Net Neutrality. What do you think about this?

[graciegirl]

I have received two of these messages from The White House since I wrote the president on Ebola.

This one is on the internet and plans to use the FCC to control it in some way? Is this a way to stop free enterprise, or a good thing? I don't understand it.


The White House




The President wants you to see this:

This morning, President Obama asked the FCC to put in place strong rules to protect the Internet.

Every day, the Internet unlocks countless possibilities for creation and innovation. And one reason it's been so successful is a level playing field: Most service providers have traditionally treated all Internet traffic equally.

That's the principle of "net neutrality." It's an idea that says an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

As the FCC considers new rules, we simply can't take that principle for granted.

Hear directly from President Obama why he supports net neutrality, and what that means for you. Then pass this message on to anyone who cares about the future of the Internet.

Watch this important message from President Obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality




This email was sent to [email]
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

[Gary7]

Is it okay with you (or anyone) to have their internet access limited to selected websites (Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, face-to-face streaming) due to a third party (e.g., Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner), controlling the speed and ability to access sites? Is it okay to have new small entrepreneur companies unable to compete on a level playing field on the internet? If so, then you are against net neutrality.
If you enjoy your total access to all sites and applications as you do today, then you support net neutrality.
To me today's electricity is similar to net neutrality. You obtain electricity services in your home and you do not need to be told that you have to limit your electricity usage due to a third party company having a big marketing promotion that requires a major allocation of available electricity resources.
This may be an oversimplification ... but I think it exemplifies this complex policy decision.

[dbussone]

///

[Rags123]

I THINK I agree with the President and Gary7, however I do have questions.

This appears to weaken the power of the cable companies, HOWEVER, it does increase Government control over something else in our life, and I am concerned specifically about privacy and what this might mean to that area.

Lastly, much of what we have today in content is the result of Comcast, Netflix, or whomever making it available in the interest of making money.

So...

1. Will this in anyway detract from our privacy ?

2. How much control will the Government actually have on content ?

3. Will the content, as a result of this, be less in quantity or quality.

Anyone with opinions, please....

[redwitch]

Totally for net neutrality. Gary7 said it all.

[Gary7]

1. Will this in anyway detract from our privacy ?
2. How much control will the Government actually have on content ?
3. Will the content, as a result of this, be less in quantity or quality.
Anyone with opinions, please....

Good questions, Rags. My 2 cents (or less) are:
1. I do not think net neutrality changes privacy policies (but who am I to know).
2. From what I read, government will not control the content any more than they do today.
3. I think that without net neutrality, our quality would decrease with our internet services due to a lower bandwidth if cable companies and ISPs demand a higher share of the band available.

[Rags123]

Good questions, Rags. My 2 cents (or less) are:
1. I do not think net neutrality changes privacy policies (but who am I to know).
2. From what I read, government will not control the content any more than they do today.
3. I think that without net neutrality, our quality would decrease with our internet services due to a lower bandwidth if cable companies and ISPs demand a higher share of the band available.


Thanks Gary....just trying to figure this out.....how about a couple more questions...only way to learn.

My thought on privacy is that the President wants to make the internet a "utility". I do not care if the government knows how much electricity I use, but they do control WHO gives it to me and thus lots of information is not kept private.

ON content, where I was going was.....this appears to hit direct at bottom lines of some enterprises. Bottom line goes down..investment in product goes down along with quality perhaps.

I am just trying to weigh it all, but my opinion has always been....it has been already too much like a "utility" and what we need is OPEN COMPETITION.

I do not know but will keep reading

[alanmcdonald]

I had a 3 month battle between Netflix and Comcast whe I could not load Netflix after 8pm. They each blamed the other and Cocast told me to upgrade my router.

Then I read that Comcast and Netflix had made a deal for Netflix to pay for faster speeds. Comcast had throttled back Netflix intentionally. All of a sudden my Netflix was fine again.

For the first time EVER I agree with Obama on this one.

[gomoho]

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

[sunnyatlast]

Why would we believe the current majority in the Senate and White House wants to "protect the little guy" from corporate giants such as "Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner controlling the speed and ability to access sites"....

when they do NOTHING to block the merger of the two worst giant octopus cable-internet carriers, Time Warner and Comcast, into a horrible monopoly that is twice as unresponsive to the consumer as they already are individually??

"When the merger was first proposed last February, some analysts said the bold move to combine such big companies in the telecommunications space would face public and political criticism. And it has. The companies' legendary poor customer service rankings have raised calls for the merger to be blocked because the deal would reward some of the nation's most unpopular firms. As columnist Catherine Rampell asked: "Can we block a merger just because two companies are jerks?"

The FCC, which will review the merger on public interest grounds, may use conditions as a way to create policies without creating formal rules, says Paul Gallant, managing director of telecom research at Guggenheim Partners.

“I still suspect the merger will be approved. It doesn’t seem to trip any antitrust wires, and merger conditions would let the FCC push various Internet policies it cares about," Gallant said. "But I also think the companies’ national reach in broadband is making this a closer call than Comcast-NBCU was four years ago.”


A lot of people don’t like the Comcast-Time Warner merger, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be approved - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/03/a-lot-of-people-dont-like-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-wont-be-approved/)

[dbussone]

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

That is their MO. I subscribed 2 years ago. And I have sent them almost as many emails as they sent me. And as you can imagine, it doesn't matter what your position is...their reply is just a spin on their position. I'm sure I have the NSA monitoring my emails by now.

[dbussone]

That is their MO. I subscribed 2 years ago. And I have sent them almost as many emails as they sent me. And as you can imagine, it doesn't matter what your position is...their reply is just a spin on their position. I'm sure I have the NSA monitoring my emails by now.

And probably my TOTV posts as well.

[graciegirl]

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.


It kinda looks that way.

[Gary7]

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

If someone does not want to receive their email (or a company's email that you receive when ordering their product) then there is always the opt-out option.

[Rags123]

Why would we believe the current majority in the Senate and White House wants to "protect the little guy" from corporate giants such as "Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner controlling the speed and ability to access sites"....

when they do NOTHING to block the merger of the two worst giant octopus cable-internet carriers, Time Warner and Comcast, into a horrible monopoly that is twice as unresponsive to the consumer as they already are individually??

"When the merger was first proposed last February, some analysts said the bold move to combine such big companies in the telecommunications space would face public and political criticism. And it has. The companies' legendary poor customer service rankings have raised calls for the merger to be blocked because the deal would reward some of the nation's most unpopular firms. As columnist Catherine Rampell asked: "Can we block a merger just because two companies are jerks?"

The FCC, which will review the merger on public interest grounds, may use conditions as a way to create policies without creating formal rules, says Paul Gallant, managing director of telecom research at Guggenheim Partners.

“I still suspect the merger will be approved. It doesn’t seem to trip any antitrust wires, and merger conditions would let the FCC push various Internet policies it cares about," Gallant said. "But I also think the companies’ national reach in broadband is making this a closer call than Comcast-NBCU was four years ago.”


A lot of people don’t like the Comcast-Time Warner merger, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be approved - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/03/a-lot-of-people-dont-like-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-wont-be-approved/)


I sure have no way to dispute what you say, but think you are jumping...no LEAPING to conclusions on this...

"Comcast's top executives endured hours of intense questioning from lawmakers worried a merger with Time Warner Cable will hurt consumers and competition, including from Republicans who might have been expected to back the deal.

Some of the toughest questions at a House hearing on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable came from an unlikely source Thursday: free-market, anti-government-intervention, Tea Party Republicans.

The biggest critics of the proposed merger since it was announced earlier this year have been left-leaning consumer rights groups, open-Internet advocates and liberal lawmakers like Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). But Thursday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee hearing saw a different cast of doubter

Self-described “free market advocate” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) repeatedly questioned Comcast executive vice president David Cohen on whether the combined company would increase bills and limit choices for pay TV customers, especially in rural and Hispanic households. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) questioned Comcast’s choice last August to cut a network, RFDTV, that serves primarily rural audiences that carry programming designed to appeal specifically to rural communities. Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Joe Garcia (R-Fla.) homed in on how the merger would affect local businesses in their districts, while Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) said he worried the merger would create “more of an in balance with already left-of-center media environment.”

