I cannot even fathom how paying for a particular tier of access speed for any ISP, and then having them able to turn around and say “your access to this specific piece of data is shitty because it comes from a company that didn’t bribe us enough” is even remotely ok.
If Netflix can provide the upload, and I’m paying for the access it should just fucking work.
I don’t even have Comcast, but fuck them indeed.
If this is at all accurate, Wheeler will go down in history as an FCC chairman who was bought and paid for by cable. Shame, since he seems like a great guy personally, but there’s no possible way he can live this down.
I’m sure he will survive with his sacks of cash, somehow.
Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).[2][3] In recognition of his work in promoting the growth of the cable television industry, he was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[4] In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame.[5]
Just doing what he’s been hired to do.
How the hell did he get this job?
Appointed by Obama & Senate, unanimously.
Too bad it’s too late to primary certain Dems. Things like this are going to continue until we start getting some radicalization on the left on stuff like this.
On the flip side, SCOTUS will decide Aereo’s fate. Aereo is the startup which (in their view) rents antennas to customers so they can stream OTA broadcasts, enabling them to cut their cable or satellite service for local broadcasts. Naturally, the broadcasters see Aereo’s service as akin to public broadcast and thus they want their pound of flesh - err, retransmission fees from Aereo.
The FCC has fleshed out Wheeler’s non-denial denial a bit more here, but still no sign of the notice of proposed rulemaking.
I just told Kay Hagan, who is in a tight re-election campaign, that if she doesn’t come out publicly against this, because I know she’s taken money from Comcast- I will be withholding my vote from her, and Hillary in 2016.
This is the thing that’s going to get me to vote 3rd party now (Green Party- even if I disagree with the environmentalism)
The Dems will continue selling us out until the electorate gets radical in general elections and puts Republicans in office by voting for someone else. I’ve had enough now.
I received an offer from Comcast in the mail today, where I’d get an iPad Mini if I signed up for TV / Internet / phone with them. I appreciate this thread reminding why it’s a bad, bad offer.
Incidentally, there’s been whining here from some ISP’s about the latest european intervention. Net Neutrality will apparently eat your kitten or something.
Here in Chicago, I have a luxury not available to many: a choice of cable internet providers. Some places in the city can even get fiber.
At the pitch of Comcast throttling Netflix, I was getting 500kbs streaming connections. It was basically unwatchable. Researching my alternatives, RCN came up sounding pretty positive. Their website touts Netflix performance as a sales feature.
I haven’t made the jump yet, but I keep thinking about it.
Dunno if there was some more recent net neutrality thread.
Net Neutrality regulations upheld in federal court.
The 2-1 court ruling Tuesday forces Internet providers such as Verizon and Comcast to obey federal regulations that ban the blocking or slowing of Internet traffic to consumers. The regulations from the Federal Communications Commission also forbid carriers from selectively speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee — a tactic critics have said could unfairly tilt the commercial playing field against startups and innovators who may not be able to afford it.
More broadly, the decision affirms Washington’s ability to regulate Internet providers like legacy telephone companies. Approved in a bitterly partisan vote last year, the move by the FCC to “reclassify” Internet providers significantly expanded the agency’s role in overseeing the industry. It opened up Internet providers to all-new obligations they were not subject to before, such as privacy requirements that all telecom companies currently follow in order to protect consumers’ personal data.
Tuesday’s opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit comes months after a group of industry leaders, including AT&T and the nation’s top cable association, sued the FCC in hopes of overturning the rules. They argued that the agency overstepped its congressionally granted authority in applying telecom-style rules to Internet providers, a class of industry that had been only lightly regulated during the Bush administration.
So if this goes on appeal it will rest on whether it will be Trump or Hillary as President?
Potentially, but it’s possible that even conservative judges would support net neutrality.
But Trump’s short list is extremely conservative and hostile towards consumer rights by most accounts. So, probably not.
The history of the courts say not so much. It’s a partisan issue.
It’s even worse at state levels- North Carolina’s legislature was thrown a dinner party by AT&T and TWC to celebrate their blocking of municipal broadband (the worst of such laws in the country)
How the fuck can net neutrality be a partisan issue.
Because everything is. And corporations are on one side and everyone else on the other, so guess which side the GOP is going to favor.