News FCC Formally Proposes Net Neutrality Rules

It works when there are choices, but for most of the country there are not multiple choices for high speed internet. We see what happens when people have one or two choices for electricity, water, etc. versus multiple choices for auto insurance, food, etc. The problem is that there isn't enough competition out there to keep the ISPs honest. Look no further than the iPhone/Apple/ATT/Google Voice ordeal to see how this will play out down the road.

It just kills me that countries like Poland, Iceland and Austria are better wired for high speed internet than the US. Of course the sheer size of the US makes this a daunting task, but the with the technology and resources at our disposal it's laughable. I don't expect it to be like Japan.

 

explain. i use google voice on my android phone. i have choice. it probably hurt iphone sales that they did not approve of google voice. too bad for them. the market solved the problem, no laws necessary.

choice is coming. i suspect most of us here can already choose from the cable or dls, or even tethering with our 3g phones.

government restrictions dont hasten option, they destroy them. imagine if i want to offer broadband service, but to keep costs down i will filter content, like i will restrict all search engines excpet the one that pays me, and i will restrict file sharing to keep traffic down. this will allow me to sell below normal market rates. this should not be allowed? who does this protect?

 

I agree that there is a lack of competition in the broadband market. But Verizon's FIOS service is out there with a pretty large framework and I expect Google Fiber to explode when it goes live. There will be competition soon enough. The government has ruined enough things, some can be repaired. The internet is so entrenched in everything that ruining it would make it impossible to repair. Since I love the my job, and information security on the internet is my job, I would be exceptionally angry if the government ruined my livelihood.

 

Here: Andy Kessler: Why AT&T Killed Google Voice - WSJ.com

Most of us here on Tigerforums can, sure. Most message board posters fit that profile, however most of the country does not have options.

Net Neutrality isn't about offering options. It's about preventing businesses from taking advantage of consumers with no options. Businesses shouldn't have that right because the internet isn't owned by anyone; It's owned by everyone. Just because you have the ability, doesn't mean that you have the right.

If I want my internet filtered, I'll move to China.

 

i know why at&t killed google voice. i want to know why that is a problem for you as a consumer. do you know how many android phones are out now and how many are coming out from how many differnt manufacturers and carriers? how does it hurt you that at&t doesnt like google voice? certainly no laws are necessary. if at&t want to try to make more money at the risk of driving people away from their products so be it. it doesnt justify whatever you think it does.

without posting alink, explain to me the problem with att and google voice. how it hurt consumers. must you get exactly what you want at all times? must att do what you want and not what they want? do you own att? can a business exist in america without your forcing your will on them because you think you decide everything?

yes it is about taking them away.

dont buy if you dont like what they are selling. if you live in the sticks, too bad. move to the city or pay what it costs to get internet. you can use the money you saved on your cheap ass country real estate.

if you want unfiltered internet, there will be a company to sell it you. stop preventing others from getting what they want because you are selfish.

 

No.
You and I have already been through this. Nothing is going to change. I don't feel like beating my head against a wall which is why I posted a link.

I simply do not feel that businesses have the right to control the internet, create artificial scarcity and force anyone to purchase an uncompetitive product. I should be able to choose what I use the internet for without fear that a business will block, restrict, slow-down web content because of it's source or ownership on a mostly government-built communication network.

You feel that the internet is to serve the financial interests of the telecoms.

It's when you tell me this:

that it becomes clear that you truly do not understand the issue at hand. Companies like TimeWarner, Comcast, etc are notorious for being anti-competitive and using any advantage they can to remain so. This is not a recent development. It's why very few people have the option to subscribe to more than one cable provider in any given area across the country.

Now you know that's simply not a realistic option. The simple reality is that in most areas internet access is granted from government sanctioned monopoly or duopoly that has a vested interest in preventing open high speed service. Service in major cities (like NY) is slower and more expensive than many other countries and service in rural areas is horribly inadequate if available at all. In Japan you can travel on a HSR and have access to free broadband internet, crystal-clear cell service, etc. at blazing speeds and crystal clear quality. Here in America, I can't drive from work to my home in traffic without having my call dropped. Allowing the Telecoms to run the internet is why we laq behind now.

Very, very naive thinking on your part...

I am simply looking after my best interests, which is what the telecoms are doing when you're not doing it for them.

I suppose you feel that we should turn the interstate system over to toll providers so they can charge us whatever the feel we should pay?

 

i would like to see them try. cant be done.

only the government can force you to do anything. read that twice if you need to.

the one thing that protects you, choice, is the things you destroy with your laws.

no i dont.

so dont give them any of your money. and cry me a goddamn river while you are at it.

perhaps a low cost option would be nice. a low cost option from a provider that can afford to offer a lwo cost because they restrict content like i mentioned before.

if you dont like a private service, you should simply not purchase it. but apparently you cant deal with freedom. you need the government to kick everyone else in the balls so they give you what you want. what you do not realize is that your restrictions hurt you and everyone by stifling innovation and choice.

you need to realize something: the last thing on earth we need is the government controlling the way things work on the internet.

wouldnt bother me at all. i dont drive. driving is ruining the planet. if private roads cut down on the driving that would be fine with me. take the train.

 

There. Definitive proof that you do not understand net neutrality. Get back to me when you do.

 

i was not serious.

stop thinking you need to be protected from the evil internet providers. they desperately want to to sell you services. thats the only way they survive. they want to give you what you want. if you use the government to restrict them then you will ultimately hurt everyone.

again, you will not address my hypotheitical:

imagine i want to offer a new cheap internet provider. the way i cut costs is i filter content. i direct everyone to my search engine of choice and i get kickbacks from them. i do not allow skype, only my VOIP. i filter bittorrent to lessen the stress on the network. this way i keep costs down and i offer the cheapest service. net neutrality would effectively make my business illegal, no? why would that help anyone, destroying businesses and ideas and innovation? because you are a coward and cant make your own decisions in the free market?