And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) worried that a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable would be in a position to discriminate against conservative programming, particularly Glenn Beck’s show."

House Republicans Question Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger (http://time.com/92251/comcast-time-warner-cable-congress/)

I saw nothing in your attachment that was political and mine link is from May, but why make this political when there is no evidence, thus far, that there are any politics involved.

[Patty55]

IIRC Net neutrality was originally lumped into Obama's Connect America plan and really was a non-issue. The issue, as I saw it was using the termination fees from large, populated, well connected areas to build the communication infrastructure in rural areas. In my mind, net neutrality was just a bonus for the powers that be.

My opinion? I have smaller fish to fry and couldn't care less.

[dbussone]

If you want to see what is going on behind the scenes, look for the the stealth taxes that the FCC is considering as well as the fees that will be added. Have you checked your cell phone addons recently? The WH does not have an entirely beneficent position here. I don't believe the WH has a pure position on anything.

[Rags123]

If you want to see what is going on behind the scenes, look for the the stealth taxes that the FCC is considering as well as the fees that will be added. Have you checked your cell phone addons recently? The WH does not have an entirely beneficent position here. I don't believe the WH has a pure position on anything.

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC"

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/)

Interesting article....as I said earlier, do not understand but reading this evening starting to......

The article ends with this...

"Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.

It is easy to see government abuses of the Internet abroad. It is time we took a closer look at home as well."

[zcaveman]

Personally, I think the less government intervention the better.

They changed daylight savings times and messed up all of the electronic devices that automatically switched us from one DST to EST or what ever zone you are in.

They messed with the light bulbs and we now have to buy expensive light bulbs made in China and we cannot dispose of them when they die because of the mercury (or whatever) in them.

They screwed with the bandwidths forcing us into the digital world which made money for the cable companies by forcing us to buy the DVR boxes and digital adapters and making all of the VCR/DVDs obsolete.

I cannot begin to think what they will do with the internet access.

Z

[sunnyatlast]

Good article written two days ago:

"On a recent Monday night in Brooklyn, five empty chairs stood on stage — one for each member of the Federal Communications Commission. A crowd had amassed in the room for a public hearing to send this message to the agency: Don’t hurt the open Internet.

But the commissioners’ absence sent a stronger message: We’re not listening.

The FCC — the agency charged with regulating telecommunications — is expected to vote by the end of the year on Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to let Internet service providers (ISPs) offer “fast lanes” to companies that can afford to pay for speedier access.

Hundreds of businesses, organizations, and websites that rely on an open Internet have slammed the plan, which would kill Net Neutrality — the principle that requires ISPs to treat all traffic equally. Net Neutrality has made the Internet an unrivaled space for free speech, civic participation, innovation and opportunity. Without it, a few ISPs would become the gatekeepers of everything we do, say, and see online.

During the public comment period, nearly 4 million people— a record-breaking figure — weighed in on Wheeler’s plan. A whopping 99 percent of these comments oppose this proposal, according to one study.

Given the unprecedented public interest in this issue, many groups have urged the FCC to get out of Washington and host public hearings. But so far Wheeler has ignored this call.

In fact, the FCC has gone out of its way to avoid attending public gatherings like the one in Brooklyn. It’s been more than five years since all five FCC commissioners left Washington together to participate in a public hearing where anyone could testify.

These kinds of public hearings used to be commonplace for the agency, regardless of which political party was in control of Washington. But Wheeler’s FCC is different.

Instead of appearing at events with open microphones, Wheeler — a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries — has opted to attend industry trade shows. In fact, all five commissioners consistently attend the annual conventions of the cable, wireless, broadcasting, and electronics industries.

Yet somehow they just can’t find the time to meet with the public……

Commentary: Nobody listening in net neutrality public hearings (http://www.sheboyganpress.com/story/opinion/2014/11/08/commentary-nobody-listening-net-neutrality-public-hearings/18728857/)

[Rags123]

Good article written two days ago:

"On a recent Monday night in Brooklyn, five empty chairs stood on stage — one for each member of the Federal Communications Commission. A crowd had amassed in the room for a public hearing to send this message to the agency: Don’t hurt the open Internet.

But the commissioners’ absence sent a stronger message: We’re not listening.

The FCC — the agency charged with regulating telecommunications — is expected to vote by the end of the year on Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to let Internet service providers (ISPs) offer “fast lanes” to companies that can afford to pay for speedier access.

Hundreds of businesses, organizations, and websites that rely on an open Internet have slammed the plan, which would kill Net Neutrality — the principle that requires ISPs to treat all traffic equally. Net Neutrality has made the Internet an unrivaled space for free speech, civic participation, innovation and opportunity. Without it, a few ISPs would become the gatekeepers of everything we do, say, and see online.

During the public comment period, nearly 4 million people— a record-breaking figure — weighed in on Wheeler’s plan. A whopping 99 percent of these comments oppose this proposal, according to one study.

Given the unprecedented public interest in this issue, many groups have urged the FCC to get out of Washington and host public hearings. But so far Wheeler has ignored this call.

In fact, the FCC has gone out of its way to avoid attending public gatherings like the one in Brooklyn. It’s been more than five years since all five FCC commissioners left Washington together to participate in a public hearing where anyone could testify.

These kinds of public hearings used to be commonplace for the agency, regardless of which political party was in control of Washington. But Wheeler’s FCC is different.

Instead of appearing at events with open microphones, Wheeler — a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries — has opted to attend industry trade shows. In fact, all five commissioners consistently attend the annual conventions of the cable, wireless, broadcasting, and electronics industries.

Yet somehow they just can’t find the time to meet with the public……

Commentary: Nobody listening in net neutrality public hearings (http://www.sheboyganpress.com/story/opinion/2014/11/08/commentary-nobody-listening-net-neutrality-public-hearings/18728857/)

There is a thread about how politics is a waste of time, yet, while we avoid "wasting our time" our leaders are appointing folks like this and we do not care....we do not discuss and it matters not to us and thus we get what you point out.

On the other hand, we have a poster on this subject who is doing the right thing....writing and expressing opinion.

These appoinments, like FCC are done quietly because we just do not care. CSPAN is a very big tool for us Americans and one that most countries would love to have (I almost said "would kill for" and that is true actually) yet we ignore that kind of thing as dirty and taboo !

[blueash]

To date the internet has been neutral. What Comcast et al have requested is the ability to have certain websites work better for the consumer, and other website work more slowly. Of course Comcast would insist that for a website to work well, or even work at all, the website must pay Comcast a fee. At this time all websites are neutrally passed thru to the consumer by Comcast. So having net neutrality preserves the status quo. If you'd like Comcast for instance slowing down TOTV if they don't pay up, then you should oppose Obama's proposal. Now he does not have the legal authority to force the FCC to accept his position. Some very powerful politicians have vigorously come out against his position, perhaps they get donations from Comcast, perhaps they have ODS.

Here is Obama's statement

Ever since the internet was created, it's been organized around the basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom. There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There are no toll roads on the information super highway. This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the internet and given innovators the chance to thrive. Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the internet as we know it.
That's why I'm laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open. That's why I'm urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone. They should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone, or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to limit or block your access to a website. Cable companies can't decide which online stores you shop at, or which streaming services you can use. And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors.

To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassify internet service under Title II of the law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I'm asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is theirs alone. But the public has already commented nearly four million times, asking the FCC to make sure that consumers, not the cable companies, get to decide which sites they use. Americans are making their voices heard, standing up for the principles that make the internet a powerful force for change. As long as I'm president, that's what I'll be fighting for, too.

[CFrance]

And probably my TOTV posts as well.
Good one! The Mods as NSA. You can run, but you can't hide!:wave:

[blueash]

This turned silly and political and I think is a very important subject. Can anyone suggest some reading on this subject.

