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.
my conspiracy theory would be now that comcast bought nbc, and nbc owns half of hulu.
what if comcast internet subscribers are no longer able to stream netflix ? or it buffers so much that only low quality standard-definition streams are possible.
maybe many customers would cancel netflix and buy hulu accounts.
No, Netflix will just add even worse shows that are 40 years old that nobody even watched back then.
02-18-2015, 07:38 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
my conspiracy theory would be now that comcast bought nbc, and nbc owns half of hulu.
what if comcast internet subscribers are no longer able to stream netflix ? or it buffers so much that only low quality standard-definition streams are possible.
maybe many customers would cancel netflix and buy hulu accounts.
Things like this are exactly why companies like companies like Comcast are so opposed to net neutrality. A free, open internet makes it very difficult for them to push their services over those of some other company, and it makes it very difficult to extort piles of cash from other companies.
I've yet to see an argument from the anti-neutrality crowd that both makes sense and sounds like it would be good for anyone but the ISPs.
Comcast and Sprint are all in for the soon to be promulgated FCC Open Internet regulations deriving their power from the Telecommunication Act of 1996 which, by the by, does not ban multi-tier impositions of broadband monthly fees for "fast lanes" of "Internet pipes."
Think one size fits all. Broadband providers would be considered common carriers and, unless the FCC wants to discriminate against the old common carriers (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.), the FCC must treat all the regulated equally.
So fast, not so fast, and dead last.
Check their websites.
Of course, Title VI of the 1996 will allow the FCC to penalized ISPs, and I guess edge providers such as NETFLIX, HULUPLUS, for violations of public morality, i.e. nipple slips. As one FCC said in a "Q&A" because the FCC gotta enforce the law (think Judge Dredd).
Net neutrality is not one size fits all. It simply means that the ISP who sits between the content provider and the consumer is going to treat packets of data flowing across their network equally. There is nothing preventing a consumer on one end or a someone operating a server on the other end from buying faster services.
If we are to assume the consumer is paying for 5Mbps connection:
Connects to any site or service capable of 5Mbps and gets 5Mbps, net neutrality achieved.
Connects to a site capable of 5Mbps and gets 5Mbps, connects to another capable of 1Mbps and gets 1Mbps, net neutrality achieved.
Connects to any site or service capable of 10Mbps and gets 5Mbps, net neutrality achieved.
Connects to a site capable of 5Mbps and gets 5Mbps, connects to another capable of 5Mbps and gets 1Mbps, net neutrality NOT achieved.
The ISP's do love the "unlimited" plans because it's great marketing gimmick however with the onset of these high bandwidth services like Netflix it's no longer sustainable because people are actually using it. The only way they can continue with those plans without jacking the rates through the roof is by offloading the costs onto the content provider.
After February 26, it appears that the big and little broadband providers and everyone else will be licensed and regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as common carriers. The ACT will allow multiple tiered treatment of edge providers (NETFLIX, HULUPLUS, AMAZON Prime) and end users (you and me).
So fast, not so fast and dead last depending if you want to pay to use the commuter lanes or not.
Also, the FCC used its police power under Article VI of that ACT to fine the network for the nipple slip at the super bowl. Likewise, Title VI will be a shadow over the wild west which is the present Internet. Maybe we need big brother to tell us what we can view. Will there be a 10:00 PM rule?
Not sure if this falls into that category or not, but I've noticed that Google Phone can now only be used if you are using Chrome to access your GMail account. It certainly seems to me like an ugly head rising. It is not hard to follow that chain to a scenariio where you have to have several different browsers, each one to access sites and features that are "owned" by your browser. For example, YouTube only accessible through Chrome, and then Firefox merging with Facebook and establishing exclusivity rights.
I believe the law was struck down. Net neutrality lives on. But rest assured, the battle is on. The ISP's have more money than God, and they want more. They will be back with a new angle. Might take some time, but they have waaay more money and power than me and you. They WILL get their way eventually.
No matter if you're for it or against it, somewhere in the 332 pages of the proposed rules they are sentences that will be misinterpreted and will all see rate increases, new taxes and fees.
Exactly. I'm not concerned about the rules over net neutrality. I'm concerned about what is in the other 331 pages. Tiitle II allows for the USF charge you see on your phone bill. The mechanism is there and honestly how long is that going to last before they use it?
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.
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.
No. Not True
