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

A podcast about Net Nuetrality from TWIT TV
 

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

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.

The Shrinking Competitive Landscape of Cable/Phone Companies!
 

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
Broadband Internet Subscribers (Fixed Line) Leichtman Research Group | Press Releases

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

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
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."

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.

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).

Distraction... It works on some!
 

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?


D.C. insider Tom Wheeler likely to be nominated to head FCC - Los Angeles Times

Paranoia
 

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Well said Gary7.

Net Neutrality. What do you think about this?
 

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. :)

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

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.

And that is an appropriate comment. Thanks

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

Today the FCC finally made their determination.

Battles loom over tough new neutrality rules

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).

The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote: Here's What You Need To Know : The Two-Way : NPR

I found this useful information.

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.

It is just the beginning.

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.

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.

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.

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?