Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn
FoxNews.com ^ | Published January 14, 2014 | Fox News Staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: constitutional; experts; freedom; information; netneutrailty; smexperts
UH-OH !!!!

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

1 posted on 01/14/2014 11:12:55 PM PST by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
'Without these rules, consumers are at the mercy of their providers ... and business arrangements that could severely limit access to certain content.'

I really don’t 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.

2 posted on 01/14/2014 11:25:20 PM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

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.


3 posted on 01/14/2014 11:26:51 PM PST by AnAmericanInEngland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


4 posted on 01/14/2014 11:28:17 PM PST by packrat35 (Pelosi is only on loan to the world from Satan. Hopefully he will soon want his baby killer back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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]


5 posted on 01/14/2014 11:30:22 PM PST by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; AnAmericanInEngland

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.


6 posted on 01/14/2014 11:37:14 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
Why do the liberals and liberal politicians push net neutrality so hard, then? and the socialists overseas? It’s about government control of the internet getting tighter and nothing else. Asking conservatives to support that is asking them to support big government.

Look up the name “Robert McChesney”.
7 posted on 01/14/2014 11:42:52 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
Who would be hurt more by charging for YouTube - YouTube, the person who posts the video or the person who wants to watch?

I can live without watching YouTube. But what about the YouTube investors?

8 posted on 01/14/2014 11:43:51 PM PST by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

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.


9 posted on 01/14/2014 11:46:27 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


10 posted on 01/14/2014 11:54:45 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Net neutrality was never about “unhindered access to the internet” anyhow. The more control you give to the FCC, the greater the liberal influence.


11 posted on 01/14/2014 11:56:29 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

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.


12 posted on 01/14/2014 11:58:44 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

god IS THIS PONT. GUY A CORPORATE PLANT OR JUST PLAIN STOOOOPID?


13 posted on 01/14/2014 11:59:42 PM PST by jimsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
What does MSM have to do with it?

I am talking markets and the quest for the almighty dollar.

I won’t bother to mention the right to contract and control ones own property.

14 posted on 01/15/2014 12:00:20 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


15 posted on 01/15/2014 12:00:56 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

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....


16 posted on 01/15/2014 12:02:12 AM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

No liberal in DC would agree to that. And frankly, no new laws are needed; many need to be repealed.


17 posted on 01/15/2014 12:04:03 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
I really don’t see this happening as long as there is competition in the market place....I have at least Windstream and Time Warner available to me.

Most of us do not have such choices - I have Comcast and whatever they choose to prioritize, and I can either like it or I can go dial-up. So if Comcast chooses to prioritize their own pay-per-view service at Netflix's expense, I can either deal with limited bandwidth for my Netflix viewing or I can switch to Comcast's own service.
18 posted on 01/15/2014 12:08:18 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
Yeah, that worked out real well when airlines starting charging extra for everything.

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.

19 posted on 01/15/2014 12:11:15 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Actually, the court didn't address the first amendment argument Verizon was making in their ruling, but the did seem skeptical of it.

Given our disposition of the latter issue, we have no need to address Verizon’s additional contentions that the Order violates the First Amendment and constitutes an uncompensated taking.

20 posted on 01/15/2014 12:12:36 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

It may be hard to believe, but the airlines we deregulated in 1978. It was a broadly bipartisan vote, and Carter signed it.


21 posted on 01/15/2014 12:15:58 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

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.


22 posted on 01/15/2014 12:17:40 AM PST by RockyTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
So if Comcast chooses to prioritize their own pay-per-view service at Netflix's expense, I can either deal with limited bandwidth for my Netflix viewing or I can switch to Comcast's own service.

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 don’t like them get involved and get rid of them.

23 posted on 01/15/2014 12:22:58 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RockyTx

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.


24 posted on 01/15/2014 12:25:08 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


25 posted on 01/15/2014 12:38:02 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
and control local government asserts,

Don’t 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.

26 posted on 01/15/2014 1:09:31 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
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.


I can certainly try, and I will not succeed for the following reason: other providers must pay to establish the infrastructure to provide this competition, and the cost is prohibitively expensive. Companies like Verizon have stopped rolling out broadband fiber because their stocks take a beating when they make such investments, and cable is effectively a monopoly in 98% of the US because the cost of laying new cable is too high for any competition to form.

80% of the US gets it's Internet via Comcast cable or Time-Warner cable. That's not because we love them - it's because we have no choice. And that's the way it'll stay - the two companies are well connected to both political parties in Washington - Comcast's CEO is one of Obama's golfing pals on his Martha's Vineyard trips. And why on earth would Comcast or Time-Warner want to help Netflix or Hulu or Amazon sell you TV content at $8/month over their cable Internet service when Comcast and Time-Warner sell TV content themselves for 10 times that amount?
27 posted on 01/15/2014 1:37:57 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

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.


28 posted on 01/15/2014 1:58:58 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
If a ISP puts limitations on what you do with your internet service you simply go to another provider.

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.

29 posted on 01/15/2014 2:00:01 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
How many providers go by your house?

Two, but the technology exist for a third.

The technology exist for electric companies to provide Internet Service of power lines.

How Broadband Over Powerlines Works

Regulations should always be the last resort.

30 posted on 01/15/2014 2:22:54 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

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.


31 posted on 01/15/2014 2:54:20 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

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.


32 posted on 01/15/2014 2:58:14 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

I thought this decision was freeing?


33 posted on 01/15/2014 3:51:52 AM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Well over 70% of the US population has NO competition for high speed internet service providers able to maintain high speed streaming.

QUOTE:
“[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.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/12/261924972/internet-in-america-an-on-again-off-again-relationship


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.


34 posted on 01/15/2014 4:08:31 AM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

There are satilite companies.


35 posted on 01/15/2014 4:10:11 AM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
Tea Party groups out against net neutrality

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/114101-tea-party-groups-come-out-against-net-neutrality
“...Radke said the Tea Party opposition to net neutrality stems from concerns over increased government power.

“I think the clearest thing is it’s 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.

...”

36 posted on 01/15/2014 4:44:47 AM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimsin; Pontiac

If you’re gonna talk about a poster on FR, please have the courtesy to ping Him/her. I know I would appreciate it.

CC


37 posted on 01/15/2014 4:50:17 AM PST by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

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.

period.


38 posted on 01/15/2014 4:52:25 AM PST by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider







I am an expert and I am here to help tax you







39 posted on 01/15/2014 4:58:42 AM PST by devolve ("He's just 'too talented' to do what 'ordinary people' do." "Barry of Bungle" "Homo Electus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

"If you like your freedom of speech,
you can keep your freedom of speech.
Period!"

40 posted on 01/15/2014 5:25:00 AM PST by Old Sarge (TINVOWOOT: There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

-

- 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!


41 posted on 01/15/2014 5:27:43 AM PST by devolve ("He's just 'too talented' to do what 'ordinary people' do." "Barry of Bungle" "Homo Electus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

“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.


42 posted on 01/15/2014 5:57:59 AM PST by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Slambat

Look for a lot of hacking to take place.


43 posted on 01/15/2014 6:35:38 AM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

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.


44 posted on 01/15/2014 7:07:14 AM PST by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

‘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.’

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!


45 posted on 01/15/2014 8:17:12 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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.


46 posted on 01/15/2014 9:10:50 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

“I really don’t 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.


47 posted on 01/15/2014 2:58:55 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3111592/posts


48 posted on 01/15/2014 5:24:32 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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