It will damage the internet
 

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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!

What follows is from an NPR show nemed Science Friday.
[to listen to the entire broadcast click here]

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.

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

Rubicon ... Sorry for misinterpreting your statement.

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.

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.

I'm for it.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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

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

where did you read it?

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

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).

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 ??????

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: Behind Closed Doors, Ford, UPS and Visa Push for Net Neutrality

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.

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.

I think Wall Street Journal.

"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.

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.

The big guys were little guys once.

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!

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.

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.

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

I think... you are right!

"
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