Net Neutrality

[Ton Loc]

Something Obama has right.

He's asking the FCC to reclassify the internet as a public utility. AKA trying to make it so we don't get ****ed over for things like internet fast lanes and throttling. So that's nice.

Too bad the FCC is an independent agency and can just ignore him.

You can read the rest or even watch the video here... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules)

[SicEmBaylor]

I somewhat pride myself on being ideologically consistent; however, net-neutrality is one of those rare exceptions. I favor it.

[TAFBSooner]

I somewhat pride myself on being ideologically consistent; however, net-neutrality is one of those rare exceptions. I favor it.

Mao was wrong. Not all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Monopoly/oligopoly power isn't backed by government thugs with guns, yet it is still power over the average consumer.

So you're not as ideologically inconsistent as you may think.

[FaninAma]

Please explain why you are for or aginst this proposal. I have read a few articles about it and I can see both sides of the argument. The problem I have is that I don't trust the government to stop here once they get the nose of the camel into the tent(i.e. regulating the internet).

Additionally, once the government gets into the act there tends to be a tendency for big money and big corporations to engage in regulatory capture so that they are able to put up even more roadblocks to their competition via expensive government regulations. If you don't know what regulatory capture is Google it.

[FaninAma]

Mao was wrong. Not all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Monopoly/oligopoly power isn't backed by government thugs with guns, yet it is still power over the average consumer.

So you're not as ideologically inconsistent as you may think.

You mean like the Too Big To Fail Banks And financial oragnizations thet were bailed out with hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars thanks to the Federal Reserve and Treasury department?

Yeah, you're right.....monopolies never exist with the blessing of the federal government.

[SicEmBaylor]

Please explain why you are for or aginst this proposal. I have read a few articles about it and I can see both sides of the argument. The problem I have is that I don't trust the government to stop here once they get the nose of the camel into the tent(i.e. regulating the internet).

Additionally, once the government gets into the act there tends to be a tendency for big money and big corporations to engage in regulatory capture so that they are able to put up even more roadblocks to their competition via expensive government regulations. If you don't know what regulatory capture is Google it.

The problem I have is that I distrust big business as much as I do big government. This is decidedly a "pick your poison" situation.

I would be more inclined to oppose net neutrality if you had a legitimately free market insofar as ISP providers are concerned; however, nothing could be further from the truth. There is an absolute lack of competition in much of the United States with many regions having a single-provider only. This is often due to existing regulatory laws essentially giving ISPs a local monopoly.

You also have to keep in mind how important the internet is to the free exchange of information, ideas, etc. The FCC doesn't need net-neutrality rules as an excuse to further regulate the internet -- they could do that anyway. The net-neutrality regulatory rules are actually very benign and even common sense, imo...ensuring that the internet remains free and open.

The real fear, and there are clear indications this is the direction many of the large ISPs want to go, is that the internet will eventually become like cable TV. You pay for a "package of websites" in which you are granted certain access speeds while everything else is throttled. This is anti-consumer, and it's dangerous given the important of the internet.

If I pay $80 for a 50/mbps connection then I ought to expect to get 50/mbps regardless of what websites I visit, the data I'm streaming, or the content of individual packets.

[SicEmBaylor]

You mean like the Too Big To Fail Banks And financial oragnizations thet were bailed out with hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars thanks to the Federal Reserve and Treasury department?

Yeah, you're right.....monopolies never exist with the blessing of the federal government.

The existence of regional ISP monopolies is precisely the reason we need net-neutrality. Now, if the United States ever gets to the point where you have many service provider options then the need for net-neutrality would be mitigated. We're not there yet, and ISPs are trying to ensure that day never comes. The Time Warner/Comcast merger is just about the most dangerous potential merger in American history. I can't overstate that enough.

You also have situations developing around the country where local communities are attempting to build their own local ISPs to compete with whatever single provider exists in that particular area, and the ISPs are lobbying very hard to make such moves illegal. I'd prefer a private ISP to one owned by my local government; however, if there is no other competition then I'm all for it.

[SoonerBBall]

First off, Ted Cruz is a goddamn idiot. He wouldn't know the internet from a hole in his head.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11

Second, the Internet is a utility. I dare you to come up with a convincing reason to call it otherwise.

