Possible new FCC chair could focus on net neutrality, not cable pricing
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.
Filed under: HDTV, Home Entertainment, Networking
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MRCUR @ Jan 13th 2009 6:06PM
BYE BYE KEVIN MARTIN! Finally...
FLaSHBaCK @ Jan 13th 2009 6:07PM
He looks really uncomfortable...and rightfully so.
Samboini @ Jan 13th 2009 6:18PM
Like he is sat down in a field of cucumbers.
FLaSHBaCK @ Jan 13th 2009 6:27PM
Yeah looks like a bad case of roids and not the good kind
TREX6662k5 @ Jan 13th 2009 7:25PM
Yeah you plug that analog hole.
(Irrelevant but it fits the picture)
warrrennnnn @ Jan 13th 2009 7:55PM
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.
kjb434 @ Jan 13th 2009 6:10PM
Net Neutrality = Killing Speed and Innovation at the expense of so-called "fairness"
paul34 @ Jan 13th 2009 6:14PM
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!
Jeffrey @ Jan 13th 2009 9:14PM
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.
Nick @ Jan 14th 2009 9:40AM
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...
Verythrax @ Jan 13th 2009 6:18PM
What? Joey Tribbiani will be the new FCC cairman?
Andrew @ Jan 13th 2009 6:19PM
How you doin'?
Sora @ Jan 13th 2009 6:21PM
Haha, I didn't notice it before but I see the resemblance. O_o
E. Leigh @ Jan 13th 2009 6:28PM
Possible new FCC chair could focus on...
...wasting more time, dragging his feet.
That should be the title of this post.
Brazell @ Jan 13th 2009 6:38PM
Net Neutrality: Because nothing says innovation like THE GOVERNMENT!
Zorque @ Jan 13th 2009 6:41PM
You're insane, hope that helps.
FLaSHBaCK @ Jan 13th 2009 6:47PM
wow kid ur cool
Levi @ Jan 13th 2009 6:55PM
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.
John @ Jan 13th 2009 7:18PM
no, that's FM radio.
patranus @ Jan 13th 2009 7:52PM
Net Neutrality = Killing Speed and Innovation at the expense of so-called "fairness
JesseBurton @ Jan 14th 2009 12:32AM
You know that a la carte programming would actually increase the average consumers cable bill right? Not to mention completely decimate any educational programming.
Joe Dombrowski @ Jan 14th 2009 1:18AM
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...
Chris @ Jan 14th 2009 11:50AM
Good reasoning. No one is willing to pay to watch this stuff, so we must preserve it...
james @ Jan 14th 2009 9:27AM
Of all the explanations of this, Ask a Ninja really sums it up the best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ
Rocketboy @ Jan 14th 2009 9:53AM
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.
Rob @ Jan 14th 2009 1:14PM
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.
chrome09 @ Jan 14th 2009 2:10PM
Oh, shut up.
Chris @ Jan 14th 2009 6:14PM
Social security has a $57 Trillion (yes trillion) unfunded liability...
Chris @ Jan 14th 2009 6:14PM
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.
z0phi3l @ Jan 14th 2009 1:28AM
Nah, Obama needs to rid the intertubes of any Right leaning bias, till then it won't be fair.
Nick @ Jan 14th 2009 9:38AM
...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.