bcharly

just a few words. I pay Netflix for their content and i pay Comcast for their internet use. when i want to view a program from Netflix, I expect them to deliver such program to Comcast and for Comcast to deliver such content without delay or interruptions. ex bufferring etc period. if it takes the government to look into whether or not there is some sort of foul in this agreement then i expect the govt. to look into it. looking at history, it has been proven time and again that we cannot trust big business to regulate themsleves, Greed takes over

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

So who's the greedy one, Netflix or Comcast?

bcharly

both, no need to raise rates or fees or wh**ever, they will only pass them on to the user. Comcast wants to charge Netflix more. you figure it out.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

http://medium.com/mercatus-scholar-commentary/five-myths-about-net-neutrality-9886d5639bcc

Five Myths about Net Neutrality

In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v**e on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do.

Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”

Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.

As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.

RealityPrioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.

Reality:Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.

[/b]Reality[/b]:The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.

Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.

Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Don't use either. Fees go up, no way to stop them, Hollywood wants their money.

Doesn't matter which charges more, the consumer price will go up. Redbox has started the push like Netflix so prices may remain stable for the time being. The end player is Hollywood!

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

There is no one restricting anything currently on the internet - and if there is a reason to have the government extend its reach there is a process, or at least there once was, that involves elected representatives passing legislation - not unaccountable bureaucrats grabbing power to solve a problem you and they think may sometime in the future exist.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

How about if Comcast chargers the subscriber more for more data? Is that OK or do you need the government protecting you there also?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Remember that the next time you v**e dimwit or repulsive for the bankster CFR vetted and approved candidate of "choice". With the exception of a few political payoff cabinet department secretaries and agency heads, the bureaucrats of the deep state will remain the same.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

That's why I consistently v**e for the candidate most likely to restrain or reduce the size and scope of government

buffalo Loc: Texas

And which one was that in 2012? Oliar or Rmoney?

Mitt Romney would given have America four more years of war, more debt, more taxes, bigger government, reduced privacy, and diminished personal liberty just like oliar has. Probably even more hawkish, like insane macane and increased defense spending to even more outragous levels and tell us that Social Security and Medicare are broke. After all, oliar campaigned in 2008 to end the wars. But he has unleashed drone strikes — acts of war — against a half a dozen nations or more, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. President Obama claims that he’s kept a “tight leash” on drone strikes, but documented drone strikes have k**led at least 168 children according to widely published studies. One of these children was 16-year-old, Colorado-born, U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was k**led in a Yemeni drone strike in October 2011.

Yeah, lots of difference, NOT!

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

So, to you Romney and Obama are exactly the same - really?

If that is the case, what exactly do you propose, armed revolution or mass relocation?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

You have a crystal ball or have you been reading left wing rags?

Everything you listed Obama has given us so maybe your concerned Romney might have cut you food stamps?

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Yeah, Republicans, we can't live with them, they can't live with themselves. They've defined some of the world's greatest evils, of all time. Like "Food Stamps", I mean really what greater threat to Democracy, Freedom and Mankind can there be, than a program designed to feed people who don't have enough money to buy bread? What evil C*******t plot is it that would want to feed starving people? Oh the horror, the very thought of helping others is an a*********n. I'm sure somewhere in the Bible it says "Blessed are those who repeal Food Stamp programs, for they shall increase their "profit shares", thus sayeth Goldman/Sachs, amen. How dare Democrats, or anyone for that matter, think up a program, that is implemented by the evil treacherous Satanic Government, designed to feed others. For we, the "Tea Party", know who these merchants of evil are and we will "Primary" them out of existence.

buffalo Loc: Texas

We can spend $6 TRILLION on illegal, unConstitutional, immoral warmongering and the lying, greedy corporate puppets tell us Social Security and Medicare are broke? After they have stolen the money?

The teaparty is a fraud.


Bulls**t!!!

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

I hear you brother. Semper Fi!