Republican FCC moves to end Obama-era net neutrality rules

[InTheLight]

And my favorite article, which supports the first paragraph above, is about Google and Amazon. Remember, there are two parts to net neutrality: Content and Service. Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook, et al are the Content providers; Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, et al are the Service Providers.
If you have Amazon devices, and are trying to visit YouTube, you may see a message that says "YouTube will no longer work on this device after January 1." This is because Google is feuding with Amazon. Remember, these are both content providers. In other words, you have two content providers who are opposing the FCC proposal next week and are allegedly staunch supporters of net neutrality, that are limiting what you and I, the consumers, can access.

Not quite. You can get YouTube and you can get Amazon Video on Comcast. Because of the Amazon/Google feud, you might not be able to watch YouTube on Amazon branded devices, like the Amazon Fire or the Amazon Echo. Meanwhile Amazon won't sell Google Chromecast devices. But hey, I've got a smart TV with the YouTube App and the Amazon Video App. My service provider is Comcast. I can watch either one of these content providers. The feud is over the delivery devices used to see the content. The service provider doesn't even enter into it. This really isn't a net neutrality issue.

The better analogy would be Betamax and VHS. Or Apple and Android.

In the 1980's we'd go to the video store (the service provider). We'd look at video tapes of movies from MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount (the content providers). We'd choose the delivery system (Beta or VHS) and go home and watch it on our hardware devices.

Apple apps don't work on Android devices, and vice-versa. VHS tapes didn't play in Betamax players. YouTube isn't going to play on Amazon Fire devices.

 

[Don]

Not quite. You can get YouTube and you can get Amazon Video on Comcast. Because of the Amazon/Google feud, you might not be able to watch YouTube on Amazon branded devices, like the Amazon Fire or the Amazon Echo. Meanwhile Amazon won't sell Google Chromecast devices. But hey, I've got a smart TV with the YouTube App and the Amazon Video App. My service provider is Comcast. I can watch either one of these content providers. The feud is over the delivery devices used to see the content. The service provider doesn't even enter into it. This really isn't a net neutrality issue.

The better analogy would be Betamax and VHS. Or Apple and Android.

In the 1980's we'd go to the video store (the service provider). We'd look at video tapes of movies from MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount (the content providers). We'd choose the delivery system (Beta or VHS) and go home and watch it on our hardware devices.

Apple apps don't work on Android devices, and vice-versa. VHS tapes didn't play in Betamax players. YouTube isn't going to play on Amazon Fire devices.

Exactly, and thanks for the clarification. That's what I intended to reference--content providers violating net neutrality based on their branded devices--but apparently was rushing myself to get it typed up.

 

[InTheLight]

Exactly, and thanks for the clarification. That's what I intended to reference--content providers violating net neutrality based on their branded devices--but apparently was rushing myself to get it typed up.

I guess you're going to have to define "net neutrality".

I thought it was the idea that ISPs must treat all internet traffic equally. ISPs should not be able to block or degrade access to particular websites or services, nor should ISPs be allowed to set aside "fast lanes" for certain content providers, so these providers can have their content load more quickly.

The Amazon/Google fight is about having rival content accessible on their devices. The ISPs don't really enter into it. Therefore content providers are outside the definition of net neutrality, IMO. I don't see how Google not wanting YouTube playing on Amazon devices is a violation of net neutrality. Unless you are advocating that the government should enforce all content providers to be cross-adaptable to all devices?

 

[Don]

I guess you're going to have to define "net neutrality".

I thought it was the idea that ISPs must treat all internet traffic equally. ISPs should not be able to block or degrade access to particular websites or services, nor should ISPs be allowed to set aside "fast lanes" for certain content providers, so these providers can have their content load more quickly.

The Amazon/Google fight is about having rival content accessible on their devices. The ISPs don't really enter into it. Therefore content providers are outside the definition of net neutrality, IMO. I don't see how Google not wanting YouTube playing on Amazon devices is a violation of net neutrality. Unless you are advocating that the government should enforce all content providers to be cross-adaptable to all devices?

The basic concept of net neutrality is that all data on the internet should be treated equally. The current definition, and the emphasis lately, adds "by ISPs."

-----

I understand your argument about devices; what I'm bringing up is the philosphy regarding actively lobbying for net neutrality, but at the same time denying the basic principle on your proprietary devices. "ISPs should not be allowed to block your access to YouTube, but it's okay for us to do it because you're not using our access device."

Again, I'm referencing philosophy. In practice, in the case of Google and Amazon, the market should be able to correct itself; because of the feud between these two content providers, Roku should see an uptick in sales.

 

[InTheLight]

I understand your argument about devices; what I'm bringing up is the philosphy regarding actively lobbying for net neutrality, but at the same time denying the basic principle on your proprietary devices. "ISPs should not be allowed to block your access to YouTube, but it's okay for us to do it because you're not using our access device."

Ah, OK, got it.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[InTheLight]

Imagined if this had happened to Obama's FCC chairman. Do you think it would be covered by more news outlets?

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his appearance at CES because of death threats

The threats have intensified following an FCC vote to repeal net neutrality rules.


FCC Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his appearance at CES because of death threats


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL