so content providers cannot pay for fast lane but consumer can pay for fast access? I am confused. I would prefer FCC enact a minimum speed rule instead, say the slowest speed cannot be less than 80% of the fastest.
This is about prioritization of bandwidth. Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra. Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content. New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.
<Tallest Skil> Sooo you want to leave it in the hands of a monopolistic ISP's to decide what you can and cannot see/hear?
Ya that'll be in our best interest! NOT!
Tallest Skil is either an astroturfer or is seriously blinded by his hatred for the current administration. Either way, you aren't going to have a civil discussion with him/her. Case in point look at his/her knee-jerk responses to your posts.
Tallest Skil is either an astroturfer or is seriously blinded by his hatred for the current administration.
Keep your delusions to yourself.
If you had any actual rebuttal to what I’ve said, you’d have posted it.
Oh, and I find your comment to be ‘harmful’ to me, so under this new legislation the comment must be removed by the owner of the site, otherwise the site will be blocked from public access. Please note that I don’t actually want that to happen, but that’s what the law says. You don’t want to be in violation of the law, do you?
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
The most accurate and forboding assessment yet. Even the horror that I can accurately predict (like imminent taxation and speech regulation) will pale in comparison to what we can not predict the government will do.
Shame on the people who support this heinous power grab.
Sure, after all, why would anyone in their right mind want to hear a legal opinion from someone who is actually trained in the law. I'm guessing you don't believe in vaccinations, either, since the only people who are proponents of them are those annoying doctors. Keep drinking the Kool Aide.
Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.
Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.
In what world do you consider this a victory? This is the worst thing imaginable for consumers.
The comparison to electical power transmission is completely false. The ISPs don't generate internet the way an electical utility generates electical power.
"Sitting before the commission in support of the new rules were Chad Dickerson, the co-founder and CEO of Etsy, and Veena Sud, creator of television drama The Killing, which was saved from a premature death by Netflix."
Ha! Saved by Netflix who is well-known to have paid Comcast (maybe other providers) for priority access on its network! This is a pile of horse manure. More regulation gets us closer to a big brother nanny state. If that's what you want, move to Europe. This is the land of the free (or was).
This is about prioritization of bandwidth. Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra. Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content. New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.
Bandwidth has a cost. Bad things always happen when you attempt to divorce cost from price.
Comments
so content providers cannot pay for fast lane but consumer can pay for fast access? I am confused. I would prefer FCC enact a minimum speed rule instead, say the slowest speed cannot be less than 80% of the fastest.
This is about prioritization of bandwidth. Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra. Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content. New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.
<Tallest Skil> Sooo you want to leave it in the hands of a monopolistic ISP's to decide what you can and cannot see/hear?
Ya that'll be in our best interest! NOT!
Tallest Skil is either an astroturfer or is seriously blinded by his hatred for the current administration. Either way, you aren't going to have a civil discussion with him/her. Case in point look at his/her knee-jerk responses to your posts.
Step 1: FCC takes control over internet
Step 2: FCC enacts new internet access taxes to fund FCCs unlawful takeover and monitoring of the internet
Step 3: FCC begins enacting regulations that control what you can and can not say on the internet.
Step 4: FCC rules that you obtain an FCC permit to create websites
Step 5: FCC shuts down any website that FCC does not approve of, to shift according to which political party is in power.
Never, ever, ever trust your government. If you do, you are a fool, and on the fast track to servitude.
Keep your delusions to yourself.
If you had any actual rebuttal to what I’ve said, you’d have posted it.
Oh, and I find your comment to be ‘harmful’ to me, so under this new legislation the comment must be removed by the owner of the site, otherwise the site will be blocked from public access. Please note that I don’t actually want that to happen, but that’s what the law says. You don’t want to be in violation of the law, do you?
I am an attorney
Nuf said!
Oh, the irony.
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
The most accurate and forboding assessment yet. Even the horror that I can accurately predict (like imminent taxation and speech regulation) will pale in comparison to what we can not predict the government will do.
Shame on the people who support this heinous power grab.
Oh, the irony.
Oh, the idiocy.
Sure, after all, why would anyone in their right mind want to hear a legal opinion from someone who is actually trained in the law. I'm guessing you don't believe in vaccinations, either, since the only people who are proponents of them are those annoying doctors. Keep drinking the Kool Aide.
Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.
In what world do you consider this a victory? This is the worst thing imaginable for consumers.
I hope you don't vote.
You realize you’re agreeing with him for believing the opposite of what you claim to support, right?
Just more irony.
No.
Everyone but the government lost.
Corporations “winning” and persons “winning” are not mutually exclusive.
What does this mean for the average consumer?
It means higher prices mainly form new taxes and fees that will be added.
Ha! Saved by Netflix who is well-known to have paid Comcast (maybe other providers) for priority access on its network! This is a pile of horse manure. More regulation gets us closer to a big brother nanny state. If that's what you want, move to Europe. This is the land of the free (or was).
This is about prioritization of bandwidth. Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra. Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content. New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.
Bandwidth has a cost. Bad things always happen when you attempt to divorce cost from price.
It means higher prices mainly form new taxes and fees that will be added.
Followed by the FCC deciding which content is proper and which is not.