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 ?

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 :)

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.

Increased costs guaranteed
 

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.

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

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".

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.

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!