Discussion in 'Current Events' started by proletarian, Jan 9, 2010.
FCC faces setback in âNet neutrality push - Security- msnbc.com
I'm for anything that keeps the internet as fast as possible. I don't want bandwidth hogs from hogging the internet. I want Free & Equal Access.
At this point in time I also support net neutrality for the same reasons. I am tired of being "Capped" for speed, although 'they' deny it, I know better and am waiting another Company to expand into our area and my speed will quadruple, for the same monthly fee.
These ISP's I am sure cap or limit access speeds in proportion to the amount of throughput in their systems. They are also charging for excess throughput by customers. They also are using the digital media to control absolutely all phases of content and it is going to get much much worse in the near future. In digital you have total control.
I know "THEY" aren't saying anything yet, but look to seeing the remaining AM-FM stations changing to digital and charging a monthly fee for their content. All in good time, they are not in too much of a hurry, but the plans are there. As usual, slow and easy so as not to tick off the public, then before you know it,.........well just like when "THEY" advertized "PAY TV" no ads all programming, no ads, etc etc. Well now we pay through the nose and have ads jammed in our faces as much or more than the programs themselves. Even the internet sites are into charging for their content in the future, you want news? Your gonna pay for it. Even the newspapers who have on-line editions are going to charge in the future, since their readership has nosedived so badly. It's all about money and excess and outrageous profits, reasonable profits went out the window years ago.
Hopefully the FCC puts the brakes on these greedy people so that ALL Americans, rich,poor and fixed incomes can afford to be in touch with the world and their friends. Ok, enough of my rambling, now a word from our sponsor................
Net neutrality is another Orwellian name for silencing speech SEIU and Move on .org want to silence.
Exactly Fitnah. We do not need government regulations to solve a problem that free enterprise can deal with more than adequately.
I am kind of unclear on this.... My understanding is that ISPs are sort of like common carriers like Taxis. They can't discriminate on who is going where . You pay your fare, and the service takes you there.
That said, if you impose extra costs on the provider of a service, you should pay a premium price. Bit Torrent is a resource pig. So is skype. I have used both. They cause problems for others.
So gatekeeper if you wish to purchase a dozen of something you think you'd should pay the same price as the guy who only wants one?
Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc all are victims of the type of service they provide. They need big government's help to keep me from cutting their lines running through my property. As I have to give into government regulation to allow them access through my property they must give into some government regulation. Not to mention other public assets tied up in helping AT&T make money.
I'll have to learn a bit about traffic rates and system capabilities to give a more technical answer but I believe:
The base 99.5% of users should be free to use skype, bit torrent, playboy.com, youboob, whatever as long as its legal. Letting a corporation regulate what folks can read is a dangerous slope to walk on. HOWEVER there must be some point of bandwidth limitation and I suppose everyone's traffic deserves equal rights.
Sorry they aren't regulating any thing. They are simply charging people who use more service for using more service.
Quote from the article makes it sound like they banned/blocked/shut the switch off on their customer access to BitTorrent
Am I misinterpreting this? Perhaps YouTube and BitTorrent are being charged more for access to Comcast? Still said its blocking its broadband subscribers so sounds like its blocking folks.
Separate names with a comma.