[zcaveman]

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

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

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

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."

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

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).

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Gary7

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.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

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.

[blueash]

Today the FCC finally made their determination.

Battles loom over tough new neutrality rules

[TNLAKEPANDA]

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.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by TNLAKEPANDA

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).

[Taltarzac725]

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

I found this useful information.

[twoplanekid]

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.

[Bay Kid]

It is just the beginning.

[Microcodeboy]

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.

[dplars]

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.

[mikemalloy]

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.

[Radioman41]

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?