FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic

[DamianTV]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/12/04/2226243/fcc-chair-its-ok-for-isps-to-discriminate-traffic
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/fcc-chair-isps-should-be-able-to-charge-netflix-for-internet-fast-lane/


"Remember when the ex-cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler was appointed to the FCC chair back in May of 2013? Turns out he's currently gunning for Internet Service Providers to be able to 'favor some traffic over other traffic.' It would set a dangerous precedent, considering the Open Internet Order in 2010 forbade such action if it fell under unreasonable discrimination. The bendy interpretation of the 2010 order is apparently aimed somewhat at Netflix, as Wheeler stated: 'Netflix might say, "I'll pay in order to make sure that my subscriber might receive the best possible transmission of this movie."'"

I guess Net Neutrality is completely dead. Or at least ignored.

Edit:

What this means is that your ISP will charge Netflix for all that bandwidth you use. And what do big companies do? Nothing more than pass all those costs directly back to you.

Now, what happens when AT&T suddenly wants to discriminate against ANY traffic to RonPaulForums.com? Apparently, they also gain some sort of legal right to censor where you go on the internet as well. And THAT is DANGEROUS.

[erowe1]

This is good right?

[DamianTV]

This is good right?

It depends on how it is interpreted. If Comcast now can cut any bandwidth to RonPaulForums.com to 1% of normal speed, I'd call that a problem.

[helmuth_hubener]

It depends on how it is interpreted. If Comcast now can cut any bandwidth to RonPaulForums.com to 1% of normal speed, I'd call that a problem. I'd call that a wonderful thing! The more freedom that market participants have, the better. We believe in liberty! Even if that means the liberty to do things we may not like nor agree with, like using heroin or throttling RonPaulForums' load speed.

[erowe1]

It depends on how it is interpreted. If Comcast now can cut any bandwidth to RonPaulForums.com to 1% of normal speed, I'd call that a problem.

Why?

[dannno]

Why?

Because ComCast has a government monopoly on their particular markets. Then you have a bunch of other government monopolies who will simply use this to their advantage to further monopolize. It's sort of like the gay marriage debate all over again. When the government controls or owns something and they are taking resources from everybody, then they need to disperse the services in a fair manner.

If we had a free market in internet connections then it would make more sense to allow ISPs to do whatever they want.

[helmuth_hubener]

Because ComCast has a government monopoly on their particular markets. In cable TV, but not in internet provision. Internet provision, luckily, is a competitive market, much more so than most of the telecommunications industry. There are thousands of private ISPs. In literally any location, even in the most remote rural highlands, you will have multiple internet options.

[erowe1]

Because ComCast has a government monopoly on their particular markets. Then you have a bunch of other government monopolies who will simply use this to their advantage to further monopolize. It's sort of like the gay marriage debate all over again. When the government controls or owns something and they are taking resources from everybody, then they need to disperse the services in a fair manner.

If we had a free market in internet connections then it would make more sense to allow ISPs to do whatever they want.

But they don't really have a monopoly on internet access anywhere. They have competitors. And they are under pressure to meet their customers' demands. If they don't their competitors will. We want that pressure on them to come as little as possible from the government.

[helmuth_hubener]

They have competitors. Furthermore and more importantly, there is free entry into the ISP field. Anyone can set up an ISP. No regs. No license. No limits. Buy some wireless routers and start charging!

[RickyJ]

I'd call that a wonderful thing! The more freedom that market participants have, the better. We believe in liberty! Even if that means the liberty to do things we may not like nor agree with, like using heroin or throttling RonPaulForums' load speed.

You believe in liberty for those that have the currency and resources, which is not those that love liberty, but those that want to enslave us. The elite have over 80% of all dollars ever created, there is no free market in America.

[angelatc]

Let the market work it out. Government is NEVER the solution.

[Danke]

In cable TV, but not in internet provision. Internet provision, luckily, is a competitive market, much more so than most of the telecommunications industry. There are thousands of private ISPs. In literally any location, even in the most remote rural highlands, you will have multiple internet options.

You have satellite, possibly a smart phone and maybe a dial-up option. Not "multiple options."

[RickyJ]

Because ComCast has a government monopoly on their particular markets. Then you have a bunch of other government monopolies who will simply use this to their advantage to further monopolize. It's sort of like the gay marriage debate all over again. When the government controls or owns something and they are taking resources from everybody, then they need to disperse the services in a fair manner.

If we had a free market in internet connections then it would make more sense to allow ISPs to do whatever they want.

We only have an illusion of a free market in America, but in reality we don't have a free market for anything. It is kind of like the Matrix, so many, for so long, have thought we have a free market in America, when we have nothing of the sort. People have been brainwashed into thinking that what we have in America is a free market. The Fed prints in the money, gives it to their friends (banks), and the elite control the whole damn nation through total control of the currency. There is nothing free about America's market.