In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”
“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”
Dish's IP service only works if they provide the IP as well.May make for more competition of services that would not have such restrictions as an advantage. I guess this would not bode well for Dish's new IP service they want to launch as well or for those that want to do Roku or go online and view the content on demand.
There are a couple realities.This is very bad and I am wondering just exactly what the president meant when he said he would work to ensure net neutrality. Internet service acts a lot like a utility at this point, regardless of whether the ISPs want it to be or not.
The New Yorker has piece today on Mr. Obama's previously stated stance and his flip flop of position. I don't generally like discussing politics on message boards, but this is relevant, IMO.
That's the problem here though, it is a political issue. Some things are relative and subject to judgment, others are black and white. I tried to stick with the later as I know Scott tries to keep the forum free of the derails.This is why political talk is not allowed...........
What I don't get is that I pay for a certain stream rate. I guess I'd need to check the contract (I never signed a contract, though) and see whether it gives the provider the right to throttle services I try to download.This sucks. Very badly. We are being fleeced by ISPs and nobody is standing up for us. Wheeler is a stooge. Now we know why Ken Bode calls this "regulatory capture" (regarding the FCC).
So riddle me this... what in the heck am I paying for? I pay for up to 15 Mbps. But then they tank the download speed capability of the service I want to use. How in the heck is that even remotely legal?
WASHINGTON—Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes.
The Federal Communications Commission plans to put forth its rules on Thursday. The proposal marks the FCC's third attempt at enforcing "net neutrality"—the concept that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
Developed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the proposal is an effort to prevent broadband Internet providers such as Comcast Corp. , Verizon Communications Inc., and Time Warner Cable TWC from blocking or slowing down individual websites served up to the consumer. The idea is that consumers should be able to access whatever content they choose, not the content chosen by the broadband provider.
But it would also allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable" terms for all interested content companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t....html?emc=edit_na_20140423&nlid=62430113&_r=0
Someone just got paid under the table to allow ISPs to hold content providers and their subscribers hostage. Absolutely ridiculous.
As a businessman, shareholder and cable customer...I could not disagree more. It is long past time that freeloaders like Netflix (and Joe Blow who is streaming video 24x7) start paying for their share of bandwidth they're using. I commend the FCC for taking action that is in the best interest of consumers.
As a businessman, shareholder and cable customer...I could not disagree more. It is long past time that freeloaders like Netflix (and Joe Blow who is streaming video 24x7) start paying for their share of bandwidth they're using. I commend the FCC for taking action that is in the best interest of consumers.
Based on the wonky face at the end, I'm not going to take the statement seriously.Is this a bad joke?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?