[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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

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

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by dbussone

And probably my TOTV posts as well.

Good one! The Mods as NSA. You can run, but you can't hide!

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Rags123

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 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 I don't think Scientific American has a political agenda

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by blueash

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 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 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


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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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/up...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.