Featured Net Neutrality

They're already doing that.

Yep, pretty much.

Why shouldn't we want ISPs to be free to do it their way? That's the situation we have right now. That is free market. That is minimal regulation. Aren't conservatives against regulations on markets?

 

Seems to me like it's working pretty well. But not being extremely savvy on the subject, just how could the government improve it? Or............

Is it about improvement or is it about control and money...specifically by and for the government?

 

As I mentioned previously, if the government is going to regulate anything it should be a mandated minimum connection speed, let's say 50 Mbps.

It's not about improvement. It's about guaranteeing access for everyone at a crappy connection speed. I'm sure there is some government control lurking in there too.

 

CTB - you're against sales tax on the internet, but you'd be okay with federal utility-like taxes on it? But we would get much higher tax revenue from sales tax....

And arguing for the ISPs, or arguing for Obama's proposal--we get poorer service either way.

 

I think you mean to say we have started to pay sales tax on items purchased from Amazon BECAUSE they have a distribution center within the state. That is the situation here in Minnesota. Did not pay sales tax on Amazon items until they put a distribution center here.

What? How are state sales taxes related to net neutrality?

 

That's NOT how it's going to work. The ISPs will charge content providers, those like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, VuDu, etc. more money to use their internet infrastructure that is used to deliver their product to consumers. These content providers in turn, will need to raise rates with their consumer subscribers. A more likely scenario is that it will cost a customer $5.95 to download a movie from VuDu, but only $3.95 to do it from Comcast because Comcast owns the hardware being used to deliver the movie into people's homes.

 

Explain. If Obama gets his way and can empower the government to regulate the internet, BY DEFINITION, that means they will have an easier time imposing new taxes on it.

There are already four different taxes on my cable bill.

If the internet is classified as a utility, that means providers must get government approval before they raise rates (just like electricity and gas utilities). That means public hearings in front of political boards. That means a dumbing down of services to the least common denominator and a base level of inefficiency. ISP's are not going to innovate or upgrade equipment unless the government allows them to do it.

I'm all for net neutrality, just not the "Let's make the internet a utility" idea.

 

I think you are way out of your league here. I don't think you understand how content is delivered by the various providers.

Comcast has movies on demand, where you pay for each movie over cable TV. Comcast charges you a monthly cable TV fee to get a package of channels to watch and to be able to have the option to pay for a movie on demand.

VuDu, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, are video on demand services that stream over the internet. It happens that these services typically use the cable TV companies equipment to bring their content into people's homes. Example: I have my cable TV with Comcast and my internet access with Comcast. (I could get my internet through my phone company but they have lousy service and slower connection speeds.) So I get VuDu over the internet but it comes to my house via Comcast's buried coax cables.

Now, if I want to watch the movie "Argo", it doesn't come included with my cable TV package with Comcast, it's an extra on demand charge. I can check prices on Comcast, VuDu and Amazon Prime. I can then select whichever provider I deem has the best price and signal quality.

Then there is the ability to stream movies over your phone. They would be subject to your data usage with your cell phone provider.

But, Comcast and VuDu do not come as a package, and most movies on Comcast that are relatively new releases are pay to watch, a separate charge from your monthly cable bill.

 

I tend to stay out of these debates when they involve technology, because I cringe at the technology inept and their attempts to debate something they don't understand.

In this case, I can't let this slide by however. Veronica was a search engine for Gopher. Archie was a search engine for FTP. Neither of these legacy search engines are used by any type of mainstream, or even close to mainstream, site today. Gopher is only used by those hobbyists wishing to relive the past. FTP is still widely used, but nothing is powered by Archie for searching FTP.

 

Nobody has accused anybody of anything until you showed up. Everyone has been respectful, and is merely asking C.T.Boy to clarify his position.

Sold their soul ? What a crock.

 

We know how democrats work. Obama promised nobody who liked their insurance would lose it, then told the people who did end up losing it that their insurance was substandard.

Now Obama wants to do the same with the internet. Yeah, you are right. I don't trust him.

The internet is already neutral, and the person who started this thread has no idea what he is talking about.

 

Here's the free market reaction to Obama's plan:

AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty

(Reuters) - AT&T Inc (T.N) will stop investing in new high-speed Internet connections in 100 U.S. cities until regulators decide whether to enact tough "net neutrality" rules proposed by President Obama, Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said on Wednesday.

The investment pause is the most dramatic action yet by a telecommunications or cable company after Obama on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Internet service providers more like public utilities.

At the same time, AT&T had been spending heavily acquisitions and had cut its capital spending estimate for 2015.

Companies and industry groups have already protested Obama's proposal, saying it would stifle growth and investment.

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," Stephenson said at an analyst conference.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...JC20141112?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...tack-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/

Net neutrality is an idea that would give the FCC oversight of every Internet service provider in the country. Government could next expand because each Internet service provider needs clarification when applying new net neutrality regulations. Innovation, naturally would be diminished in such a new regulatory regime, as some of the Internet service providers’ funds would have to go to hiring people to deal with the FCC, as well as to complying with regulations and lobbying for better regulations. Since the late 1990s private companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing America’s Internet. This money could dry up if the companies can’t make profits from their investments.

 

Looks like there's a problem in paradise.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/


Obama’s call for an open Internet puts him at odds with regulators


Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.

Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he has preferred a more nuanced solution. That approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.

 

Yes, I read that article over lunch. Interesting that one of Obama's motivation for net neutrality is to pick a deliberate fight with the GOP over it in order to score points with "young, progressive techies".

 

He's desperate for some kind of win after being trounced in the election.

He is so shallow.