I have been searching but looking for what might be the long range impact either way WITHOUT the politics !

Thanks

While wikipedia is crowd produced and there are editors, it does tend to have a good self-correcting mechanism

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality) There you will see both some pro and con arguments. You will also see the history of the concern, and that the term was not coined by a politician. At this point there are also over 150 links you can follow.

The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/) I don't think Scientific American has a political agenda

[Rags123]

While wikipedia is crowd produced and there are editors, it does tend to have a good self-correcting mechanism

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality) There you will see both some pro and con arguments. You will also see the history of the concern, and that the term was not coined by a politician. At this point there are also over 150 links you can follow.

The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/) I don't think Scientific American has a political agenda

Thanks for those links.....I like the link below from the Detroit Free Press...and for those who make light of this subject or have a bit of political fun....this from the article...

"Net neutrality is the most important policy concept you've probably never heard of. Negotiations under way in Washington, D.C. — between broadband service providers, President Barack Obama and the Federal Communications Commission — will likely have a far greater impact on how you live your life than, say, Ebola."

It is easy to understand...well, sort of, but gives the basics and is not that long to read. I really suggest all read it as it will have an impact and it is not so easy to "pick a side" on this without reading a bit.

What you need to know about net neutrality (http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/11/10/net-neutrality-obama/18803701/)


PS....I might add that this paper seems to also have a bit of an agenda, but it is a start !!!

[JourneyOfLife]

People would be wise to not look at this issue in partisan political terms.


So called, net neutrality is just one issue! Laws and regs are lagging technological development of the internet! The last time communications laws were really updated was when AT&T was broken up! Since that time there has not been a major overhaul... and the internet has happened! They have just put a few band-aids on it! Now the internet is now the major communication mechanism in the USA.

The internet is intertwined with our economy, finance, our currency (electronic transactions), and in many other areas of our lives. That is just too much power for a handful of companies to have without rules!

Plus... as we can all see, those companies are elimnating competition by merging! For example... AT&T seems to be reassembling its parts! We only have 4 phone companies, and they were angling to take that number down to 3 phone companies! Same goes for the cable companies!


The question is:

- Do you think a few large companies that stand to make a lot of money will keep promises to be good and self regulate in a manner that will end up being fair to all?

- Or do you think the gov can come up with a regulatory framework that is fair to all?

Obviously there will never be a perfect solution!

Companies by definition have a goal of maximizing profit and of course management wants to maximize bonuses (rationalized by profit gains).

Personally, I believe large businesses have too much of a conflict of interest to do a good job of self regulation!

IMO; Since there is little competition... there needs to be a counterblance!

[Rags123]

People would be wise to not look at this issue in partisan political terms.


So called, net neutrality is just one issue! Laws and regs are lagging technological development of the internet! The last time communications laws were really updated was when AT&T was broken up! Since that time there has not been a major overhaul... and the internet has happened! They have just put a few band-aids on it! Now the internet is now the major communication mechanism in the USA.

The internet is intertwined with our economy, finance, our currency (electronic transactions), and in many other areas of our lives. That is just too much power for a handful of companies to have without rules!

Plus... as we can all see, those companies are elimnating competition by merging! For example... AT&T seems to be reassembling its parts! We only have 4 phone companies, and they were angling to take that number down to 3 phone companies! Same goes for the cable companies!


The question is:

- Do you think a few large companies that stand to make a lot of money will keep promises to be good and self regulate in a manner that will end up being fair to all?

- Or do you think the gov can come up with a regulatory framework that is fair to all?

Obviously there will never be a perfect solution!

Companies by definition have a goal of maximizing profit and of course management wants to maximize bonuses (rationalized by profit gains).

Personally, I believe large businesses have too much of a conflict of interest to do a good job of self regulation!

IMO; Since there is little competition... there needs to be a counterblance!

Good post...as I look at this, I find the word competition missing and that seems to be the answer.

I agree totally with you...THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE at all.

I also want to share, for anyone who might be interested, another great link..

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html?abt=0002&abg=0

This is an important issue

[duhbear]

What do I think of net neutrality? Like Gary7 and many others I'm all for it! Period.

Now however, do I trust this government to administer the net. Absolutely not.

Just remember it was great when they started with cable tv to incent companies to make it available to everyone and we all know how that has gone.

[blueash]

What do I think of net neutrality? Like Gary7 and many others I'm all for it! Period.

Now however, do I trust this government to administer the net. Absolutely not.

Just remember it was great when they started with cable tv to incent companies to make it available to everyone and we all know how that has gone.

How do you think the net is being "administered" now? If you like the way it is working in terms of equal availability of ideas and materials, you can thank the FCC for having it that way. What is being proposed is changing the system. Again the FCC gets to make the call based on current law. You may not like the government, but regulations are essential. Or we could just let Comcast run it anyway they like. Who do you suggest administer the net? That is a serious question unless by "this government" you just mean a government with Obama as the President even when he agrees with you about net neutrality.

[Rags123]

What do I think of net neutrality? Like Gary7 and many others I'm all for it! Period.

Now however, do I trust this government to administer the net. Absolutely not.

Just remember it was great when they started with cable tv to incent companies to make it available to everyone and we all know how that has gone.

I am not sure if I understand this post ! Can you clarify ? What about competition for example ?

I am not clear yet on how it affects US, the citizen. You obviously are..please explain it to me.

It appears to me that no matter what, we are going to pay the bill and I am trying to figure if we get more or less for our money.

[Gary7]

I am not sure if I understand this post ! Can you clarify ? What about competition for example ?

I am not clear yet on how it affects US, the citizen. You obviously are..please explain it to me.

It appears to me that no matter what, we are going to pay the bill and I am trying to figure if we get more or less for our money.

If we do not have net neutrality, then small companies and entrepreneur start-ups will have a difficult time competing for their services with limited bandwidth ... with the advantage to the huge companies like Comcast and others. In this case, you may not be able to find the solution that you want (e.g., an innovative and legal alternative to cable tv) ... and the huge companies can force the market price up.

[Rags123]

If we do not have net neutrality, then small companies and entrepreneur start-ups will have a difficult time competing for their services with limited bandwidth ... with the advantage to the huge companies like Comcast and others. In this case, you may not be able to find the solution that you want (e.g., an innovative and legal alternative to cable tv) ... and the huge companies can force the market price up.

I hear you and I am still navigating through all the writings on this now.

You seem to be in the know, so allow me ...

Making the internet like a utility, will then demand that the government monitor it with their own equipment. That bothers me...is that an unecessary worry ?

While the internet can be very frustrating, it seems to me that acting as a utility with government involved will stifle the content and in fact, allow the government to make the final decision on content. Is that overstated in your opinion ?

While we do not think much about it, there IS investment in broadband and it is exchanged on the stock market. This requires individual investors putting up their money. Would, in your opinion, net neutrality squash any or all private investment ?

[Gary7]

I hear you and I am still navigating through all the writings on this now.

You seem to be in the know, so allow me ...

Making the internet like a utility, will then demand that the government monitor it with their own equipment. That bothers me...is that an unecessary worry ?

While the internet can be very frustrating, it seems to me that acting as a utility with government involved will stifle the content and in fact, allow the government to make the final decision on content. Is that overstated in your opinion ?

While we do not think much about it, there IS investment in broadband and it is exchanged on the stock market. This requires individual investors putting up their money. Would, in your opinion, net neutrality squash any or all private investment ?

I am not an expert … I just have studied and worked with the internet since the earliest days.
- Government monitor the internet? They always have … and they always will. Be thankful for the type of monitoring that they have done since the beginning of the internet.
- This policy has no effect on content. … unless you not let net neutrality happen … in which case it can decrease business competition and thus decrease content.
- Private investment? My two cents says there are always investors but the variable is the amount of risk on small companies and entrepreneurships they want to take to ensure a solid return on investment.

