Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Teh Don Ditty, Apr 6, 2010.
Nice job US appeals court and Comcast
This is just great... It allows the tellecoms to screw us over even more. The FCC was on the right track and now it is going to take our congress to pass laws to force it and since they are bought and paid for they are not going to give us what the people want/need but instead what the greed of the corps want.
this just puts the US telecoms even farther behind the rest of the world.
Engadget has dissected it.
As much as I am for Net Neutrality, the decision was the correct one. The FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet. I see a very simple solution. You take federal money as a telco/ISP, you agree to Net Neutrality. All these ****ers take billions in federal corporate welfare.
Not to even mention, the billions of dollars in tax breaks, eminent domain rights and subsidies granted by state and local communities on top of the federal welfare.
That sounds fair.
Congress needs to grant this oversight to the FCC. It's as simple as that.
Wouldn't it be a helluva lot cheaper just to pass a Net Neutrality law and stop giving the ****ers billions in corporate welfare?
From the OP's original link:
Nothing is free. If the cost go up because of the FCC mandates, it will be passed on to us. Do you really want to subsidize someone's Bittorrent ?
The FCC is full of ****. If they gained the ability to regulate the net what's to stop them from attempting to Censor content they deem inappropriate like they do with TV and Radio? They claim they believe in net neutrality but I doubt they will hold to that creed when they gain control.
The FCC only regulates content on services using radio transmission. Cable-only channels are free to show whatever they want, except for stuff like kiddie porn. Why would it be any different for the internet?
Why would costs go up any more than they would have anyway?
Net neutrality ends up requiring much more bandwidth since the ISPs / telcos can not restrict the net use. The consumers are passed the additional cost.
i.e. you are subsidizing someones bittorrent.
So, corporate censorship is fine then? This goes well beyond bit torrenting (which is a lot smaller than content providers try to claim it is).
Since Comcast owns NBC now, without Net Neutrality, nothing can (or will) stop them from doing stuff like streaming legal content from say, ABC or CBS, and claim it's to keep people from tying up bandwidth.
Or, nothing would stop them from preventing you from legally downloading television/movies/large software updates, because you're downloading too much.
Your point is valid, but Comcast does not own NBC, yet.
I haven't been following this debate in the US but here's how it works over here:
Customers can choose between metered, pre-allocated, or flat-rate connections.
A metered connection is charged at a certain cost per MB. All traffic is treated equally.
A pre-allocated connection gives you a set amount of data (say 40 GB) for a fixed monthly rate. Once you exceed that, you can often buy additional "data blocks" (eg 10 GB for $x) or have your maximum speed reduced until the end of the month. Again, all traffic is treated equally.
Flat-rate plans have no data limit, but things like BitTorrent are rate-limited due to the sheer amount of bandwidth used. Basically there are two "pipes"; one for "normal" traffic, which runs at the high speed rate. The other "P2P pipe" has a fixed amount of bandwidth shared among all users.
It sounds like Comcast is doing something similar to the flat-rate option. I'm personally on a metered connection (and happy with it) but I believe that lots of people in NZ are happily using a flat-rate service, despite the rate limiting that is used.