Third, this never would have become an issue if Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, etc hadn't decided they wanted to milk the deal from both ends. That made everyone realize that there is almost never a situation where you can trust a content creator to be a neutral content provider. The government may be inefficient, but at least they aren't content creators and can truly be neutral about controlling the information flow.

[FaninAma]

The existence of regional ISP monopolies is precisely the reason we need net-neutrality. Now, if the United States ever gets to the point where you have many service provider options then the need for net-neutrality would be mitigated. We're not there yet, and ISPs are trying to ensure that day never comes. The Time Warner/Comcast merger is just about the most dangerous potential merger in American history. I can't overstate that enough.

You also have situations developing around the country where local communities are attempting to build their own local ISPs to compete with whatever single provider exists in that particular area, and the ISPs are lobbying very hard to make such moves illegal. I'd prefer a private ISP to one owned by my local government; however, if there is no other competition then I'm all for it.

I just don't trust the government to not start doling out perks to the bigger companies and then see the revolving door begin for members of the FCC being appointed to the boards of directors of the large ISP companies when they leave the government.

I would actually rather see current anti-trust laws being applied to companies that try to squeeze out competition through the court system.

[Ton Loc]

I just don't trust the government to not start doling out perks to the bigger companies and then see the revolving door begin for members of the FCC being appointed to the boards of directors of the large ISP companies when they leave the government.

I would actually rather see current anti-trust laws being applied to companies that try to squeeze out competition through the court system.

Nobody wants what you wrote to happen. And it won't with net neutrality.

It'd be better it you read up on it yourself. You'd see the plan isn't for the government's interference.

Ted Cruz Being an Idiot (http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283) and why he's wrong.

Obama's plan broken down. (http://gizmodo.com/obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-1656774403)

[SicEmBaylor]

Nobody wants what you wrote to happen. And it won't with net neutrality.

It'd be better it you read up on it yourself. You'd see the plan isn't for the government's interference.

Ted Cruz Being an Idiot (http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283) and why he's wrong.

Obama's plan broken down. (http://gizmodo.com/obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-1656774403)

I refuse to click on a Gawker Media link. ;) However, Tone Loc is absolutely correct. This regulation isn't government interference; it's ensuring a small conglomerate of providers can't partition off the internet for consumers.

I have a libertarian friend who put it very well on Facebook. I'll post here what he said, and he's a professional programmer.


There are very few places where I think regulation is necessary (or, in the case of law enforcement, not the private sector's service to provide). Utilities naturally create de facto monopolies and therefore should be subject to limited government regulation.

In the case of the Internet, neither producers nor consumers have a choice in how the product is routed for delivery. Could other providers come in and run a big fiber line from Dallas to OKC to offer another routing choice parallel to the current fiber there? Sure, but it doesn't make sense from either a business or government red tape (right-of-way grants and maintenance in particular) standpoint. Since data is practically forced to take that route, then all data taking that route should be treated equally. (And yes, as a service provider I do understand that commercial producers can control their routes to an extent, but that requires very big budgets to support the virtual infrastructure required.)

I have two sets of power lines that run over my property - one for Kiwash Electric Cooperative and another for Public Service Company of Oklahoma. In fact, the distance from the pole for my meter to either of their poles is pretty close to equal. However, I cannot choose which service to tie into - not because of service territory regulations, but rather the PSO lines are feeders for a town about 6 miles up the road (the substation is about 4 miles from me). The only way I could tie into that would be via annexation, and I have no desire to be part of a city. (I've never found a city with libertarian-friendly city ordinances.)

[8timechamps]

First off, Ted Cruz is a goddamn idiot. He wouldn't know the internet from a hole in his head.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11

Second, the Internet is a utility. I dare you to come up with a convincing reason to call it otherwise.

Third, this never would have become an issue if Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, etc hadn't decided they wanted to milk the deal from both ends. That made everyone realize that there is almost never a situation where you can trust a content creator to be a neutral content provider. The government may be inefficient, but at least they aren't content creators and can truly be neutral about controlling the information flow.

Exactly. I agree with every word you wrote.

Obama is absolutely correct on this issue.

[FaninAma]

So is it public broadband Obama proposes regulating or is it owned by the private ISP companies? I'm not understanding why it is a good thing that the government can tell the companies what they charge for their broadband product.

If net neutrality is denied how does that effect end users ( private and business) ?

