Wednesday, March 4, 2015

"Net Neutrality"

One of my posting friends asked this very good question in the Cafe on NAT:

"I haven't paid much attention to the NN arguments that have been going on, but I see the FFC has ruled on it today.

Could somebody give me the CliffsNotes version.

Good for us ? Bad for us?"

"Federal Government is going to treat the internet like a utility.

Do you remember when there was only one phone company.

Well that is what we are getting.

User will now have to get FCC permission do provide new products and get any charges approved by the FCC.

I am sure that in no time the internet will be a shell of its former self. Have you ever seen anything that the federal government has improved?

They are claiming the plan is to keep the net free and neutral when it is in fact a power grab by the Obama gang.

"If the government were to take control of the desert there would be a shortage of sand within tow years."
paraphrased quote from Milton Friedman"

"A few years back some companies played with speeds of sites. Quickly they realized the gov would begin to regulate them so they knocked it off and still since have been good out of that fear. A YouTube video scared people and drove to the fcc takeover, it was largely unneeded as abuses were checked. Europe has had it for years. If we follow what happened there the speed of Internet will eventually go down for all as the incentive to create higher speeds is lost through government intervention. Yes some of the other posters predictions can come in time but for now you will see little change."

I thought this was a pretty good synopsis of the situation.  I guess it's all about one's opinion how much the government can or should regulate business.

No doubt, the Internet is big business today and I think we knew it was coming.

It's always a surprise when it happens, though.



  1. We could use your prayer today. We have to travel to the city for a procedure to help me and the weather is not good.

    Thank you all.


  2. It seems that nobody is contesting the principle of net neutrality, only how it's implemented. Ultra-liberals say that the industry is self-regulating, so I don't see why they make such a fuss about a formal regulation, it wouldn't change anything "if" there is already an informal one.

    The thing is that as usual, there is no such self-regulation, see Comcast vs. Netflix, where Comcast was slowing down Netflix's traffic in favor of Comcast's own streaming service. As well throw the whole legislation away if they think people and companies are self-regulating...

    The claims that net neutrality regulations would affect Internet speed between providers is equally laughable. In the case of Europe, the telecoms regulations were actually what drove Internet speed up, as well as what brought us triple play (the ménage à trois of Internet, phone and television), by opening some of the previously public-owned telcos to the private sector and to competition. 26 euros ($29)/month gets you DSL or 1Gbps fiber with Internet, television (160 channels), and free calls to 120 countries and to all mobiles in France, USA and China, €20 without the free mobile calls.

    Good luck with the trip and hospital, Ed!

  3. Anything that the gubment is involved in regulating goes to heck. Lots of stupid rules, lots of civil servants with too much authority, big business will benefit and ordinary folks will be screwed. Look at FSA, DMV, health care, and so on.