[Rags123]

I am not an expert … I just have studied and worked with the internet since the earliest days.
- Government monitor the internet? They always have … and they always will. Be thankful for the type of monitoring that they have done since the beginning of the internet.
- This policy has no effect on content. … unless you not let net neutrality happen … in which case it can decrease business competition and thus decrease content.
- Private investment? My two cents says there are always investors but the variable is the amount of risk on small companies and entrepreneurships they want to take to ensure a solid return on investment.

I appreciate your input and thank you. Even though you do not profess to be an expert, alongside me, you are just that !

I am not anti government, and I know the FCC is "government", but I just have trouble allowing the government to intrude once again into our lives...It very seldom works :)

I still must continue reading on this before I make any decision on how I am leaning. I certainly am tainted by Comcast for sure :)

[Bavarian]

The problem is Net-Neutrality will be used to pull websites from the INTERNET that the Central Government does not like. The INTERNET is the equivalent of phamleting in the days leading up to the Revolution.

[Indydealmaker]

Net neutrality offers some much needed protections for consumers. However, the reality of business is if sources of revenue are blocked for the broadband providers, that lost income will come from somewhere else.

There is No Free Lunch and every time the government steps in "to save the day", the cost of that lunch ends up skyrocketing.

This is a no win proposition. Once the FCC can rule the internet, you can be sure that internet regulations will be voluminous.

[Gary7]

This is a no win proposition. Once the FCC can rule the internet, you can be sure that internet regulations will be voluminous.

The FCC in 1934 through the Communications Act was given very broad powers to regulate all transmission of information.

[alanmcdonald]

If all the FCC does is true net neutrality, eliminating the option for a provider to offer faster transmission for a price that's a great thing for consumers.

If they try to regulate content IN ANY WAY Congress will need to reign them in.

[Hankg42]

If all the FCC does is true net neutrality, eliminating the option for a provider to offer faster transmission for a price that's a great thing for consumers.

If they try to regulate content IN ANY WAY Congress will need to reign them in.

Doesn't the FCC regulate content to a certain extent in TV and radio? I believe that is part of their reason for existence. (I certainly could be wrong.) I think I have heard the comment "That's against FCC regulations".

[Gary7]

If all the FCC does is true net neutrality, eliminating the option for a provider to offer faster transmission for a price that's a great thing for consumers.

If they try to regulate content IN ANY WAY Congress will need to reign them in.

The FCC thankfully does regulate some content ... e.g., obscene, indecent, and profanity broadcasts (based on some restrictions), cigarette advertising, and many regulations to protect children ... just to name a few.

[rubicon]

I am late to this thread and I view all of the players (gov't comcast, etc) as not being well regarded by the majority of the public. This is a complex issue so I get right to the store. Obama wants to regulate the Internet as a utility

To begin Obama proposes regulation of the Internet via Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Said Act was antiquated when originally written as it was incorporated from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Literally the law was copied with exception of the subject matter so that where "railroad" appeared ( ICA 1887 dealt with monopoly railroads) "telephone" replaced it

Secondly Obama has already agreed to cede control of the Internet Registry the ICANN codes which countries such as China, Russia, Iran, etc want to control because they can then decide if a website can come on line.

Essentially if the FCC does win over regulation of the internet it will strangle innovation and it will force fees to producers who will only pass them down to consumers.

If Obama cedes control of the ICANN countries such as China will be able to silence those who seek freedoms.

Compare what regulations did to railroads by looking at our railways and you get some idea of what net neutrality will do to the Internet.

It is because it is unregulated that it has grown so quickly and to regulate it will strangle technological advances

As to costs to consumers: Consider that water utilities delivering water involves mostly fixed costs. so about every ten years water companies create a shortage in order to justify rate increases CA exception).

I hope someone stops Obama both on the FCC regulations and ceding America's control over ICANN's because he is going to do serious damage to an industry that has great potential if left to market forces

[Gary7]

It is because it is unregulated that it has grown so quickly and to regulate it will strangle technological advances



Thankfully the internet has had a lot of regulations since day one. Without these regulations we would not have this forum. I will not get into the vast and broad range technology aspects of internet standards.
Without these internet standards and regulations, the internet would not exist. Today any computer, phone, printer, fax machine, ATM, face-to-face streaming, credit card authorizations, etc. can communicate to any place in the world … due to standards and regulations. Unlike devices are able to communicate with each other any place in the world … due to standards and regulations.
With improvements in the technology field, the internet standards and regulations have evolved to where we are today … and where we will be in the future.

[alanmcdonald]

Doesn't the FCC regulate content to a certain extent in TV and radio? I believe that is part of their reason for existence. (I certainly could be wrong.) I think I have heard the comment "That's against FCC regulations".

That's why net neutrality has to be done carefully. Congress cannot let the FCC regulate content like it does on TV. It has to be purely an equal access regulation.

[billethkid]

If it involves the US government being involved in modifying, controlling, moderating then I am not in favor of it.

Have we not had enough politically motivated, incompetent led adventures to conclude IF THERE IS A NEED, it most likely be better developed by the experts?

Like many issues at this level there is insufficient levels of understanding by the masses that will be affected. I for one am weary of the people who are not motivated to protect the industry or the people who use it being involved.

Once in the political arena the project will take on a new life of it's own and then it will become business in politics as usual with special interest groups driving an objective that is designed for their gain in the guise of doing something constructive for the users.

Example? Amtrak! USPS!

[dbussone]

If it involves the US government being involved in modifying, controlling, moderating then I am not in favor of it.

Have we not had enough politically motivated, incompetent led adventures to conclude IF THERE IS A NEED, it most likely be better developed by the experts?

Like many issues at this level there is insufficient levels of understanding by the masses that will be affected. I for one am weary of the people who are not motivated to protect the industry or the people who use it being involved.

Once in the political arena the project will take on a new life of it's own and then it will become business in politics as usual with special interest groups driving an objective that is designed for their gain in the guise of doing something constructive for the users.

Example? Amtrak! USPS!

Spot on!

[Gary7]

If it involves the US government being involved in modifying, controlling, moderating then I am not in favor of it.



Thankfully, the government has taken a role to monitor, control, and moderate the internet:
- To protect companies from trademark infringements.
- To direct the arrest of individuals involved in the case of child pornography in the U.S.
- To identify and arrest malicious users for websites that utilize ecommerce (e.g., eBay) and banking (e.g., ATMs)
- To arrest hackers who attack, modify, and disable websites.

[billethkid]

Thankfully, the government has taken a role to monitor, control, and moderate the internet:
- To protect companies from trademark infringements.
- To direct the arrest of individuals involved in the case of child pornography in the U.S.
- To identify and arrest malicious users for websites that utilize ecommerce (e.g., eBay) and banking (e.g., ATMs)
- To arrest hackers who attack, modify, and disable websites.

Granted. Then with these currently in place, in the simplest of terms exactly what is it that net neutrality provides? And is the government the best avenue/provider?

[Gary7]

Granted. Then with these currently in place, in the simplest of terms exactly what is it that net neutrality provides? And is the government the best avenue/provider?

In the very simplest of terms, net neutrality ensures that large companies (e.g., Comcast, Time Warner) cannot demand and obtain a higher section of someone’s bandwidth in order to provide their services .... which will be a disadvantage to other website companies. Net neutrality proclaims that all companies are treated equally on the internet as to bandwidth capability.

If Comcast (or Time Warner) were able to demand a higher section of your bandwidth, then you may not be able to:
- effectively watch movies (Netflix),
- do face-to-face streaming (Facetime or Skype),
- watch YouTube videos,
- do your banking on the internet,
- shop on Amazon,
- etc.

Also as important, (without net neutrality) start-up companies or small internet website companies will have a major disadvantage on providing their services.

To ensure that companies do not infringe on illegal actions, then the government needs to be involved to monitor and take action.

[billethkid]

In the very simplest of terms, net neutrality ensures that large companies (e.g., Comcast, Time Warner) cannot demand and obtain a higher section of someone’s bandwidth in order to provide their services .... which will be a disadvantage to other website companies. Net neutrality proclaims that all companies are treated equally on the internet as to bandwidth capability.

