Clearmodem, and the cable company that serves the apartment where I am (digging out from a financial crash, I’m not as well off in pecuniary terms as a decade ago) has an offering, and so does the phone company. By land, sea, and air figuratively speaking.
I could see some kind of interim provision that things be kept neutral for people that only one provider will serve.
I thought this decision was freeing?
Well over 70% of the US population has NO competition for high speed internet service providers able to maintain high speed streaming.
“[For] at least 77 percent of the country, your only choice for a high-capacity, high-speed Internet connection is your local cable monopoly,” says Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School.
There is no doubt websites like FR are going to be systematically crushed by middle and upper management at the cable company monopolies. It will take time, but there is no doubt there will be outright supression of civic speech.
There are satilite companies.
“...Radke said the Tea Party opposition to net neutrality stems from concerns over increased government power.
I think the clearest thing is its an affront to free speech and free markets, she said.
She said more Tea Party groups plan to make time to focus on net neutrality ahead of the midterm elections.
If you’re gonna talk about a poster on FR, please have the courtesy to ping Him/her. I know I would appreciate it.
The talking heads on CNBC were just discussing this. The NYT guy and Walter Issacson (former CNN prez) think “net neutrality” is a very good idea.
If they’re for it, I’m against it.
- Why are most self-proclaimed “experts” always radical leftwing college professors, “Progressives”, politicians with stealthy slimy financial interests and insider agendas (the average of someone in Congress is over 1.2M dollars - $1,200,000,000 - in Congress they often came to Congress often making only $19,000 a year yet spending countless millions to get elected), dingbat Socialist Elitists, &/or unaccountable scamming scummy criminals .
- Government seeks to constantly expand and control - 8000 new rules or regulations or Executive Orders costs American taxpayers huge ever-growing amounts of money through taxes, fees, and hidden grabathons - currently new rules and regulation with cost Americans 120 BILLION smackeroos a year.
- Whatta deal Lucille!
“You can get with other members of your community and solicit other providers to come to your community to provide competition.”
Yea, all five of us. We’re lucky to get what we have. Soon
the tards will be paying the providers to limit access to
their competitors site. And it will domino after that. Sorta
like caller ID block unlock block.
Look for a lot of hacking to take place.
Unsure just how it works, but Roku has many free specialty channels that could only appeal to very small demographics. They send out a newsletter every month with all the new channels available. Some are pay, some are PPV and many are free.
‘Total hot air out of that article. Youtube gets a heck of a living from advertisers and doesnt need to charge for viewing any videos. Net neutrality is all about giving the FCC more power.’
You’re confused about the issue.
This ruling means Time Warner (my ISP) could completely block YouTube. After all, Time Warner sells video content services, why would they want me to have YouTube access? Same goes double for Netflix.
The main reason I’m for Net Neutrality is that what we pay per month covers ALL of Time Warner’s costs for traffic, plus profit. YouTube and Netflix pay handsomely for their network bandwidth. There’s no justification for a further shakedown by the ISPs.
All that said, I sure hope there’s a LOT more competitive landscape for ISPs in the not distant future. I’d sure love gigabit fiber!
And you think the FCC having more control will be the solution to this (thus far imaginary) problem?
There’s a reason that communists want net neutrality, you know. This is a worldwide thing.
“I really dont see this happening as long as there is competition in the market place.”
The problem is that in wide swaths of the country there is NO competition. In many places there is only a single provider, and in many other places there are essentially none. In the best of cases there are only two anyway, and so if both decide on the exact same policies, then what? For all practical purposes, ISP access is nearly a monopoly and at best simply a duopoly.