Welcome to your NEW Internet

[appchicago]

Well, I just posted the John Oliver bit because it's a cute little encapsulation of the meat of the issue, but if it's not your speed, whatever. That's cool.

ISPs didn't build the internet. They don't own the network. They own portions of the infrastructure, and what they charge you for is the "last mile," so to speak. However, when they throttle external content (which happens), that's an issue.

[WVAPPeer]

Thanks for the answers but I remained confused - I don't want to read the liberal nor conservative political take - what are the pros and cons for us as individual users? - thank you ---

[NewApp]

Thanks for the answers but I remained confused - I don't want to read the liberal nor conservative political take - what are the pros and cons for us as individual users? - thank you ---

It wouldn't be a federal regulation if it wasn't confusing.

[Appftw]

This is a very pro-consumer move. I don't understand why people would want to protect these corporations when we're the ones who have to pay the price. Is anyone on here really a fan of Time Warner Cable and the fact that they're the only choice if you want high speed cable internet in the Charlotte area? Didn't think so. I for one applaud the fact that something was done, but you can't please everyone.

[appchicago]

Here's an attempt at getting the basics out there (and I am trying to be unbiased here):

In broad strokes, net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated the same by the internet service provider (TWC, Comcast, Verizon, etc.). Service providers should not be able to prioritize certain content (say, videos from providers who pay them a premium) and throttle (or reduce the rate with which content reaches the consumer) others.

People who are for net neutrality say that these service providers (ISPs) shouldn't have the right to give some content special treatment, and say that ISPs shouldn't be able to 'double dip,' charging customers for access AND content providers for priority. They worry that the "baseline" service will be degraded in favor of prioritized service.

Those against net neutrality say that, essentially, it's not the gov't's job to decide how service providers treat the content they handle on their piece of the network. There's no reason that a company like Comcast should treat its own content the same way it treats content from a company like Netflix, which gets to charge users for content without the responsibility of actually building or maintaining the network.

In the communications world, this is a part of a very old struggle.

[appdaze]

Do you believe in a free market or government control? There isn't much grey area in between because once the government takes control they never let it go and it only continues to grow while continuing to spread the idea that we are a free market economy. A truly free market economy is like communism. Its never really happened and never will happen. This is a baby step that kicks open the door towards total government control of the internet 50-60 years from now should we get leaders who would decide to go that route. A study of FDR and his moves as president would be something to look at for this.

I don't like what companies try to pull on their customers but government regulation is a slippery slope with the internet. It could lead to more lovely situations like the patriot act. If they can regulate it they should be allowed to keep a closer watch on you correct? Controlling the internet has more power than controlling typical utilities. It could turn in to a more extreme situation down the road. I'm not sure how much of a slide we will see in our life times but our kids/grand kids may grow up with a very different more tightly controlled internet. We may complain about this stuff but our leaders will continue to do such things knowing that there aren't any real person consequences for them. Governments will always try to gain more and more and more power the longer they exist. Our nation is no exception. This is a non partisan issue because both sides will be equal in the blame of a power grab as they sit back and watch it happen with no attempt to stop it. Our internet is already controlled in the US. There are hundreds of thousands of places on the internet we can't go to. It's already controlled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c ... ted_States

Here is a small list of some.
http://www.outlookindia.com/blogs/post/ ... es/2781/31

Should it be legal for your place of work to block websites?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/09/24/top ... n-the-u-s/

If that is legal than whats to stop our government from doing that on a mass scale?

Control of the internet has already started, this is just making it more public. Regulation of speed and availability of bandwidth is just another step. Also, Taxes ahoy!!

[NewApp]

This is a very pro-consumer move. I don't understand why people would want to protect these corporations when we're the ones who have to pay the price. Is anyone on here really a fan of Time Warner Cable and the fact that they're the only choice if you want high speed cable internet in the Charlotte area? Didn't think so. I for one applaud the fact that something was done, but you can't please everyone.

Easy. Don't get cable internet. Get via the telephone.

[NewApp]

Well gosh, doesn't everything improve with federal regulation? Come on guys, regulators have no self-interest- only ours!

Remember when we had a lot of poor people? Thank Jesus the Feds stepped in and fixed that. Eureka!!

RP

[97grad]

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I'll take from your lack of an answer that you have no evidence that new taxes will be involved, just your inherent anti-govt bias. That's fine. Regardless, I have complete faith in the PR departments of these large ISPs to convince people like yourself that the inevitable rate increases that will surely come even notwithstanding these regulations are some sort of tax.

[bcoach]

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I'll take from your lack of an answer that you have no evidence that new taxes will be involved, just your inherent anti-govt bias. That's fine. Regardless, I have complete faith in the PR departments of these large ISPs to convince people like yourself that the inevitable rate increases that will surely come even notwithstanding these regulations are some sort of tax.