If Comcast (or Time Warner) were able to demand a higher section of your bandwidth, then you may not be able to:
- effectively watch movies (Netflix),
- do face-to-face streaming (Facetime or Skype),
- watch YouTube videos,
- do your banking on the internet,
- shop on Amazon,
- etc.

Also as important, (without net neutrality) start-up companies or small internet website companies will have a major disadvantage on providing their services.

To ensure that companies do not infringe on illegal actions, then the government needs to be involved to monitor and take action.

Thank you!

[tomwed]

What follows is from an NPR show nemed Science Friday.
[to listen to the entire broadcast click here (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/07/2014/u-s-high-speed-internet-lags-behind-on-price-cost.html)]

Long story short, the author, Susan Crawford examines why the US connection speed is so slow and so expensive. She also presents that small cites [like ours] can do something about it. I think the villages already has the fiber in place. Tell me what you think.


For less than $40 a month, residents of Seoul, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bucharest, and Paris can enjoy lightning-fast Internet download and upload speeds of 1,000 Mbps. Compare that to the U.S., where the same money might buy you a comparably sluggish 15 Mbps/1 Mbps connection. Even in cities like Chattanooga and Kansas City, where high-speed Internet rivals the gigabit speeds found abroad, it still costs about twice as much, according to a new report from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, called “The Cost of Connectivity.”

The reason for America's low-speed, high-cost Internet? High-speed Internet service providers have a monopoly in many markets, says Susan Crawford of Harvard Law School. That means there's little pressure from competitors or regulators to provide better, cheaper service. But in the absence of federal action, she says, mayors around the country are leading the way.

Earlier this week, we asked you how fast your internet was, and got over 500 responses from around the country. According to this survey, the average American gets 30.6 mbps for downloads, 12.6 mbps for uploads, and pays $63 for it.

[rubicon]

Thankfully the internet has had a lot of regulations since day one. Without these regulations we would not have this forum. I will not get into the vast and broad range technology aspects of internet standards.
Without these internet standards and regulations, the internet would not exist. Today any computer, phone, printer, fax machine, ATM, face-to-face streaming, credit card authorizations, etc. can communicate to any place in the world … due to standards and regulations. Unlike devices are able to communicate with each other any place in the world … due to standards and regulations.
With improvements in the technology field, the internet standards and regulations have evolved to where we are today … and where we will be in the future.

Huh? I am talking about the FCC regulating it like a public utility???????????

[Gary7]

Rubicon ... Sorry for misinterpreting your statement.

[JoMar]

I might have dreamed this but somewhere I understood that if the TW and Comcast merge they will control 70% of the domestic bandwidth and therefore will have significant control on what the content providers pay for access which of course will be passed to us. Then we will complain that NETFLIX or other provider is gouging us because they will pass on the increased access charges to us and the merged company will be smiling because we won't blame them. I believe that the FCC may have figured that out which is why thay backed off on the timeline. Either way it goes, I suspect we will be reaching for the checkbook.

[Bay Kid]

The government will not be happy until they have total control over everything we do. Control over what you can and can't do on the computer. I am sorry, but I don't trust their real intentions here. It will sooner or later lead to another new tax.

[Cedwards38]

I'm for it.

[Villages PL]

Ted Cruz said, "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

[CFrance]

Gary7 has been giving good, solid explanations for the need for net neutrality. To blithely tie this into politics or big government is missing the point.

You will be screaming bloody murder when you can't watch your netflix because Comcast has taken over your internet speed. And some will probably blame that on the government.

[russtcc]

If net neutrality means one size fits all for bandwidth and everyone pays the same price that will never work, but it does sound like Obamacare. Investment in facilities will dry up. If you use more bandwidth you should pay more. If you use a lot of bandwidth you may get a lower cost per gig like companies that use lots of electricity pay a lower rate per kilowatt than I do. I don't have a problem with that.

Nothing is free to use or provide. If you want more speed from Comcast upgrade. Why should I pay more for you to have more bandwidth? Depending on the equipment used in a neighborhood there is a maximum speed available on the local loop. If 10 homes use up the majority of the bandwidth and the company has to upgrade its equipment who should pay for that? Everyone or those who are causing the need? I've been in the telecommunications industry since 1970. This is typical government thinking of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you are paying for an amount of bandwidth and not getting it you have a right to complain and get it corrected. But don't ask your neighbors to bear the cost of you wanting more speed for free.

[rubicon]

Net neutrality means that the FCC will pick winners and losers for consumers. the government does not have a good record here never has and never will. It means that consumers will end up paying more and getting less.

By leaving the Internet open means that the market is open and open means competition and competition means more consumer demand for what they need and at what price.

Again the FCC is using an act that applied to railroads in 1887 and was copied for telephones in 1934. Look at the state of our railway system compared to Japan. Look how the market changed the manner of telephone usage

The one benefit of a Time Warner/ Comcast merge is that it will open channels so that a Comcast can add cellphones to their package

I am not a Ted Druz fan but he is spot on in his comparison of net neturality affect on the Internet being the equivalent of ACA.

And pray that this Admin does not cede control over the ICANN codes because that is the equivalent f closing down Radio Free Europe

[outlaw]

Net neutrality is a Trojan horse for the FCC to bring the internet under its regulation umbrella. If the FCC "regulates" the internet and the service providers, plan on an increase of 16.5% for your cable internet bill. At least, that is what I have read.

[JourneyOfLife]

If net neutrality means one size fits all for bandwidth and everyone pays the same price that will never work, but it does sound like Obamacare. Investment in facilities will dry up. If you use more bandwidth you should pay more. If you use a lot of bandwidth you may get a lower cost per gig like companies that use lots of electricity pay a lower rate per kilowatt than I do. I don't have a problem with that.

Nothing is free to use or provide. If you want more speed from Comcast upgrade. Why should I pay more for you to have more bandwidth? Depending on the equipment used in a neighborhood there is a maximum speed available on the local loop. If 10 homes use up the majority of the bandwidth and the company has to upgrade its equipment who should pay for that? Everyone or those who are causing the need? I've been in the telecommunications industry since 1970. This is typical government thinking of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you are paying for an amount of bandwidth and not getting it you have a right to complain and get it corrected. But don't ask your neighbors to bear the cost of you wanting more speed for free.

You should read about Net Neutrality!

Your comments lead me to believe you do not understand it.

The way I understand it, the consumer could have unlimited bandwidth and it would not help!

Net Neutrality is about the content providers (e.g., web sites)!

More specifically about new startup companies that innovate and create new internet services!

The bigger picture is that the phone and cable companies are also selling content too (e.g., Pay TV Bundles). They might use their control of the infrastructure to disadvantage thier existing competition... and new competition (startups)!

Those content companies (i.e., Web sites), the web sites we access, already have fast internet services on their end and they pay for it!

Your phone and cable company want you to pay them and now... they want the other content companies (web sites), that you try to access, to pay them too (think of it as a toll fee the content provider will have to pay to keep the phone company from slowing down their response to your request). If a content provider does not pay the toll, they will put the content providers response back to you in the so called "Slow Lane". IOW, you will not like the experience because it will be slow... even if you, a customer, bought maximum bandwidth from your internet company!

So... there is concern that it will be both anti-competitive and depress innovation!

In the end, many fear, it will lead to higher cost to consumers and less choices since there could be fewer new startup companies! Many of those startups begin on a shoestring budget!

Economist call it; "A Barrier to Entry". Basically... putting up obstacles for new competition! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

[JourneyOfLife]

Net neutrality is a Trojan horse for the FCC to bring the internet under its regulation umbrella. If the FCC "regulates" the internet and the service providers, plan on an increase of 16.5% for your cable internet bill. At least, that is what I have read.

You have been reading sound bites from the Cable and Phone Companies' Public Relations Departments and their Lobbyist!

