FCC's vision for internet streaming looks a lot like cable television

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
From the "Did anyone really believe the FCC could let the internet develop freely?" files.

FCC moves to expand competition between Internet video and pay-tv | USA Today
In his own statement, Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said that he would not support the rules because "the commission's actions — either intentionally or unintentionally — may skew the marketplace in a harmful way."
...
Even if the rules pass, new services will face hurdles, says analyst Joel Espelien of the Diffusion Group. Retransmission fees can be pricey and those costs will be passed on to consumers. Just to secure the four major networks would require subscription fees of perhaps $8, he estimates.

Beyond that, the FCC's focus on "linear" broadcasts is misplaced because most viewers prefer on-demand availability of recent content ...

"Regardless of what FCC regulations say or don't say — the future of TV is still an app," he said.
So much for "Net neutrality". :doh:
 

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
So much for "Net neutrality". :doh:

What does this have to do with Net Neutrality?

Cablevision - great.

If the FCC has their way I'll have to pay for 10,000 sites I don't want in order to visit the few I do. Worse, I'll probably have to purchase a number of 10,000 site "bundles" just to get them.

You think putting cable on the Internet will necessarily make the Internet like cable? I'm a bit confused.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
You do realize Michael O'Rielly has been an enemy of net neutrality, right?
Once again, let's be clear that what the FCC envisions as "net neutrality" is where the FCC prioritizes internet content ... and not anything remotely resembling equal priority for all data packages.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Once again, let's be clear that what the FCC envisions as "net neutrality" is where the FCC prioritizes internet content ... and not anything remotely resembling equal priority for all data packages.

That's what happens when you put an opponent of net neutrality in charge of it.
 
Upvote 0

Avid

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...
Sep 21, 2013
2,129
753
✟13,263.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Once again, let's be clear that what the FCC envisions as "net neutrality" is where the FCC prioritizes internet content ... and not anything remotely resembling equal priority for all data packages.
Whatever government control of ANYTHING looks like, it will not be so good as some people think. We could only pray it is as bad as we imagine it might be.

We had warned about how bad other forms of government takeover might be for the people using it. When the new laws or rules have no limits, there is no limit on how bad things might get!
.
 
Upvote 0

Assuredcw

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse
Oct 16, 2011
2,077
30
✟10,000.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What does this have to do with Net Neutrality?



You think putting cable on the Internet will necessarily make the Internet like cable? I'm a bit confused.

Net neutrality has to do with the idea of making certain connections faster than others, provided you pay extra for them. Neutrality is the opposite of charging what the market will bear, for the Internet connection itself, and not necessarily the content. (The increased charges for the increased Internet speeds would then be passed on to the consumer -- tacked onto the charges they are already paying for content.) IOW, making the Internet NEUTRAL would mean not slowing down the speeds of people who won't pay extra.

I don't see the connection, either. Variant, I agree -- this is a good question! :wave:

Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0