I tried to watch a saints game last year and was skeptical. I used the kids laptop instead of mine and all sorts of funky stuff started happening. Watched the Mayweather fight a year or so ago on it with Polish announcers. I'm not sold on it yet. Video quality is terrible. Maybe I'm not doing it right
The FCC's nod to the ability of ISP's to charge web services for internet speed is going forward with a 3-2 vote and this has made such strange bed fellows that it must be very bad: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has also denounced the proposed rules unveiled by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. "The latest proposed rules by Wheeler -- what he's really talking about is creating a fast lane where people can pay to have their content treated unequally," he told Time. "That's not net neutrality. That's pay for play. That's antithetical to net neutrality."
I'n not really sure what all the furor is about. Internet providers already charge more for more speed. With ATT U Verse there are several different packages of upload and download speed. The more you pay the faster your internet connection.
yes. On our end we pay for speed. But now ISPs will be able to charge web services for speed. So your max download speed will not be necessarily what you paid for but it will be different depending on how much the web site you are streaming from has paid also. If you are one who likes to stream content (video or music), it matters. This all brought to you by ATT, Time Warner, and Comcast.
Why is that a problem? The services that won't pay for enough bandwidth to stream from without delay will go out of business and be replaced by the services that will pay for it. Removing restrictions on the marketplace will ultimately benefit the consumers.
