What is the controversy surrounding Comcast and antitrust laws?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here’s How Comcast Plans to Rule American Cable and Internet
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/comcast-opinion/

Once upon a time, government agencies might have been interested in such things. But with the narrow definitions of anti-trust hobbling the Justice Department, the Federal Communications Commission having given away (so far) its authority over broadband and Congress more in the thrall of large companies, it’s almost a certainty that consumers will get the short end of the stick, again.

 

[Evo]

I officially was notified last week in a letter thy sent, I'm currently with Time Warner. :(

 

[SixNein]

Here’s How Comcast Plans to Rule American Cable and Internet
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/comcast-opinion/

The death of net neutrality is going to place a significant amount of power in their hands even if they don't merge.

It's already hitting some startups:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/

And I don't look for congress to step in any time soon. The only expert advice they get is from lobbyists. They killed the program that gave them expert advice on technology in 1995.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ely-to-remain-clueless-about-technology.shtml

So one might as well talk to a tree when it comes to problems in ultra strong IP, anti-trust, privacy, and a large number of other issues in technology. Everyone is an expert I guess =/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Ted Cruz Says Net Neutrality Is 'Obamacare For The Internet'
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11

ugh, this is going to get heated up again...

 

[SixNein]

Ted Cruz Says Net Neutrality Is 'Obamacare For The Internet'
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11

ugh, this is going to get heated up again...

Who cares what Ted Cruz has to say? lol

I'm very happy to see the President take a stance on the issue. The tech community did a lot to get the man elected.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Who cares what Ted Cruz has to say?

Apparently the millions of people that support him

 

[SixNein]

Apparently the millions of people that support him

I think it says a lot about the state of our politics when people like him are taken seriously.

 

[dlgoff]

Ted Cruz Says Net Neutrality Is 'Obamacare For The Internet'
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11

ugh, this is going to get heated up again...

I'm sure glad I did a search and found this thread as I was about to ask ... WT... this was about.

 

[SixNein]

I'm sure glad I did a search and found this thread as I was about to ask ... WT... this was about.

My above post from MIT contradicts the claims being made by republicans.

 

[dlgoff]

My above post from MIT contradicts the claims being made by republicans.

Exactly. :)

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm very happy to see the President take a stance on the issue. The tech community did a lot to get the man elected.

Well, I for one would hope that the President does not use his office to reward his supporters and punish his enemies.

As far as the argument "Ted Cruz is against it so I must be for it", well, personally, I don't want to let Ted Cruz do my thinking for me.

While "neutrality" sounds like a good thing, and Comcast is (IMHO rightfully) one of the most hated companies in America, this is a much more complex issue than can be decided by "Comcast and Ted Cruz don't like it, and in any event, who doesn't like neutrality?" Indeed, many networks try very hard not to be neutral - the term is Quality of Service (QoS). If I am streaming video (or more importantly, audio), I need the packet to arrive within a very small window - measured in milliseconds. If I am downloading a new release of Linux, I have more flexibility and can better tolerate delayed packets. If you don't like the carrier imposing a surcharge on streaming video, perhaps you would agree to a discount for a lower QoS.

Of course, there are many variations of this, and people have different opinions on what the best policy is. But "net neutrality" is more a slogan than an actual policy.

 

[mheslep]

My above post from MIT contradicts the claims being made by republicans.

The Tech Review no longer has a direct connection to MIT, despite the name. TR is published now by an independent media company, though MIT owns the company.

 

[SixNein]

Well, I for one would hope that the President does not use his office to reward his supporters and punish his enemies.

As far as the argument "Ted Cruz is against it so I must be for it", well, personally, I don't want to let Ted Cruz do my thinking for me.

While "neutrality" sounds like a good thing, and Comcast is (IMHO rightfully) one of the most hated companies in America, this is a much more complex issue than can be decided by "Comcast and Ted Cruz don't like it, and in any event, who doesn't like neutrality?" Indeed, many networks try very hard not to be neutral - the term is Quality of Service (QoS). If I am streaming video (or more importantly, audio), I need the packet to arrive within a very small window - measured in milliseconds. If I am downloading a new release of Linux, I have more flexibility and can better tolerate delayed packets. If you don't like the carrier imposing a surcharge on streaming video, perhaps you would agree to a discount for a lower QoS.

Of course, there are many variations of this, and people have different opinions on what the best policy is. But "net neutrality" is more a slogan than an actual policy.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that an operator shouldn't be able to prioritize streaming over email traffic. We are talking about the ability to adjust priorities based on non-technical reasons. What streaming services should we give priority to and which ones should we deny? Those kinds of questions are what the debate is all about.