I keep hearing that this is "a complex issue" and maybe it's that "complexity" has given me the wrong view.
My understanding is the FCC has ruled that cable companies must provide the same service speeds for all customers. That is, they cannot charge more for faster speeds. Currently, nobody is forced to pay more; they can still get, say, the Internet. But some folks who want the faster speeds can pay for it. No longer.
"Fairness" dictates that everyone should have access to the Internet with the same speeds. Charging for faster access is "not fair."
Hmmm...... By that same token, shouldn't I have access to all of the cable channels that other people are now paying for, but for which I choose not to pay extra? After all, it's not fair that they get all those premium movie channels just because they can afford it or, at least, want to afford it. For that matter, due to unfortunate circumstances, I had to get a new car. (My old one was totaled by a woman who rear-ended me while using her cell phone. Grrr......) Now, I have minimal extras on the car. Part of it is, well, my aversion to such distractions while driving. (I wish that cell-phone driving woman had that same aversion!) Another part is the extra cost for options. But hey, wait a minute! Why should others, esp those who can afford them, get options on a car that I don't have? Shouldn't the car companies provide those to me (like faster Internet service?) at no extra cost? Of course, the list goes on...bigger houses, more vacations, etc.
I know, I know...... "C'mon, that's not the same." Really? In the name of "fairness" I'm going to sit by my phone (or faster speed Internet?) and wait for the Major Leagues to call and offer a roster spot to an old, even slower, me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"My understanding is the FCC has ruled that cable companies must provide the same service speeds for all customers. That is, they cannot charge more for faster speeds."
That is not at all what it does. ISP's will still be able to charge higher prices for higher speeds. They will not be able to charge content providers higher prices to allow their stuff to pass over the internet faster. Basically, it prevents a company like Comcast from charging Netflix additional money to connect to the network and stream their services. Otherwise, Comcast could start their own streaming movie service and make it so Netflix goes really slow thus driving consumers all to their own streaming service.
http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/
Of course this is so. Comcast, for instance, has changed its tune, coming out in favor of "net neutrality." It, like so many large corporations, writes the legislation (or perhaps merely dictates it?). Comcast must get FCC approval for its merger with Time-Warner. Would Comcast want to tick off the FCC, with approval in the balance?
Why, oh why, would we want the federal government involved in this? Maybe because it does such a bang-up job with, say, the Post Office, Amtrak, NASA, immigration, banking regulations, student loans, and more. Of course, why would the FCC approve a large merger like Comcast and Time-Warner? Hmmm...... If, according to the proponents of "net netruality," the large ISPs can dictate speeds without regulation, why are they allowed to become so "large?" After all, don't the Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust acts say something about "in restraint of trade?" Then why are large companies, so likely to restrain trade, allowed to exist?
And the subterfuge of such a regulation (over 300 pages long!), with details hidden for so long, hardly inspires confidence this is the right thing to do.
Post a Comment