[tomwed]

Net neutrality is a Trojan horse for the FCC to bring the internet under its regulation umbrella. If the FCC "regulates" the internet and the service providers, plan on an increase of 16.5% for your cable internet bill. At least, that is what I have read.

where did you read it?

[rubicon]

You should read about Net Neutrality!

Your comments lead me to believe you do not understand it.

The way I understand it, the consumer could have unlimited bandwidth and it would not help!

Net Neutrality is about the content providers (e.g., web sites)!

More specifically about new startup companies that innovate and create new internet services!

The bigger picture is that the phone and cable companies are also selling content too (e.g., Pay TV Bundles). They might use their control of the infrastructure to disadvantage thier existing competition... and new competition (startups)!

Those content companies (i.e., Web sites), the web sites we access, already have fast internet services on their end and they pay for it!

Your phone and cable company want you to pay them and now... they want the other content companies (web sites), that you try to access, to pay them too (think of it as a toll fee the content provider will have to pay to keep the phone company from slowing down their response to your request). If a content provider does not pay the toll, they will put the content providers response back to you in the so called "Slow Lane". IOW, you will not like the experience because it will be slow... even if you, a customer, bought maximum bandwidth from your internet company!

So... there is concern that it will be both anti-competitive and depress innovation!

In the end, many fear, it will lead to higher cost to consumers and less choices since there could be fewer new startup companies! Many of those startups begin on a shoestring budget!

Economist call it; "A Barrier to Entry". Basically... putting up obstacles for new competition! Barriers to entry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry)

your explanation tracks with other articles. One example is the dispute between HBO and comcast. HBO wants to independently stream their broadcast. Comcast was against it but as it turns out HBO will still charge $15 for its independent streaming. Silicon Valley is in favor of net neutrality

But in my view the last thing we need is more government regulation and especially to the depth that FCC wants to go

[Gary7]

I agree with JourneyOfLife.

In my opinion, net neutrality should not be made into a political topic.

Here are four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

[Rags123]

General question to anyone who knows....

Generally, I think, schools, hospitals and the like buy faster broadband to be able to perform important functions. As I understand it, or think I do, they will be out of luck because this is essentially sharing it all and they will not have that opportunity ??????

[JourneyOfLife]

Most Large Companies have big IT Departments that regularly have to renegotiate communcation service contracts with Communications Companies.

Every business in America should have some level of concern about it!

BusinessWeek:
The corporate battle lines over the new federal rules for the Internet have been well established. Vocal technology startups have been leading the charge for muscular regulations for broadband access, and Internet service providers including Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon (VZ) have been arguing loudly for more flexibility. Blue chip companies without obvious tech interests have kept a lower profile.

But a corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings this year attended by representatives from Ford Motor (F), Visa (V), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Bank of America (BAC), participants urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.


BusinessWeek: Behind Closed Doors, Ford, UPS and Visa Push for Net Neutrality (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-14/net-neutrality-ford-ups-visa-and-bofa-lobby-fcc-in-secret#r=hp-ls)

[Steve & Deanna]

I'm not too keen as to let the Feds do anything about net neutrality. I'm less impressed by the present administration as I do not trust them. Best to just leave some things alone unless they are seriously needed.

[Gary7]

I agree with JourneyOfLife.

In my opinion, net neutrality should not be made into a political topic.

Here are four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).


If people side with Comcast and AT&T in the above examples and truly think what these companies did was justified and legal, then they should not support Net Neutrality.

If people think that Comcast and AT&T in the above example were doing illegal actions and were unjust in doing so, then they should support Net Neutrality.

The internet was created back in the 1960s based on the principle of net neutrality. It is cases like these where companies are challenging this principle for their own financial benefit and negatively impacting the expectations of users.

[outlaw]

where did you read it?

I think Wall Street Journal.

[outlaw]

"The internet was created back in the 1960s based on the principle of net neutrality. "

Really? I thought it was created to provide emergency communications for DOD.

[graciegirl]

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?

[CFrance]

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?
My feeling is that if the lack of it will give AT&T and Comcast an unfair advantage over the littler guys, then no net neutrality will restrict free enterprise. Kind of like Starbucks pushing all the little coffee shops out of business.

Bu maybe I'm thinking of fair chance and equal opportunity for all. A lot of which we've seen go down the tubes lately.

And if it comes to the point that I can't bank or watch a movie online, then my life has instantly been made 100% more difficult.

[graciegirl]

My feeling is that if the lack of it will give AT&T and Comcast an unfair advantage over the littler guys, then no net neutrality will restrict free enterprise. Kind of like Starbucks pushing all the little coffee shops out of business.

Bu maybe I'm thinking of fair chance and equal opportunity for all. A lot of which we've seen go down the tubes lately.

And if it comes to the point that I can't bank or watch a movie online, then my life has instantly been made 100% more difficult.


The big guys were little guys once.

[JourneyOfLife]

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?

Answer the question for yourself by reading! There is a huge amount of information about it.


The only recommendation I would have to avoid sources that are mainly political. Often they have other axes to grind too that just end up distorting the issues!

[CFrance]

The big guys were little guys once.
There are anti-monopoly laws for a good reason. They are to protect the consumer from those perhaps formerly smaller businesses who became big and greedy and left the interests of the public behind. There is a need for checks and balances.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. ATT&T and Comcast can still remain big and develop new technologies. They just don't have to do it by crushing everyone else out of existence. We get new technologies from the little guys too. And from universities. I don't believe that keeping the big guys from pushing the little guys out of existence is going to stymie technological advances.

[Gary7]

"The internet was created back in the 1960s based on the principle of net neutrality. "

Really? I thought it was created to provide emergency communications for DOD.

Outlaw: You are correct that the Department of Defense was the sponsor of the creation of the internet.

When the internet was created there was a technology decision that had to be made. Will the the data networks make decisions as to which data packets will be given priority during the transmission? Since data packets go through multiple (unknown when transmitted) servers on the internet, the decision was to treat all data packets the same regardless of origin, destination, or types of data. This principle has been carried forward in time.

The name “Net Neutrality” began to be used in reference to this principle around 2003.

With reference to my examples above, Comcast and AT&T made decisions as ISPS to override this principle.

[graciegirl]

There are anti-monopoly laws for a good reason. They are to protect the consumer from those perhaps formerly smaller businesses who became big and greedy and left the interests of the public behind. There is a need for checks and balances.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. ATT&T and Comcast can still remain big and develop new technologies. They just don't have to do it by crushing everyone else out of existence. We get new technologies from the little guys too. And from universities. I don't believe that keeping the big guys from pushing the little guys out of existence is going to stymie technological advances.

I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.

[CFrance]

I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.
I think... you are right!

[Rags123]

"
Originally Posted by graciegirl View Post
I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.

CFrance

think... you are right!



I believe you two might agree with what the FCC was GOING to try and do, but now.....who knows ????

"But the White House's move also undermined weeks of work by the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to develop an alternative policy, which he has said in private meetings could preserve a free and open Web while also addressing concerns by the Internet providers. Because of the unprecedented nature of the FCC's compromise proposal and its controversial nature -- critics fear it would not prevent Internet providers from slowing down content they don't like -- the agency held a flurry of meetings with a wide range of groups, including major tech companies, lobbyists, consumer advocates and the telecom industry to see if it could bring a broad coalition together around its plan, according to a half-dozen people familiar with the discussions.

In the days before the president's statement, the agency's efforts appeared to be working. Some tech companies, including at least one major firm, and several tech interest groups showed signs of warming to the outreach by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. They and Wheeler scheduled a series of critical meetings on Monday at the FCC to discuss their differences. Talk emerged of working out language in a letter that would clarify the sentiments of all involved and help build consensus for Wheeler's plan."

How Obama’s net neutrality comments undid weeks of FCC work - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/14/how-obamas-net-neutrality-comments-undid-weeks-of-fcc-work/)

[rubicon]

Answer the question for yourself by reading! There is a amount of information about it.


The only recommendation I would have to avoid sources that are mainly political. Often they have other axes to grind too that just end up distorting the issues!


