Potential Impacts on Dish Anywhere/Sling?
- Thread starter milequatro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 15
- Views 3K
It is an article on what the decision on net neutrality means for the average user. I do not see sling being an issue because that is something a private individual does and is not a service like netflix or HBOGO.
IF the FCC decides to reclassify the internet as a common carrier, in order to regulate it , the internet could very well become like Cable/satellite. This would cost everyone buckets of $$ in order to do what you do now on the internet. They could charge you more if you use Netflix or Hulu etc. They could limit only certain apps and block the rest. The ruling of the federal appeals court today, effectively killed net neutrality and with that, gave all the power to the companies, who own the way you get your internet connection. They get to decide now what happens on their company lines and infrastructure. In effect we the consumers,are all screwed.
The real issue is congress has not given the FCC the authority to do any of this. Second time it has been struck down.
Sent from my iPad2 using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPad2 using SatelliteGuys
I said 100% because I have good memory. (Wife says selective)
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/02/6289-2/
And Since that time Verizon had blocked it on FIOS briefly but I can't find an article on it.
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/02/6289-2/
And Since that time Verizon had blocked it on FIOS briefly but I can't find an article on it.
The problem is when cable internet subs see themselves paying $60-100+ for internet they expect great quality of service for the sites they visit. The internet part of their business may not be regulated now, but the cable TV side is. When the natives get restless they could make a lot of trouble for the cableTV side of the business if the internet side is making them mad.
The FCC does have the authority to regulate, but they did it wrong technically. If ISPs are classifieds as common carriers, then the FCC does have authority. ISPs are not currently classified as common carriers, so the FCC does not have authority to regulate them as such. The FCC can re-classify them as common carriers, and then would have the authority to make such rules.
The ISPs used to be classified as common carriers, but the petitioned the FCC to reclassify them in the mid 2000s as non-common carriers. The ISP's arguements were that they provided services, not just internet access. They provided: email, web hosting, etc. In my opinion those arguments were not valid. They did provide such services included with internet access, but I did not know one single person who chose their ISP based upon email or web hosting. I know very few people who actually used the ISP email or web hosting. Now, I don't believe many ISPs offer web hosting included in the price of internet access. AT&T has stopped providing email services and sends its users to Yahoo mail.
The ISPs used to be classified as common carriers, but the petitioned the FCC to reclassify them in the mid 2000s as non-common carriers. The ISP's arguements were that they provided services, not just internet access. They provided: email, web hosting, etc. In my opinion those arguments were not valid. They did provide such services included with internet access, but I did not know one single person who chose their ISP based upon email or web hosting. I know very few people who actually used the ISP email or web hosting. Now, I don't believe many ISPs offer web hosting included in the price of internet access. AT&T has stopped providing email services and sends its users to Yahoo mail.
There are potential impacts on Sling.
AT&T is proposing that companies that pay AT&T would not be counted against bandwidth caps. I could see AT&T potentially reducing the caps to a lower level.
That could produce the following scenario:
You pay $40-60 a month for 25GB of internet. If Netflix pays AT&T extra money, then Netflix does not count against the 25GB. Your private Sling device however would count against the 25GB, so you will be limited to about 6 hours of HD Sling watching.
AT&T is proposing that companies that pay AT&T would not be counted against bandwidth caps. I could see AT&T potentially reducing the caps to a lower level.
That could produce the following scenario:
You pay $40-60 a month for 25GB of internet. If Netflix pays AT&T extra money, then Netflix does not count against the 25GB. Your private Sling device however would count against the 25GB, so you will be limited to about 6 hours of HD Sling watching.
Agree with both. I'm not sure the Government won't just find another way to get something like Net Neutrality when the complaints come rolling in.
And that scenario has the "ring" of what could happen. On that "note" I see Beats Headphones is starting a music streaming service associated with At&t. Special deal if you have At&t mobile.
It's one thing to allow benefits to companies to not give restrictions to certain applications (a good thing) but another to block certain ones altogether (a bad thing). To not give restrictions is offering something that we did not have before vs blocking things that we already had.
Huh? Are you fully awake at 2AM? If your point is that it's fine and dandy to restrict e.g. Netflix streaming because it competes with your own video offering, then I seriously disagree with your statement.
Are you fully awake at 2AM? If your point is that it's fine and dandy to restrict e.g. Netflix streaming because it competes with your own video offering, then I seriously disagree with your statement.IF the FCC decides to reclassify the internet as a common carrier, in order to regulate it , the internet could very well become like Cable/satellite. This would cost everyone buckets of $$ in order to do what you do now on the internet. They could charge you more if you use Netflix or Hulu etc. They could limit only certain apps and block the rest. The ruling of the federal appeals court today, effectively killed net neutrality and with that, gave all the power to the companies, who own the way you get your internet connection. They get to decide now what happens on their company lines and infrastructure. In effect we the consumers,are all screwed.
Nothing is "killed" by this ruling nor is net neutrality doomed. This will be appealed with, perhaps, eventually the Supreme Court choosing to hear the case and make a final ruling, but one could see the Supreme Court ruling that it is up to Congress (via FCC), not for any court to decide.
CORRECT on facts and analysis (rare around here). The reason the FCC has not moved to reclassify ISP's is because Obama wanted and has gotten (through his appointments) his "hands-off" FCC. This FCC is doing everything to avoid ruling in the favor of consumers and granting waivers in favor or MSO's like candy on Halloween, forcing consumers to spend money for conditional access hardware (cable box with a monthly fee) to access their local channels, and lots more waivers for the big boys that cost consumers more $$$ effectively breaking the promises and assurances the FCC made that consumers would not have to pay for access (still paying a package fee to get the locals) to programming that is free (OTA) and that would not render their cable ready TV's and DVR's obsolete. What's the point of the low powered analog OTA's the FCC allowed during the change to digital if the FCC continues to grant waiver after waiver to DVR makers and others allowing them NOT to have analog tuners? That's "hands-off" for you. Just LOTS of bad FCC decisions against the consumer.
Last edited:
I am sure it will be appealed, but if the decision was to stand as it is , we the consumer would be screwed. The internet providers could do what they wanted , charge what they wanted. They could charge more for the best speeds, making good broadband out of reach for the majority of the average Americans out there. Only the Rich would get the best speeds and with that might mean the best apps. We could see the cable-lization of the internet so to speak and with it cable like prices that go up and up and up. This could be changed easily by the FCC reclassifying the internet under the common carrier heading and then they could regulate it.
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014...adband-fcc-ruling-editorials-debates/4543059/
