That's a free market, right?
Nope.
Sorry, it is, according to you.
From what I think I understand of the ruling, and I hope I'm wrong, is ISP who also offer cable TV/satellite subscription service may soon be able to legally block Internet access dependent competitors to cable TV like Netflix, Hulu and even youtube. Or it might possibly mean if you access those services, you have to pay more regardless of whether or not you use more bandwidth than a non-user. So in essence, it might not be about speech censorship where certain ideological perspectives might be banned but rather a backdoor ruling that has an inadvertent anti-competition pathway for ISPs that operate cable TV services to shutout online streaming TV. Again, I might be and hope I'm wrong.
Then why does Comcast get a right to free speech on its cables running on land (i. e. the platform) on which the public owns?
I dont think anyone is arguing free speech. But rather that the federal govt doesnt have to right to micromanage operations. Comcast or whoever isnt trying to censor, but to profit off high demand services.
You're not wrong, and ISPs are already doing it everyday. The only reason Skype works in the US, for instance, is because Microsoft shells out big $$ to ensure that Skype packets aren't selectively blocked.
What the ISPs need to recognize here is that the Internet is not just the bad ol' USA, but other countries have networks (i. e. fiber) through which IP traffic runs, and a content provider's market consists of those countries as well.
So if an ISP tries to block/slow a content provider's packets, that content provider will still claim a large market share in countries (i. e. Iceland, Norway) where its packets aren't slowed.
During the time Skype became big, it was still very much a European craze, and it was not until later that it became popular in the US, and only at that point can US ISPs step in to address it.
BOTTOM line: the ISPs geographic limitation gives it limited power to exploit its oligopoly to stifle competition from content providers
I dont think anyone is arguing free speech. But rather that the federal govt doesnt have to right to micromanage operations. Comcast or whoever isnt trying to censor, but to profit off high demand services.
Principle aside, I'd probably not care very much if cable and satellite gave their customers what they want in terms of service. There are two reasons people like Roku, Apple TV and Goople Play:
1. Its cheaper
2. You can get loads of content cable doesn't offer.
In an earlier phase in my life I was completely stoked that satellite TV (DirecTV and DISH Network) had the technical ability to bring distant city local TV to anywhere in America. Guess what? The TV industry got congress to outlaw it. I tried every loophole I could think of to get around it and even had select TV stations in New York and Los Angeles for a while but that eventually ended and in time I gave up.
Now I have Roku and discovered the Livestream channel that offers presently 40 or so local TV stations local newscasts from Boston to Hawaii in HD and growing. Now I'm waiting for the local news from TV stations around the English speaking world outside of the US, which I think is only a matter of time. Cable TV and satellite could have done what Roku is offering but never did.
Whoever circumvents it (runs their own pipes) will have to lobby the silly idiotic legislatures of the konservative (anti-freedom) states to be able to do it.
TRANSLATION: you have no problem w/cable companies running cables through public taxpayer-funded land and then be subject to zero accountability from those said taxpayers.
What evidence do you have that Comcast owns all the land through which its cables run? Please provide it for us below. Certainly you're not arguing that Comcast can do whatever it wants on land it doesn't own, right?
That may end up being true but I guarantee if the demand is there someone will fill it in some manner.
Wonder how this will impact the functionality of virtual private networks/servers and onion routing.
Power companies shouldn't be able to regulate which appliances you are allowed to use. ISP's shouldn't be able to regulate which services you use.
RIP Roku 2002 - 2014
Nope, Comcast is trying to prevent communities through which its cable runs from allowing it to enact terms and conditions on how that cable is to be used, in spite of the fact that the communities own the land.
You're claiming that an apt. complex owner dictating rules, regulations to tenants is micromanaging their lives--that's hardly the case. Property owners have a right to dictate terms re: the use of their land.
Power companies shouldn't be able to regulate which appliances you are allowed to use. ISP's shouldn't be able to regulate which services you use.
"We see that your electricity is going into a Dell brand computer. Powering Dell brand computers comes with an additional service fee of $4.95 per kWh. Here's a link to Apple computers, which do not come with this additional fee! (because Apple paid us an arbitrary amount of money for that. Don't worry, I'm sure they didn't increase the price of their computers. They wouldn't pass on costs to customers, would they?)"
And some of the right-wingers here think this will be good for the market.
Yes they should, so long as you choose to purchase electricity from them.
It takes billions of dollars to do it, you have to tear up streets, and that's still no guarantee you can actually avoid using lines run by the other ISPs due to the way internet traffic works.
Only if you assume that another will NEVER be invented. That's a bad assumption to make.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?