Slashdot Mirror
Roku Has Hired a Team of Lobbyists As it Gears Up For a Net Neutrality Fight (recode.net)
Roku appears to be arming itself for the coming net neutrality war. From a report on Recode: The web video streaming and hardware company has plenty at stake as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to pull back rules that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. For Roku and others in the business, an end to the Obama-era protections could make it harder -- or, in some cases, more expensive -- to offer content or services to customers at top download speeds. That's why Roku has hired a pair of Republican lobbyists through an outside government-affairs firm, according to a federal ethics reports filed this week, specifically to focus on net neutrality. It's the first time the company has ever retained lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Many in the tech industry support the Obama-era FCC's net neutrality rules, which currently subject telecom companies to utility-style regulation. To Democrats, it's the only way to stop the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter or Verizon from blocking competing services or charging media companies for faster delivery of their content.
Actually that really is the problem. The only solution that Democrats see is more regulation.
All that needs to happen is to eliminate the government-granted monopolies in cable and DSL Internet service. Either allow multiple cable and phone companies to install lines in government-controlled easements; or award the line installation and maintenance to a single company and allow multiple cable/phone companies to run their service over the single line (this will probably be the optimal solution going forward as fiber can supplant copper). Once you have competition, you don't need net neutrality anymore. Any ISP who intentionally degrades Netflix to try to make their own video streaming service seem better will simply lose all their Netflix-using customers. Preferential network prioritization only works because customers have no alternate ISP to flee to, and that's only the case because of government meddling in the market (government-granted monopolies).
Democrats like the current monopoly arrangement because it means multiple companies have to bid (bribe) to win the monopoly, and afterwards they only have to deal with a single point of contact if they wish to alter the deal. Ideally, we'd get rid of both net neutrality and government-granted monopolies. There should be a single set of wires to every home in the country, and every homeowner could pick whether they wanted Internet service from Comcast, Verizon, Spectrum, Cox, AT&T, or dozens of other smaller carriers.
In this day and age, internet access is a public necessity, not a luxury. Because of this, I strongly believe ISPs should be regulated like utilities, like water, gas, and electricity.
Fuck off ass-hole. Hate to break it to fuck nuts but PEOPLE ARE PAYING ACCESS COMING AND GOING. Amazon pays for on-line access and user pay for on-line access. The only ones whining or the damn ISPs because they feel they should be able to double dip and charger Amazon because their content is traveling through their tubs. Well ass-hole it is being paid for by the fucking user.
And no it's not the fucking backbone that is asking for more money. It's Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.
Fuck off and die.
Many proponents of net neutrality are mainly concerned about the cost of their video streaming. This puts a big demand on infrastructure and not everybody watches streaming video. I may not want to subsidizes your Game of Thrones addiction.
That is much less a net-nutrality issue and much more a monopoly issue.
Until it becomes legal for any network provider or ISP to run their own wiring through a city, you get exactly the same choice as the rest of us do - none.
It's the fault of laws that enable a single ISP to be a monopoly that are why you have no choice but to subsidize our video streaming addiction.
Fix that and you'll find those of us that want to pay more for the bandwidth to stream video will flock to an ISP that allows it, and people such as yourself who don't care about streaming video can flock to an ISP that provides less bandwidth and charges you less for it.
The internet was not created in a free market and should not be treated like one. The backbone providers built their backbone on eminent domain land grabs under the guise of public good. The ISPs made a deal with the socialism devil to build infrastructure and the socialism devil has come to collect. As much as it pains me to say this making internet providers a common carrier was the correct move by Obama. If I build a road I should be able to decide who uses it, if I use the government to force people to sell me their land I forfeit the right to choose who uses my road.
Using eminent domain is a responsibility not a privilege.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I don't know why people think H.265 means 4K.
I care about H.265 because I could get the same quality from less bandwidth, or better quality from the same bandwidth.
#DeleteFacebook