Why the FCC Just Botched Net Neutrality



Comments (15)

  1. TonyT says:

    You left out the FEMA camps…

    [Reply]

    cascadian12 Reply:

    LOL!

    [Reply]

  2. mario Sapag says:

    you clearly do not know how the internet works or anything about networking engineering.

    [Reply]

  3. Glenn says:

    People should know by now that anytime the government gets involved things just get screwed up more than they were. The government has a long history of doing this so why in the world do people keep going to the government to correct things. Government is good at one thing, writing regulations that are not only hard to understand but costing the public for companies to implement these programs.

    [Reply]

    cascadian12 Reply:

    Except that you use infrastructure that the government built decades ago. Not to mention the government invented the internet. You benefit from government goods, services and investments every minute of every, but don’t have a clue.

    [Reply]

  4. Not So Free says:

    The FCC did not make a “mistake”.
    They were just *following orders*.
    Sound familiar?

    [Reply]

  5. Blahgrrr says:

    Who paid you?

    That was the biggest bunch of B.S. I have ever read on WallStreetDaily. If you want to put a definitive end to Ma & Pa small businesses in America, go ahead and continue arguing for an end to Net Neutrality.

    [Reply]

  6. Ben says:

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4400382/comcast-google-fiber-gigabit-broadband-internet

    If it is an issue of having to share bandwidth between your firealarms and twitter feeds, doesn’t it make sense to try and improve the networks? Obviously not.

    Bottom line: Are giant ISP’s Like Time Warner, Comcast, or Verizon good for competition or small business in America?

    Absolutely not, just as you said they are consistently some of the worst companies we’ve got.

    [Reply]

  7. Al S says:

    This article takes a step in the right direction, but it is far from being an attention-getter. It points to annoyances and economic disruption, but it needs to point to much hotter issues such as CENSORSHIP, OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA ORGAN, and LOSS OF LIBERTY. Then maybe people will catch on to the idea that they are being screwed.

    [Reply]

    Dave R Reply:

    Thank you for pointing out THE most important issue, the rest of that story is fluff and horse-feathers and feel-good econ 101 stuff. Just an opinion.

    [Reply]

  8. Moheikin says:

    The Obvious answer is choking the Stream, to limit how much bandwidth any one company or industry can use, and give priority to emergency needs.
    Why is that so hard to think about, like any other
    resource, there will be hogs, and abuser’s.
    Duh.

    [Reply]

  9. Roger says:

    Anyone familiar with Free Press, an arm of George Soros? Just for starters, the FCC cites them 46 times in their 400-page report for reasons why “net neutrality” was needed. Scary. Censorship, political propaganda, etc. are are their way, just as Al S says. The link to the article “The Dirty Little Secret Behind Net Neutrality” on the Allen B West website is a very interesting and exposing read: http://allenbwest.com/2015/03/the-dirty-little-secret-behind-net-neutrality/. Enjoy!

    [Reply]

  10. Henry S says:

    Al S makes one of the points that I want to reinforce. The article points to the economic impact, but the true danger is that once we allow the government to start regulating Internet usage, it MAY, choose to regulate just what services, websites, and blogs, may get what amount of bandwidth or what can be transmitted via the Internet.
    I want to suggest a slightly alternative point of view. I believe that market mechanisms should be used to determine access to the available bandwidth of the Internet. If your application demands more than a certain percentage of total bandwidth then you should be asked to pay more than other applications for that expedited service. I just think that the operators of the pipes, e.g. the ISPs should be legally and financially separated from the providers of the services themselves. That is Comcast should either be providing the bandwidth or the programming, but not both. That way there is not a conflict of interest in providing the bandwidth to third party providers like Netflix. Presumably Comcast was subsidizing its own channel programming by charging Netflix more for access. Separating the the channel from the service means that the bandwidth provider has a financial incentive to increase bandwidth as rapidly as possible to serve all consumers, while service, like Netflix compete on level ground with other providers of similar services based on bandwidth demands. And frankly even the bandwidth pipeline providers should be unregulated to encourage the expansion of bandwidth. It is not impossible to add more optical fiber to our national infrastructure. Keeping the industry deregulated gives all companies the incentive to add services where the market prices are higher than average. Duplicate networks should also enhance redundancy and make the communications networks more secure. None of this requires government interference except to separating the services from the pipeline providers.

    [Reply]

  11. Earl P. Holt III says:

    The communist party (some prefer “Democrats”) control the FCC: They have one goal, and it is content control and censorship of opposing viewpoints.

    [Reply]

  12. Karen Miner says:

    What I have found is when people, who want to pay less for a service, but want the same quality as someone who is willing to pay more for better service gets upset, they go to the government to solve it. Then, what ends up happening, is everyone gets the poor service and pays more for it.

    [Reply]

Add Comment