Obama weighs in on net neutrality..
- Thread starter milequatro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 50
- Views 5K
Treating it as a utility may give the FCC the regulatory oversight, that would have otherwise needed to come from a Congress that would have a hard time passing a bill to pay for a "Blast the comet that is about to destroy Earth bill". Seems logical. If telephone is a utility, broadband really should be as well. Both are communication portals and broadband is pretty much a telephone line on steroids.
Personally the idea that a local ISP can choke the last five or ten miles of a hundreds to thousand mile hike that data travels is absurd. Especially when they advertise their product to stream entertainment!
Personally the idea that a local ISP can choke the last five or ten miles of a hundreds to thousand mile hike that data travels is absurd. Especially when they advertise their product to stream entertainment!
"... the idea that a local ISP can choke the last five or ten miles of a hundreds to thousand mile hike that data travels is absurd. Especially when they advertise their product to stream entertainment!"
QFT.
It is corruption - a shakedown.
QFT.
It is corruption - a shakedown.
I wouldn't say corruption, but definitely is a shakedown. It's like in the TV shows, the mobsters charging a business a safety insurance fee monthly, and if not pud, they would bust up their entire shop. That's what is happening here.
I guess corruption may fit, I just like to save that word for governments...
I guess corruption may fit, I just like to save that word for governments...
Well regardless of analogies, NN seems to have gotten a breath of a chance. I did my share with FFTF. Anyone else?
I made the call to the FCC. Did you not get the info? I got way too much, but that's OK.
This is really off topic for the Dish forum unless you consider that Dish wants to launch a video over internet service. If the FCC comes up with a way to stop the tolls on connecting to the ISPs, Dish could really benefit since they could launch their product and the local cable company would not be allowed to slow down or block Dish's content.
Not quite..especially for those of us with Hoppers/Sling adapters who stream Dish Anywhere...
I don't know where I stand on this.
Fact...In most instances where government is involved in private sector business, regulation well tempered and sensible is good. The problem is always one size fits all regulations that end up drilling the consumer in the pocket book and the intended improvement of services never materializes.
We just wind up paying more for less service.
Fact, most of us want an "open and technologically advancing internet"...With that in mind, someone has GOT to pay for the advancement in technology.
In my opinion, that burden should fall upon the heaviest users of bandwidth. Those would be gamers and those who use the internet for most of their viewing content.
If regulations come with balance between the interests of the providers AND the consumers, then we'd have a good and equitable system.
Lastly, the internet is NOT a public utility. Most of us require electricity and where available, gas to heat our homes. A plain old telephone( for those who still use those services) is a lifeline for those users.
Water and sewer? Yes, in the case where there is no other option, that is an essential......Cable TV and internet do not fit these descriptions.
A reminder. Cable TV was deregulated decades ago. Yes the prices have risen far faster than that of inflation. However the expansion of cable has been remarkable
Fact...In most instances where government is involved in private sector business, regulation well tempered and sensible is good. The problem is always one size fits all regulations that end up drilling the consumer in the pocket book and the intended improvement of services never materializes.
We just wind up paying more for less service.
Fact, most of us want an "open and technologically advancing internet"...With that in mind, someone has GOT to pay for the advancement in technology.
In my opinion, that burden should fall upon the heaviest users of bandwidth. Those would be gamers and those who use the internet for most of their viewing content.
If regulations come with balance between the interests of the providers AND the consumers, then we'd have a good and equitable system.
Lastly, the internet is NOT a public utility. Most of us require electricity and where available, gas to heat our homes. A plain old telephone( for those who still use those services) is a lifeline for those users.
Water and sewer? Yes, in the case where there is no other option, that is an essential......Cable TV and internet do not fit these descriptions.
A reminder. Cable TV was deregulated decades ago. Yes the prices have risen far faster than that of inflation. However the expansion of cable has been remarkable
Net neutrality has nothing to do with paying for usage. I pay $X/month for Y gigs of data at a Z speed. My ISP should provide Z speed for Y gigs (which they have agreed to provide at the $X price) without them getting to throttle some portion of my Y gigs just because they feel like it or just because they don't like the competition from the source of that data. Also, it's absurd to propose that tech advancements will stagnate if someone doesn't "pay." There are plenty of countries with much better broadband connectivity than the US where monthly prices are less (if not significantly less) than average US internet prices.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you here. The internet is a public utility in the same way that the telephone is. I don't have time to go into how fundamental the internet has become to basic everyday life. The other things you listed as "essentials" and therefore public utilities are convenient, but not necessarily essential. Plenty of people throughout history have lived and thrived without electricity, gas, telephone, running water and sewers. Having all of those improves our quality of life, but essential? That's not really the word I would use.
The Internet fifteen years ago, no. The Internet as it stands today and in the future? Most certainly. IP is a telephone on steroids. In fact, many people use the IP for the phone today, amongst other things. And there may be less concern about the issue if it weren't for the fact that media companies are so conglomerated and they are in bed or owned or own the companies that offer IP.
Here is the reality. Level III, Qwest, etc... are the companies that spent a fortune laying down the fiber backbone in this country. This is what our information goes through. Comcast, AT&T, etc... only have the pipeline for the last few miles of a very long trip. That Net Neutrality is off the books and Internet "providers" are already choking the line is a bad sign and we need to return to where things were. We all (media providers included) pay to upload and download via bandwidth already.
So I see that the FCC Comissioner chimed in and said basically sorry Mr. President he is going to do what he wants.
http://gizmodo.com/fcc-rumored-to-break-with-obamas-thinking-1657756725
http://gizmodo.com/fcc-rumored-to-break-with-obamas-thinking-1657756725
And the disinformation campaign is flowing like water on this subject! They do this all the time or make a bill sound the opposite of what it really does...