Oh yah you are so right There are no taxes on my phone bill, or my electric bill, they are just profit for those companies. The gov't actually hates taxes and would never add one to our lives.

[Gonzo]

This is the most comprehensive summary of the issue I've seen.

[ASUMountaineer]

This is a very pro-consumer move. I don't understand why people would want to protect these corporations when we're the ones who have to pay the price. Is anyone on here really a fan of Time Warner Cable and the fact that they're the only choice if you want high speed cable internet in the Charlotte area? Didn't think so. I for one applaud the fact that something was done, but you can't please everyone.

Easy. Don't get cable internet. Get via the telephone.

No choice but TWC where I live. The lack of competition here has led us to the likelihood of moving sooner rather than later.

[Gonzo]

This is a very pro-consumer move. I don't understand why people would want to protect these corporations when we're the ones who have to pay the price. Is anyone on here really a fan of Time Warner Cable and the fact that they're the only choice if you want high speed cable internet in the Charlotte area? Didn't think so. I for one applaud the fact that something was done, but you can't please everyone.

It sure isn't pleasing for those of us who are actually paying attention.

This sort of daddy-knows-best attitude that is so damn common in the ranks of our generation and it really terrifies me.

Proactively taking measures to quell a problem that doesn't exist is the exact same rationalization used by North Carolina Republicans as they pass discriminatory voter ID laws under the guise of stopping non-existent voter fraud. The hypocrisy of the left is MIND NUMBING.

[bcoach]

This is the most comprehensive summary of the issue I've seen.

Yes that pretty much says it. In addition there is a very simple explanation for why a document has that many pages. It is to assure that nobody will read it even if they are allowed to.

[APPARJ]

Well, I just posted the John Oliver bit because it's a cute little encapsulation of the meat of the issue, but if it's not your speed, whatever. That's cool.

ISPs didn't build the internet. They don't own the network. They own portions of the infrastructure, and what they charge you for is the "last mile," so to speak. However, when they throttle external content (which happens), that's an issue.

Here is my problem with posting things like this video.

John Oliver is a pro-gov't liberal. He is also pro-net neutrality. He also is an entertainer with an entire video production and comedy writing staff at his disposal. He has the means to produce videos like this that are slanted in favor of his ideology that make a mockery of the ideas that oppose his own.

So posting this as a way to have some educate themselves without bias on this issue is disingenuous. Want someone to support the FCC regulating the internet? Show them this video and you'll get some low hanging fruit supporters.

[appst89]

I dn't think that being in favor of Net Neutrality is a bad thing. The people who created the Internet intended it to be that way. There is no doubt, given their previous actions and their stated intentions going forward, that the Internet will not remain neutral with regard to content if the ISPs get their way. There is also no doubt that government regulation will foul it up.

So, what is the right answer?

[Appftw]

This is the most comprehensive summary of the issue I've seen.

Yes that pretty much says it. In addition there is a very simple explanation for why a document has that many pages. It is to assure that nobody will read it even if they are allowed to.

Please direct me to a single piece of legislation that was short, sweet and directly to the point.

And Gonz, you're assuming that these corporations have our best interests in mind and won't take advantage of the consumer when there is literally no incentive not to? Sounds to me like you're just trading your gov't "daddy" for a corporate one.

[Gonzo]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I trust the free market over the government.

[Appftw]

This is a very pro-consumer move. I don't understand why people would want to protect these corporations when we're the ones who have to pay the price. Is anyone on here really a fan of Time Warner Cable and the fact that they're the only choice if you want high speed cable internet in the Charlotte area? Didn't think so. I for one applaud the fact that something was done, but you can't please everyone.

It sure isn't pleasing for those of us who are actually paying attention.

This sort of daddy-knows-best attitude that is so damn common in the ranks of our generation and it really terrifies me.

Proactively taking measures to quell a problem that doesn't exist is the exact same rationalization used by North Carolina Republicans as they pass discriminatory voter ID laws under the guise of stopping non-existent voter fraud. The hypocrisy of the left is MIND NUMBING.

Except that ISPs DO have monopolies and are bending consumers to their will, unlike the fact that there was 0 evidence of voter fraud in NC. One could easily argue that something needed to be done. We all know you hate liberals. Congratulations.

[appst89]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I trust the free market over the government.

Except that we haven't had a free-market economy in a very long time. And the ISPs definitely don't compete in a free-market.

There are lots of excellent articles chronicling how, and when, the US stopped being a free-market economy and became a corporatist economy. We haven't had a free-market in so long that the meaning of the phrase has been co-opted and used to describe what we have now. Things like this Net Neutrality ruling would not be as big of an issue if there were a market to even the playing field.