News FCC Formally Proposes Net Neutrality Rules

Of course they do. They want to sell it to me on their terms by eliminating competitors and controlling prices with an unfair advantage.

False. Without government controls, you have businesses run amok and without thought in regards to ethics. There are decades of proof of this. It's an extreme form of capitalism that will ultimately divide the country into an Upper and Lower class of citizens. To believe that this will hurt every one is simply retarded. There is plenty of data that proves that regulation does not affect profits. Comcast, AT&T, etc. will find another way to make money.

You have it backwards. Net Neutrality doesn't destroy ideas and prevent innovation. It protects ideas and innovation. It doesn't allow unfair business practices like you just described.

1) It's a network that the telecoms use that was built with government funds, money from taxpayers like you and me. It should not be used at the financial benefit of the few.
2) The correct approach is that the network needs to be upgraded, not filter service if the network cannot handle the stress from broadband use.
3) This would be an unfair business practice if you were the only high speed provider in an area, which is the case in most of the country. Until every corner of the country has access to multiple ISPs your hypothetical will continue to be wrong.

It's funny how the telecoms claim that de-regulation increases competition and innovation, yet propose bans on measures that would insure that companies had to become more competitive and innovative because they couldn't use anti-competitive manners to one-up their competition.

We have come to a point in time where the internet is no longer a luxury and quickly becoming a necessity. I am not concerned with the profits for three, maybe four companies. I am only concerned with protecting the access of millions and the stifling of innovation if they are allowed to control access and content. They serve their own interests and no one elses. Net Neutrality ensures equal access which ensures innovation will continue. If they are concerned with profits, then they need to get started on 4G networks across the country and other innovative ways to upgrade the broadband networks so that one day maybe we'll be on par with Poland or Norway.

It's very simple:

Without net neutrality your ISP can restrict your internet service however they want in complete secrecy. They can restrict, block, or charge extra for VOIP, torrents, streaming video/audio, specific web sites, unauthorized equipment, etc.

With net neutrality your ISP has to provide open access to services and equipment and explicitly state any service restrictions. ISPs are still free to set bandwidth limits and charge whatever they like.

There is literally no justification or rational defense for opposing net neutrality.

No, it's because I am smarter than you. I don't trust businesses to make decisions in my interest and anyone who has lived in this country with open eyes for the last ten years (or ten months) would feel the same way. We're behind the rest of the world in broadband technology precisely because these few are controlling the internet. There is little incentive for them to improve the network and access because they enjoy profits margins upward of 80%. They have shown themselves to be content with the status quo. Do you really think that giving them even more control will foster innovation?

Any time Google and Microsoft team up to fight a cause, it's reason enough to take notice...

 

I am sorry that I just typed all of that in vain. I went back and re-read a lot of this thread. You and I are simply re-hashing what we have already talked about. Apparently you still do not understand the issue. You either do not possess the intellectual capacity to understand it or you are to hardheaded to educate yourself.

Either way, it seems that I cannot stop myself from responding to you and I apologize to the rest of the community for being drawn into your pool of despair. I have taken measures to prevent it from happening again.

 

freedom does that. people are not equal, they tend to diverge in amount of success when allowed to.

if that were true then the isps would not oppose it.

that is less true than it used to be. and we are only talking about the portions of the net owned by private providors.

the correct approach is not for your silly clown ass to determine.

and the government owes you access the way you want it, right. me wanty!

if you want better service, pay for it. nobody has a gun to your head, forcing you to buy from a provider that restricts in a way you do not like. and if you do not even notice the restriction, is it a big problem?

if they do not explicitly state their restrictions, why would you buy from them? why is the law necessary? cant you just ask? and if they do not keep up their end of the bargan they are already operating illegally, by defrauding you. we have laws for that.

you trust the government? what do you do when your government screws you? use a different government? you cant! thats why private things work better, choice.

and because of the sheer size of the US, and because of goofy regulation. why should i innovate and start a isp if i am going to be restricted by your stupid laws?

what do you mean "more control"? there are no network neutrality laws now! you want to clamp down on the their current freedom.

yeah because they are evil.

