Until the local ISP monopolies are broken up (like Charter in Los Angeles), we need some sort of protection to prevent them from throttling content and censoring certain anti-establishment content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Until the local ISP monopolies are broken up (like Charter in Los Angeles), we need some sort of protection to prevent them from throttling content and censoring certain anti-establishment content.
Which is why Net Neutrality was introduced. To prevent the public from being taken advantage of. With it's repeal it will force us to pay more to prevent throttling and then allowing the ISPs to control what content we connect to. In addition, to the repeal this will allow the providers the ability to make deals with streaming services. So if you are in Charter's territory and they make a deal with Hulu. they can then throttle the speed to Netflix to make it unwatchable. This is just the start, they will be able to block any content they want to, or tell the 'service' they need to pay to allow access to their site. Twitch and YouTubers would be the hardest hit since they use a lot of bandwith. What will also happen with this and has been in the works for years is figuring out how to charge for services based on usage. Previously content and usage had not been monitored by cable companies, there was no need to. With the repeal...Now there is.
Also sadly....The cable industry is just as corrupt as any other corporation. The only large cable company as of now that is still stand alone is Cox. Comcast, Time Warner and Charter are essentially 1 company now broken into branches to which are setup so that they do not fall under the guise of a monopoly. The FCC has to approve all aquistions and institues stipulations to prevent a monopoly. These companies work together and trade out territories like a chess game.
The video yes is a bit of a stretch but how else you explain to people who don't pay attention to the world around them how something affects them. The repeal of Net Neutrality will not make things cheaper it will make it worse. It was repealed to make the corporations more money...not less. If lowering to competetive prices actually happened then cable and satellite services would already be cheaper than what they are. They charge what they do because they know people will pay what they ask because they want the service. One of the primary reasons for their rates is the contracts they have to carry the programming they do. (Yet another can of worms)
Worked in the cable industry for the better part of the past 12 year. Just like when transmissions were moving to digital...Most people, electronics stores and so forth were lead to believe it was a switch to HD. No it was closing down all analog signal ('to give to emergency services') and moving all service to a standard digital broadcast. (Which was a least 5 years late)
Government involvement in most things is a double edged sword. Should it be deregulated? I can't say. Does the FCC need to be revamped....most definitely. That in istelf is the problem ...HOW?
No. That's what governments tell people so they get their support. It is always "for their benefit". But it is not.
What needs to be done is deregulate everything. If I am disatisfied with my provider because they censor what I can browse online, I will leave. As there is no single businees in the Earth that likes to loose customers, then they will not censor the content I am wanting to consume.
Obviously government will not legislate against themselves.
Must be nice to be able to choose between different providers. Most of us don't have that choice. Your argument is bunk.
Oh but it is for the benefit. The fact that you and "World Alternative Media" have been so easily tricked by the flimsy free market logic used in Verizon's propaganda campaign is hilarious. Most people don't have a choice, specifically every rural community in the fucking country. The repeal of net neutrality is REALLY BAD.
"Obviously government will not legislate against themselves." Our government regulates against itself all the time. Your probably thinking of a cartoonish monarchy with an absolute top-down power structure. Here in the USA, we have an idea called the "three branches of government" which apparently you never learned about.
Of course: legislative, executive and the judicial power. Those powers are never isolated and will act taking into count personal interests from the other two powers.
In your country it seems to be common that President and the House of Representatives or Senate or whatever it is called, are ruled by different parties. When the President is from the Democrat party, then the Senate is ruled by Republicans and viceversa.
Have that make more difficult for presidents to achieve what they wanted? Like bombing countries or the Obamacare? I can see that it wasn't.
Internet access is not a public utility. If people want access to the network, they should pay for it. Providers pay some people to keep the cable operating. It is their cable. It is their choice to ask the money they wanted.