JourneyOfLife: You are right and the Wall Street Journal has been carrying stories about net neutrality for at least a year and never have they said anything good about it. I view Wall Street leaning to anything that supports flow of the free markets, irrespective of political nuances .

They continue to report for instance that AT&T decision to halt expansion because they are concerned about the effect of FCC regulations. A broader view of the business climate clearly demonstrates that many corporations are holding cash for the past six years because they are uncertain about
the business climate due to regulations policies , etc. This issue is more of the same

[JourneyOfLife]

Below is a video/audio podcast link to a discussion about Net Neutrality from TWIT TV.

TWIT is a Internet TV company, TWITs shows are tech oriented. (TWIT has a Roku channel and it can be accessed via web browser).

The participants in the discussion are 2 small ISPs and a Internet Video/Audio Streaming company (TWIT) along with a couple of other knowledgeable folks familiar with Net Neutrality.


You can watch it (video) or listen (Audio only).... The format is debate/discussion... so listening to the audio only version works out ok.

These are people that have an interest in the outcome... so they express their opinions too.


The Net Neutrality discussion link. This Week in Tech 484 | TWiT.TV (http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/484)

[tomwed]

What a coincidence. I watch twit and remember the good old days when i watched the tech tv with my sons. I put that episode around 4 am but feel asleep. I will say that I started the show with one opinion that seemed to shift as each expert spoke. This is not an easy subject to follow. I don't want the 2 big cable and phone companies to make the decisions and charge what ever they want but how to do that is not obvious. That a common carrier was once a barge never occurred to me too.

[JourneyOfLife]

Here is an interesting bit of research. This information can be found in other areas, but this is a little more up to date.

Here is who owns what!

Pay TV Subscriber Leichtman Research Group | Press Releases (http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111414release.html)
Broadband Internet Subscribers (Fixed Line) Leichtman Research Group | Press Releases (http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111814release.html)

Cellular in terms of data! It will probably never be an adequate substitute for a good fixed line data solution for uses that are data intensive! The real power of cellular data is "ROAMING Geographically"! Think along the lines of "best tool for the job"!


The traditional Pay TV providers will fight tooth and nail to eliminate their competition and protect their Lucrative Pay TV/Adverstising Businesses.

Matter of fact there are two very common practices:

1) Eliminate existing direct competitors... Buy them out. Look at the numbers in those links above and study them. Think about current merger plans and the follow on mergers if the Comcast/Time Warner and AT&T/Direct TV Mergers are approved. The critical part here is they control the communications infrastuture to the home!

2) Erect Barriers to entry that will make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. This is about new IPTV (Netflix, Crackle, Youtube, etc) and Video Advertising. The new competitors today and startups of tomorrow will need the consumer to have access to their offering. IOW, controlling the home comm link means they can in effect control what you can access (specifically your experience. speed, bandwidth, reliabilty, etc)!

There will probably end up being a 4 company oligopoly in Fixed and wireless internet, Fixed and Wireless Phone, and Fixed and Wireless Pay TV/Advertising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

[blueash]

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It (http://bizshifts-trends.com/2014/05/18/war-retail-shelf-space-battle-shelf-placement-fight-low-slotting-fees-position-mindshare/)
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

[TexaninVA]

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It (http://bizshifts-trends.com/2014/05/18/war-retail-shelf-space-battle-shelf-placement-fight-low-slotting-fees-position-mindshare/)
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

[Tennisnut]

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It (http://bizshifts-trends.com/2014/05/18/war-retail-shelf-space-battle-shelf-placement-fight-low-slotting-fees-position-mindshare/)
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

Thank you for your insight. Free enterprise only works when there is free enterprise. The internet is a basic utility and, fortunately, other utilities are regulated. I feel fortunate that this action by the regulators.

[Gary7]

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

[JourneyOfLife]

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

Rules of Thumb and Adages do not always translate to the "Best Balance" in our real world where there are very real conflicts of interest (usually power and money)!

Ever wonder why the "Big Government, Overreach.. via Regulation" red flag gets waved?

Because most people know very little about the issue in the communications industry... most know absolutely nothing about it. However, by shouting something that distract some people by way of "Emotional Political Rhetoric"... it distracts them and gets them focused on some other aspect of the issue!

Besides, the FCC Chairman is a lifelong Communications industry insider! So, once his brief tenure at the fcc ends, where do you think he will go?


LA Times:
A Washington insider with close ties to the media and telecommunications, is expected to be tapped as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Tom Wheeler, who has headed lobbying associations for both the cable television and mobile phone industries, is the leading candidate to succeed Julius Genachowski as chairman of the regulatory agency, Washington insiders confirm.

D.C. insider Tom Wheeler likely to be nominated to head FCC - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/30/entertainment/la-et-ct-dc-insider-tom-wheeler-fcc-20130430)

[rp001]

Net neutrality offers some much needed protections for consumers. However, the reality of business is if sources of revenue are blocked for the broadband providers, that lost income will come from somewhere else.

There is No Free Lunch and every time the government steps in "to save the day", the cost of that lunch ends up skyrocketing.

This is a no win proposition. Once the FCC can rule the internet, you can be sure that internet regulations will be voluminous.
I've never seen so much paranoia described before, some even to justify corporate America once again taking individual's rights for a profit to Wall Street thieves!

[Villages PL]

Ted Cruz said, "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

[Chi-Town]

Ted Cruz said, "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

Perhaps you can explain what that means (without getting political, of course).

[Gary7]

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

The government did not create the term “net neutrality”.

In 2003, Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the idea—and the term—in "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination" in the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003.

[Tennisnut]

Ted Cruz said, "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

I think it means everyone should have equal access to the internet as well as healthcare. Sounds like a good thing to me! We should all be thankful on this day.

[TexaninVA]

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

No, one does not support those examples at all. By contrast, we also don't want to see other problems worsened. Think about it ... how often does the next move to expand gov't control come with anything less than sweetness and light promised? We're going to fix this problem, trust us, is always the theme.

Overall, the concerns are they will make the problems worse. What they really seem to want the most is a source of money to tax and then redistribute but ... they can't say that honestly and openly because the rubes get upset and we have a recent example of that in the news. Thus, I think the proponents of “net neutrality” will be much more careful to mask the true longer term goals. Btw, the origin of the term is immaterial as the debate is now where do we go from here.

Getting back to trust ... can you understand why a lot of people simply do not trust the government to do this?? It doesn't matter what they SAY, once you know that they are untrustworthy. The examples of the latter are so numerous now it's hard to keep track of it all.

[Taltarzac725]

Totally for net neutrality. Gary7 said it all.

Well said Gary7.

[Polar Bear]

Unfortunately, here is the truth...


I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the post, but anytime anybody declares so boldly that what they are about to say is the truth, I read what follows with much skepticism. :)

[rubicon]

HBO wants to go to direct streaming and ComCast said it would cost users $15.00 the same cost fo HBO on comcast

[Rags123]

First an admission of lack of knowledge.......but I oppose net neutrality from what I know...

1. It seems like income distribution on the internet

2. It seems to stifle free enterprise and pass on mucho authority to the government.

3. It also appears that it would throttle the ability of schools, hospitals and the like to buy faster broadband to be able to perform their important functions. This is my biggest anti on this, and I asked before if I was correct but never got an answer.

[dbussone]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the post, but anytime anybody declares so boldly that what they are about to say is the truth, I read what follows with much skepticism. :)


And that is an appropriate comment. Thanks

[dbussone]

HBO wants to go to direct streaming and ComCast said it would cost users $15.00 the same cost fo HBO on comcast


My concern is that I currently subscribe to more than 400 channels. If they each decide they are worth $10.00 per month. I'm back in the dark ages.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

I believe in the Free Market... it works. Government involvement always seems to screw things up and in the end you will pay a lot more and get a lot less!

[dbussone]

I believe in the Free Market... it works. Government involvement always seems to screw things up and in the end you will pay a lot more and get a lot less!


