Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He said that about having an FCC against Net Neutrality. Let's just be clear: John Oliver's piece was 100% in favor of Net Neutrality.
Cool. Is there a way of doing that without involving government?
Watch for yourself... the analogy of "hiring a dingo to babysit my baby" was made when Obama picked Tom Wheeler a former lobbyist for the cable industry as the next chair of the FCC
market competition is effectively not there as you admit by your statement I believe. net neutraility deals with reality.
Lets say you watch netflix, and comcasts video service. The quality of netflix sucks, so you tend to use comcasts video service.
Does netflix actually suck? Or is it the underlying bandwidth prioritization? You don't know, you do not have sufficient information to judge it. Free markets work when the underlying information about them exists as well.
These are just some examples of the issues that make net neutrality important.
Comcast's practices are based on their protected monopoly status that is based on the FCC protecting their last mile of copper/fiber, as well as the various bundling, anti-satellite, anti-wifi, anti-competition rules that bar anyone from dethroning them with better service.
How exactly does giving the FCC more power to give ComCast more protection help your NetFlix streaming? Better idea - get the FCC out of the way of unlicensed spectrum, and let anyone transmit packets according to whatever technology backbone they can? Remove the FCC, and in 5 years or less, the open source movement destroys the telecomm giants, who exist on the corpse of an obsolete model and only do so because the FCC keeps the competition away.
why the hell cant this hack tend to taking care of our country
I LIKE Netflix and I do not even have TV any longer
it got too expensive
I hate Obama I really do he has been such a dismal disappointment
and an outright pain in the ass
This situation is nothing like that at all.
It's about delivering a uniform product to all who use it. ISPs like Verizon want to provide better carrier speed to select customers who pay more than the rest of us.
The president is lobbying for the FCC to declare the ISPs as "Common Carriers" and insure there is no discrimination when delivering broadband to subscribers.
What, exactly is there not to like?
Of course, there will always be that element that projects paranoia and fear of any regulation, but that's par for the course.
our freedoms, we should be restricted to one carrier who has full decision on where and when we get internet data. That way they can put an end to competition like Netflix and Amazon Prime. . .so that you have to buy all television from Comcast directly. If you want netlfix, you have to buy netflix AND a netflix charge equal to how much they would lose on you not buying more tv channels
FREEDOM!
We are talking worldwide internet, not public broadcasting.
look at the stock graph embedded in this article when Obama first made the announcement. THAT'S who stands to lose the most - more profits by squeezing us some more. Verizon is already talking about suing.
Wow....the amount of mental gymnastics to make this OBamas fault is amazing.
From the article:
Quote:
President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."
Any time Obama urges tighter restrictions on anything you've got to ask his ulterior motive.
He told us a lot about the ACA laws that were outright lies just to get a bad law passed. Why should this be any different.
As I said it's a lack of trust issue.
Let's see......."No Boots on the ground". That lie was told to his supporters recently if I recall correctly.
How is the tiered system any different than my opting for the cheapest connection vs. my neighbor desiring more speed and paying for it? If it's me or him, or netflix or amazon, what is the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Because its not up to you.
If the system is not being rigged in the way you note below, it is up to me at my end and up to netflix at their end. To some degree their choice is influenced by mine - since I will likely prefer the streaming service that is fastest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
market competition is effectively not there as you admit by your statement I believe. net neutraility deals with reality.
Lets say you watch netflix, and comcasts video service. The quality of netflix sucks, so you tend to use comcasts video service.
Does netflix actually suck? Or is it the underlying bandwidth prioritization? You don't know, you do not have sufficient information to judge it. Free markets work when the underlying information about them exists as well.
These are just some examples of the issues that make net neutrality important.
No, it's not there at the moment. But as I keep saying, as others keep saying, making this a regulated monopoly will hardly address the actual problem - monopolization. While better than unregulated monopoly, this is going to be a terd sandwich we have to fix all over again later.
Free markets work when consumers, regulators, and competitors all work to keep them free. We won't be seeing that here - we'll be seeing a single company working with the regulator to decide just how far they can screw the consumer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.