 

metropcs is offering a new tiered internet plan. regular unlimted internet, and unlimited internet that doesnt allow massive data transfers like with netflix or skype. this makes perfect sense, and offers consumers a choice for a cheaper option. but is this against net neutrailty principles? the answer is that it should matter because there should be no such thing as network neutrality.

MetroPCS alleged to be violating net neutrality rules with new LTE plans -- Engadget

 

Now that the President has requested a much more aggressive approach to the FCC, what does everyone think now?
"The relevant question is whether the individual components in a package being offered still possess sufficient identity to be described as separate objects of the offer, or whether they have been so changed by their combination with the other components that it is no longer reasonable to describe them in that way.....This reveals the insubstantiality of the fear invoked by both the Commission and the Court: the fear of what will happen to ISPs that do not provide the physical pathway to Internet access, yet still use telecommunications to acquire the pieces necessary to assemble the information that they pass back to their customers. According to this reductio, ante, at 22—24, if cable-modem-service providers are deemed to provide “telecommunications service,” then so must all ISPs because they all “use” telecommunications in providing Internet functionality (by connecting to other parts of the Internet, including Internet backbone providers, for example). "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.html

So now, "in September, representatives from the websites Etsy, Kickstarter and Vimeo, among others, met with Megan J. Smith, Mr. Obama’s chief technology officer, and other senior officials to ask the president to lean on the F.C.C. to impose the stricter rules that would treat broadband as a public utility. Internet content companies fear that if broadband providers can charge content companies for premium access to customers, start-ups and other small companies will be shut out.....
broadband companies like Verizon, which successfully challenged the F.C.C.’s last net neutrality rules, said that the president’s plan was unacceptable.

And companies that make the routers and servers that are used to build the Internet backbone, represented by the Telecommunications Industry Association, said they “strongly urge regulators to refrain from reclassification that will guarantee harm to consumers, the economy and the very technologies we’re trying to protect.”

"Specifically, Mr. Obama has proposed reclassifying Internet service — both wired and wireless — as a Title II telecommunications service under the Communications Act. That would allow the F.C.C. to write rules that would forbid blocking of legal content and discrimination by a broadband company against any provider of content.....
Title II also carries with it the possibility of regulating rates, but Mr. Obama asked the F.C.C. to refrain “from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.”

But forbearance from portions of the law are not always easy, because Title II has upward of 1,000 requirements, said Robert M. McDowell, a former F.C.C. commissioner.

“As a legal matter,” Mr. McDowell said, “it would be very difficult for the F.C.C. to subject the Internet to common-carrier regulation while at same time forbearing from the vast majority of Title II.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html?_r=0

Certainly, if the feds want to regulate the net in this way, we will face new federal taxes on the service and increased fees passed on by content providers, and the legislative burden of 1,000 requirements. What is the answer?

 

and the money we save by not being passed down the cost of fast lane access will be consumed with federal regulation tax. It is a mafia shake down. Pay for protection.

 

I'm sorta here.

 

I don't know whether net neutrality will be a good thing or a bad thing but the bandwidth issue shouldn't be a roblem for long with the advancements of technology. In 10 years time from now probably everybody will have fiber or whatever might come along that's better and instead of megabit bandwidth everybody will have gigabit bandwidth. A lot of Europeans already have that kind of internet speed. Plenty of bandwidth for all the steaming movies, games and live broadcasts anybody will need. Unless of course if they come up with new ways to overburden enen super speed internet.

Many people are cutting the cord to their cable providers these days and using things like Netflix and Hulu for steaming movies and TV shows. HBO and other content providers have made it possible to subscribe directly to their service and access their content without having cable or satellite TV. There is only one thing that keeps me and millions of others from canceling cable completely. Sports. If I could subscribe directly to ESPN and stream their content directly to my TV I would cancel my cable in a heartbeat.

That may happen sooner than we know. I read recently that ESPN is going to offer subscription programming over the internet to directly watch NBA games. If that happens is pro and college football far behind? I hate paying for a bunch of channels that I never watch.