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.