Possible new FCC chair could focus on net neutrality, not cable pricing
By Darren Murph 
posted Jan 13th 2009 5:59PM
posted Jan 13th 2009 5:59PM
Make no mistake, we have all ideas that Julius Genachowski is very much concerned with cable pricing, but according to analysts, putting pressure on operators isn't apt to be his focus. Jules, as he's known around the Engadget offices, is expected to be named the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. His primary concern? Network neutrality. As with most things in politics, the appointment is likely to be a double-edged sword for consumers; on one hand, we'll greatly benefit from a higher-up pushing open internet development and increased deployment, but on the other, we can pretty much kiss any faint hopes of à la carte pay-TV arrangements goodbye. Of course, before he tackles any of that, he'll first have to deal with the impending digital TV transition, which should be immensely riveting to watch from the sidelines.
BYE BYE KEVIN MARTIN! Finally...
He looks really uncomfortable...and rightfully so.
Like he is sat down in a field of cucumbers.
Yeah looks like a bad case of roids and not the good kind
Yeah you plug that analog hole.
(Irrelevant but it fits the picture)
Well, when I first read the title, I thought that they had conceived some new kind of chair that focused more on net neutrality rather than its originally intended purpose, sitting.
So, maybe he's sitting on the net neutrality chair. Sounds uncomfortable to me.
Net Neutrality = Killing Speed and Innovation at the expense of so-called "fairness"
It's about time that we get some real broadband in this country... the price we pay compared to some other countries for the relatively pathetic bandwidth we get is astronomical.
Too bad I can't get FiOS, either!
tell me about it... my dad works for Verizon, knows how to use/setup/fix the fiber system and splice it too. problem is the lack of equipment in the central offices. and my stupid county is far back on the list to get it.
You're not looking at where the subsidies for those low prices are coming from...much higher taxes! It boggles the mind that people want the same government that has botched countless endeavors recently and historically (Katrina, Iraq, Social Security) to run the internet...
What? Joey Tribbiani will be the new FCC cairman?
How you doin'?
Haha, I didn't notice it before but I see the resemblance. O_o
Possible new FCC chair could focus on...
...wasting more time, dragging his feet.
That should be the title of this post.
Net Neutrality: Because nothing says innovation like THE GOVERNMENT!
You're insane, hope that helps.
wow kid ur cool
we had a test of the digital broadcast on the local Fox News that I overheard. My TV is fine, I have an HD and it's hooked up to cable. What was fnuny though, the guy's like "when I press this button, we're going to be broadcasting in digital." So he presses the button, and like 2 seconds of That 70's Show played, and I thought they broke TV.
no, that's FM radio.
Net Neutrality = Killing Speed and Innovation at the expense of so-called "fairness
The government has done a remarkable job of keeping its nose out of the internet (when compared to just about every other industry). Here's hoping they keep up the good work and not impose any new regulations, including network neutrality.
Nah, Obama needs to rid the intertubes of any Right leaning bias, till then it won't be fair.
...and think of how much more expensive cable would be when you incorporate the increased taxes to pay for government-run (always the most efficient) infrastructure upgrades. People love to point out how "cheap" broadband is in Europe without having the insight to look at the tax rates.
You know that a la carte programming would actually increase the average consumers cable bill right? Not to mention completely decimate any educational programming.
Bingo! The smaller networks make their money from the cable/satellite packages, and so many of them would shut down if programming was a la carte. It is a bad, bad idea.
Net neutrality, like so many things, is a double edged sword, and I'm not getting into that discussion...
Good reasoning. No one is willing to pay to watch this stuff, so we must preserve it...
Of all the explanations of this, Ask a Ninja really sums it up the best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ
Umm, Al-a-carte pricing for Cable will save nobody anything. The investment is in the infrastructure and support. The cost to deliver 1's and 0's to 100,000 people is rather much the same as 95,000 people, or 5,000 even.
The Internet is a perfect example of how successful something can be without government intervention. Why spoil a good thing? Let the free market work. At the core layer the Internet is extremely expensive to run but if the govt tries to lower that "cost", it will only move the cost to a more indirect area - taxes. But then again, we have great examples of govt intervened successes: schools, medicare, social security, and soon nationalized healthcare.
Oh, shut up.
Social security has a $57 Trillion (yes trillion) unfunded liability...