I am feeling "stupid" today. Maybe it's that new virus that scientists at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the University of Nebraska accidentally discovered or maybe I am just naturally stupid. But can someone explain "net neutrality" to me?
As our ever-pivoting President published today, he wants to focus his attention on "net neutrality" instead of...say...just about anything. Granted, my level of trust in this Administration has already gone into the negative numbers (as in -100%), but this just sounds like it is titled to do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do...
I apologize in advance that this message from whitehouse.gov makes your ears bleed, but it is blessedly short...
You are all bright people and probably have not yet been infected by the "stupid" virus, so someone please explain!
And for our brave "Band of Brothers and Sisters" -
This is Veterans Day, so as a tribute to honor you brave men and women who have worn the uniform of our military throughout the generations, here is the best speech about going to war ever written performed by a wonderful Shakespearan actor:
As our ever-pivoting President published today, he wants to focus his attention on "net neutrality" instead of...say...just about anything. Granted, my level of trust in this Administration has already gone into the negative numbers (as in -100%), but this just sounds like it is titled to do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do...
I apologize in advance that this message from whitehouse.gov makes your ears bleed, but it is blessedly short...
You are all bright people and probably have not yet been infected by the "stupid" virus, so someone please explain!
And for our brave "Band of Brothers and Sisters" -
This is Veterans Day, so as a tribute to honor you brave men and women who have worn the uniform of our military throughout the generations, here is the best speech about going to war ever written performed by a wonderful Shakespearan actor:
26 comments:
Say you're a caple company. Most of you customers use an x amount of bandwidth to shop at amazon and Facebook. Now take a small number of people who are using 100x this bandwidth generally to download movies. The cable company would like to charge this person more. Net neutrality wants to price control the access so everyone pays the same. Therefore someone probably like you Bev will have to pay more so little jimmy can down load LOTR blue ray.
Overall this is the Netflix effect but now Netflix is paying Comcast a premium essentially covering their increase bandwidth use. It is a solution looking for a problem. Typical government m.o.
Caple= cable
Net "neutralility" the way Obama visions it is definitely theopposite of what it means, particularly since Obama and the democrat party have demonstrated they aren't neutral about anything.
Say what you will about Ted Cruz, but I think his response, that "net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet" is accurate and a pretty memorable line since many Americans have felt the negative consequences of Obamacare.
What Obama won't say is that the net was neutral before his admin., and other govts. have intervened or are trying to intervene.
Thanks Bev!
Happy Veterans Day!
Government price-fixing..."sigh,"again.
"this just sounds like it is titled to do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do..." Isn't that the M.O. of the Democrats? Just like it says, the "Affordable Care Act" is anything but.
Well, if it's coming from BHO it's going to be a shady deal...
Okay, so basically it is a scheme for the government to control and tax the internet services which also mean will be able to control and tax interstate commerce as in an internet sales tax which is at this point still tax free. And in the most extreme could centralize the internet to a point where the gov't can 1) spy on citizen's more easily; 2) set up citizens more easily (see Sharyl Attkisson; 3) shut down communication and information at the whim of Washington.
So, at this point, I am still leaning toward Ted Cruz's statement that it would be "the Obamacare of the Internet". Let the free market dictate. Since when has the government ever really made life better for the middle class?
Not exactly Bev. This is crony capitalism. Let's take Netflix. They moved their model from a mail-based rental system to an online one. They were quite successful at this with increase members and use. However, they never talked or asked what the internet providers thought about this. At first the providers didn't care because it increased their membership for high speed internet but when Netflix jumped to high def movies, they started to take a huge chunk of bandwidth. The providers felt it only fair that the people using more bandwidth should pay more or they should be limited to a certain amount per month. Of course customers became annoyed. I'm guessing many of them where parents who pay the bills who couldn't get on-line to bill pay because little jimmy has been sucking huge amounts of bandwidth. They complained. Netflix jumped at this and they complained that it was unfair and started calling the FCC and politicians that the providers where restricting access. This privilege of high speed internet access became a sort of right.
The government generally controls the different radiowaves and leases the use out. The argument is that since this is the peoples' bandwidth they should have a right to it. Except the government did nothing to actually put it together; the providers did.
This is just one part of the issue but helps illustrate how large companies try to use the government to control others. The real irony is Netflix and the providers signed an agreement where Netflix pays the companies a flat premium. Basically the companies figured it out themselves because they both had a gain to do so. The analogy would be like the government deciding today whether the country should go with HD-DVD or Blue Ray.
Not be the contrarian (who, me?) but I've read many tech websites that somewhat disagree with Cruz' opinion. This comic, for instance, explains why he might just be wrong.
And before anyone says, "Well, if you don't like your cable company, just switch to another one!" that's easier said that done for large swaths of people in this country.
Koshcat - Thanks However it is the Basically the companies figured it out themselves because they both had a gain to do so. that is the most telling. Both have much to gain by working out without government intervention. However I suspect that it is the cable tv providers who are the pushing this the most as they are real losers are going to be the traditional cable companies. They pushed really hard for all digital broadcasting and to phase out analog (is that the correct term?) broadcasting, so they would have to be the providers as opposed to free network channels that all you needed was a TV and an antenna.
Their dynasty did not last long as now more and more people are switching to online services only. Ironically cable companies are the big losers. HBO and Showtime have already announced that they will follow Netflix and provide stand alone online access to their channels...on demand...and without having to buy into 500 channels of sports programming or Oprah...
But Scott, the irony is that people ARE switching from cable to internet companies. I just did myself. I downgraded to TWC "starter TV" which is just basic TV - ABC, CBC, NBC, FOX, PBS and a smattering of few others. Seriously, I was watching about maybe 50 of the 2000 channels I was paying for. If the cable companies were smart, they would see the handwriting on the wall and go with packages of numbers of pick your own channels, rather than what they have now.
That virus is crazy stuff, isn't it?
On net neutrality, the problem I have with the cable position is that (1) they are some of the dirtiest, most anti-consumer cronies in our economy, so they have no room to complain, (2) they have made themselves into de facto monopolies when it comes to internet service, so regulation does not offend me, and (3) they aren't just talking about being able to charge more for high-bandwidth users... they are talking about being able to sell the ability to speed up or slow down any internet business. I don't see that as a good thing for society or consumers.
Also, keep in mind that consumers are already charged much higher rates for getting higher speeds and greater usage. So why allow them to also bill the seller?
Bev -
It sounds like you stayed with the same company, just downgraded to a cheaper plan.
I'd love to see a la carte happen but I'm not sure the media companies (the ones who bundle one popular channel with 10 unpopular ones) would like it to happen. Not to mention that smaller niche channels might not survive the transition. I'd like to think they would (the cream rises to the top), but who knows?
More here.
And as much as I'd love to customize something like that, it would reduce the chance (and possibly joy) of stumbling across something at random. But that's just me.
But it could work... give me your basic starter package, Netflix, Amazon, and HBO's upcoming standalone service, and I think I'll be just fine!
ScottDS - I had no choice but to keep TWC if I wanted any kind of service. In NYC, we are wired by block/building. I don't even have the option of a satellite because I do not have any access to...the sky.
The best take on cable companies I've seen so far was in South Park, where they are sexually aroused from causing people pain.
Kit - My understanding is that on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 be least pain/10 being most pain) that Comcast and TWC (which are about to merge) each come in at about 157,359,684 when one has to deal with their "customer service" department. Therefore the sexual arousal-to-pain infliction ratio is not measurable by normal human standards.
"the sexual arousal-to-pain infliction ratio is not measurable by normal human standards."
Haha!
To be fair, my experience w/ Comcast over the past few months has been pretty good. Of course, that is in comparison to my previous cable company. Which was crap.
And its only been a few months...
Government is always about power, it's always about wanting more power over something....I don't trust their motives...
Kit - I joke about the pain ratio, but to be honest, I had one of THE most pleasant experiences when I downgraded my TWC service. When I called I already had an attitude, I was shocked. The sales person on the other end of the line was helpful and didn't try to sell me anything at all. As I talked with her, I heard that old familiar Texas twang! I asked her where she was and she said Tyler Texas! I KNEW IT! She told me that TWC had recently moved their NE regional call center to Texas to the land that knows "customer service"!
Long story even longer...a good friend of mine was relaying her uncharacteristically good TWC service call story just yesterday. I said that's because they moved their call center to Texas. And she was shocked "How did you know that?" We Texans know these things...
See my problem is that I don't think this will actually fix the problem that it is purported to fix - internet speed for all. Let's take for instance the phone companies - regulated by the US Gov't - one still has to pay more for higher levels of service - regional, national, and international. But now I have a choice of which company...not just AT&T or Bell Telephone etc. Granted when they deregulated the phone service (that was pretty cheap and efficient) it gave rise to the 3-tier service option [the other plus to deregulation is that now one could buy your own pink princess slim line telephone rather than have to rent the black (red or cream) rotary dial cradle phone that was owned by the tele company, but we can discuss that another time...]
So I am still unclear as to why regulating the 'net is better option than the free market system. It seems like we will pay more either way. As it is now, if I want more bandwidth, I pay more. I don't download a lot of stuff, so I don't pay for the highest tier. I do stream from Netflix a lot, so I pay the middling upgrade. But now I am going to have to subsidize others to get the same service that I choose to pay now.
This is why I can see Ted Cruz' point about comparing net neutrality to Obamacare. Since I now have to subsidize others and I have to pay more/get less for the privilege.
"On net neutrality, the problem I have with the cable position is that (1) they are some of the dirtiest, most anti-consumer cronies in our economy, so they have no room to complain, (2) they have made themselves into de facto monopolies when it comes to internet service, so regulation does not offend me, and (3) they aren't just talking about being able to charge more for high-bandwidth users... they are talking about being able to sell the ability to speed up or slow down any internet business. I don't see that as a good thing for society or consumers."
Yep. This is why I am not sure where I want to take a stand here. Government or cable companies? Its a bit like "How do you wish to die? Strangulation or bludgeoning?"
***News Break***
Just in case you missed it, Dan Sullivan was declared the winner in Alaska defeating incumbent Dem Sen. Mark Begich. So now the majority in the Senate goes from 52 to 53. The runoff in Louisiana will be Dec. 6. Most expect that will raise the majority to 54...
***End News Break***
***Another news break***
There are three men hanging on to a broken scaffolding 50 floors up on the newly opened Freedom Tower at Ground Zero. Apparently one of the cables snapped. I have a view from my office window, but I really can't watch. Please pray for them...
Update - The guys have been rescued!! Bravo to the NYC Firefighters!!!
Kit-
For me it is a no brainer. If the government had been regulating the internet providers we would still be on dial up. I am curious about the hatred of cable companies as my experience has been much better. Ever since Comcast got into the phone business where they have to keep access up for 911 calls I haven't had a problem that wasn't explained either by an old modem or somebody messing with the cable coming into the house. On my list of annoyances, they fall well below my neighbors and the HOA. Heck, I have more troubles with the garbage company.
Post a Comment