I agree 100%. As long as they have less control than they do now. Comcast would like to become a monopoly. My costs for their service has increase from $75 to $200 over the last 5 years. Their customer service is the worst I have ever experienced and I will do everything I can to prevent them from growing.

[Tennisnut]

I believe in the Free Market... it works. Government involvement always seems to screw things up and in the end you will pay a lot more and get a lot less!

Totally agree if it is a free market. However, how many choices do you have in The Villages? When you have A, B, or C, it is not a free market but a oligopoly and there is a lack of competition. Their services become a utility so the the consumer can be protected as are electric services. How many other products have increased threefold in 5 years ($75 to $200) under a fee market?

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Trust me the Govt would love to Tax internet service as much as they can get away with. The FCC should not allow Comcast to buy up smaller companies that I agree with. Same goes with Cell Phone companies. No monopolies but also no Govt control either.

[zcaveman]

While all of you seem to be anti-Comcast, remember that when the government takes over, they are going to control and tax all of the internet not just Comcast so be careful of what you wish for.

Be afraid - be very afraid!!!

Z

[Villages PL]

Perhaps you can explain what that means (without getting political, of course).

Ted Cruz: "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

Meaning: "....it puts the government in charge of determining internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers. The internet should not operate at the speed of government."

[Gary7]

Ted Cruz: "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

Meaning: "....it puts the government in charge of determining internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers. The internet should not operate at the speed of government."

Ted Cruz is against Net Neutrality ... meaning "....it is okay with Cruz to put Comcast and AOL and other major ISPs in charge of determining internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers .... and allowing for a slow lane for consumers on the internet which will operate at the speed of government."

As a reminder from a previous post of mine:

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

[Villages PL]

Ted Cruz is against Net Neutrality ... meaning "....it is okay with Cruz to put Comcast and AOL and other major ISPs in charge of determining internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers .... and allowing for a slow lane for consumers on the internet which will operate at the speed of government."

As a reminder from a previous post of mine:

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

You said the above examples were violations of net neutrality. Is net neutrality already written into law?

If not then my follow up question is this: Isn't it true that you only get what you pay for? For example, I don't get all telephone services from my telephone company. I only get what I sign up for and pay for. And if the service is not satisfactory, I have the option of switching, and that will cause companies to compete, thereby bring them into reasonable alignment with acceptable service standards.

[Gary7]

You said the above examples were violations of net neutrality. Is net neutrality already written into law?

If not then my follow up question is this: Isn't it true that you only get what you pay for? For example, I don't get all telephone services from my telephone company. I only get what I sign up for and pay for. And if the service is not satisfactory, I have the option of switching, and that will cause companies to compete, thereby bring them into reasonable alignment with acceptable service standards.

Net neutrality is not written into law, in what I have read and researched.

You are absolutely correct that you get what you pay for (and agreed to); if you are not satisfied with what you receive then you can change to another competitor. Competition creates better services as time goes on.

In the above four examples, Comcast and AOL changed their services which resulted in restricting consumers from accessing information and technology that was previously agreed to. Another result of their action was to reduce their competition by not allowing users to see or use the competitor services.

There are two (or more) sides to the both the benefits and the disadvantages of net neutrality. Everybody has a right to their own stance and their reasons why.

In this thread, I have been attempting to explain what net neutrality is and is not based on my experience. I am by far not an expert but I do know a little bit in this area.

[blueash]

Today the FCC finally made their determination.

Battles loom over tough new neutrality rules (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/industry-reacts-to-net-neutrality-rules/24081189/)

[TNLAKEPANDA]

My vote is for free enterprise. Everything our government gets involved in ends up worse off than what you had before. I do not trust them to do what is best for the people. If the current president is for net neutrality then I am definitely against it. The FCC is just another bloated government agency.

I don't like the cable companies but I don't the government to control everything either. Competition is good. Our country was built on competition. Look at the mess we have with things like SS; The VA; Affordable Care Act; Out of control Welfare just to name a few.

You can say hello to higher costs, more taxes and less service. They will also force political equality over the air. Radio stations will have to carry equal time for programs that are conservative and liberal despite the fact that they will loose money by doing so.

[Gary7]

My vote is for free enterprise. Everything our government gets involved in ends up worse off than what you had before. I do not trust them to do what is best for the people. If the current president is for net neutrality then I am definitely against it. The FCC is just another bloated government agency.

I don't like the cable companies but I don't the government to control everything either. Competition is good. Our country was built on competition. Look at the mess we have with things like SS; The VA; Affordable Care Act; Out of control Welfare just to name a few.

You can say hello to higher costs, more taxes and less service. They will also force political equality over the air. Radio stations will have to carry equal time for programs that are conservative and liberal despite the fact that they will loose money by doing so.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion.
So if someone is definitely against Net Neutrality ... and does not want government involved with the internet ..... well, that may be fine for that person and for others. But remember what that implies ...

But for me, thankfully, the government has taken a role to monitor, control, and moderate the internet:
- To protect companies from trademark infringements.
- To direct the arrest of individuals involved in the case of child pornography in the U.S.
- To identify and arrest malicious users for websites that utilize ecommerce (e.g., eBay) and banking (e.g., ATMs)
- To arrest hackers who attack, modify, and disable websites.


And the following is from a previous post of mine:

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

[Taltarzac725]

The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote: Here's What You Need To Know : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389089145/the-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-heres-what-you-need-to-know)

I found this useful information.

[twoplanekid]

So many governmental laws or rules created by fine people with good intentions morph into a morass of ill fitted and costly structures that everyone must use. I have my doubts about this new rule.

[Bay Kid]

It is just the beginning.

[Microcodeboy]

Sorry, you are being duped. This action is about power grab and not anything good. It fixes a problem that has never existed and there is no reason to believe it will in the future. BTW, I am a daily user of the Internet since the 70's - long before the browser was invented. It's success has been mainly because innovation was allowed to happen without government. It will be a mess now. Best thing is smart people will get together and invent something else. It will take a few decades for this to happen on the scale of the internet. Good thing that innovation and technology is something the government does not understand and is not likely to keep up with. So it will be a while before the new thing gets messed up also. But, then, long after I am gone, smart people will do it again.

Do your homework and stop listening to people wining about a non problem and you will understand better. We are all for what the excuse is. It just is not happening. And technology, particularly a complex network, is all too much work for the uninformed Americans to take the time to actually understand what is really happening.

No question - Netflix will regret their part in this. Good thing is it will likely be tied up in the courts for a few years. Big providers have deeper pockets than even the government. Good thing.

If it does happen, you all will miss the thing you have known as the Internet.

[dplars]

Aren't all those point covered under laws which the FCC does not enforce. I really don't know what is in the rulings.....nor does anyone else. I'm suspicious of any agency which refuses to give testimony to Congress and keeps its findings secret until all the voting is done. Our government has lied to us on countless occasions, why should we believe them that this new ruling is for our own good? When ever politicians or bureaucrats endorse "reform" legislation, the middle working class gets stuck with the bill.

[mikemalloy]

I'd like to be able to discuss the new "net neutrality" regulations but unlike everyone else, I have not been given an opportunity to read them. I am fairly certain that there is much more to the regs. than just the providing of bandwidth. After all it is well over 300 pages. I have heard one of the commissioners interviewed on TV and he indicated that among other things there will be a number of taxes and fees involved. I also heard a member of Congress interviewed and he said that the chairman of the FCC had been invited to speak before Congress about the new regulations and he declined the invitation.
Why does this situation remind me of another one where we were told that "we have to pass the bill before we can know what's in it." We have been told one facet about bandwidth that appears to be popular. But is that like telling us if we like our doctors and health plans we can keep them?
I smell the old slight of hand illusion in this.

[Radioman41]

Be very careful what you wish for. The system may not be perfect, but look what developments have occurred in just a few years with minimal government tinkering. I don't believe the government can keeps its hands out eventual censorship of content - especially political. Are we approaching 1984?