[Wishboned]

So is it public broadband Obama proposes regulating or is it owned by the private ISP companies? I'm not understanding why it is a good thing that the government can tell the companies what they charge for their broadband product.

If net neutrality is denied how does that effect end users ( private and business) ?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

[Wishboned]

Or another way to explain it...

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[Turd_Ferguson]

Or another way to explain it...

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

Thanks.

[dwarthog]

If net neutrality is defined solely has ensuring that access to content isn't restricted in some fashion, I'm all for that.

If it doesn't allow for a internet provider to provide an environment where that equal access is available to all it's customers then I think there are some concerns.

In Sicems example, if he pays for $80 for 50/mbs connection then he ought to get that, even if a gamer moves in next door and proceeds to fuel up on redbull and monster energy drinks and play online FPS games 24/7. The provider should have an ability to either restrict that users ability to consume other users bandwidth or charge for it so they can provide an infrastructure that provides for users to get what they pay for.

[FaninAma]

Or another way to explain it...

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

OK. I read it and there are certainly valid points made. Is the amount of bandwith finite or infinite? If a company requires faster streaming and more bandwith isn't it fair to charge them a higher rate? If they use more of he ISP companies product and pay them more money isn't it fair to cut them a special deal? That is how capitalism works.

If ISP company A puts up all of these barriers and ads for subscribers to wade through aren't they going to switch their ISP companies? And if all ISP companies start doing this isn't that an opening for a new ISP company to come in and provide an alternative? Why do we need the government getting involved? The government never stops their intrusive behavior at the original point of concern. It is just against their nature to limit their intrusiveness once they get involved hence the camel's nose in the tent reference.

Dwarthog's post makes some good points and I agree, if you pay for a specified amount of bandwith you should get that amount of bandwith at the speed it was adverstised at. I agree the ads are annoying but I understand why they are there.

[Ton Loc]

OK. I read it and there are certainly valid points made. Is the amount of bandwith finite or infinite? If a company requires faster streaming and more bandwith isn't it fair to charge them a higher rate? If they use more of he ISP companies product and pay them more money isn't it fair to cut them a special deal? That is how capitalism works.

If ISP company A puts up all of these barriers and ads for subscribers to wade through aren't they going to switch their ISP companies? And if all ISP companies start doing this isn't that an opening for a new ISP company to come in and provide an alternative? Why do we need the government getting involved? The government never stops their intrusive behavior at the original point of concern. It is just against their nature to limit their intrusiveness once they get involved hence the camel's nose in the tent reference.

Dwarthog's post makes some good points and I agree, if you pay for a specified amount of bandwith you should get that amount of bandwith at the speed it was adverstised at. I agree the ads are annoying but I understand why they are there.

I have no idea how you read that link and gathered any of what you just posted.

The internet is a place of free flowing information.

Companies should not obstruct that free flow of information.

You pay for a certain speed and an amount of bandwidth. That's all the provider should provide. An open pipeline to that free flow of information at the speed and bandwidth you have paid for.

[FaninAma]

I have no idea how you read that link and gathered any of what you just posted.

The internet is a place of free flowing information.

Companies should not obstruct that free flow of information.

You pay for a certain speed and an amount of bandwidth. That's all the provider should provide. An open pipeline to that free flow of information at the speed and bandwidth you have paid for.

I am trying to understand your point of view. For most of us non-IT experts there doesn't seem to be an issue that would require government regulation. You can get upset all you want but it doesn't help support your point of view.

1.Who owns the bandwith that will be regulated?
2. Aside from being directed to webstites initially that you don't want to go to is there any other negative consequence? Will my bandwith service be slower than the rate I was promised if the ISP companies are not regulated?
3. Instead of directing me to an outside link maybe you can give us some examples of how a non-neutral internet policy adversley affects you personally or your business/profession.
4. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more for the bandwith they use?
5. If Netflix doesn't like what Comcast did why don't they(or a group of companies that use a lot of bandwith) start their own ISP provider and compete with Comcast?

I am trying to see your point of view but so far I am not seeing anything that would make me want to support it. And the ad-hominem attacks against Cruz don't help.

So here is your chance to convince people who are not as knowledgeable on this subject as you to support your point of view. Can you do it without insulting them ?

[dwarthog]

I have no idea how you read that link and gathered any of what you just posted.

The internet is a place of free flowing information.

Companies should not obstruct that free flow of information.

You pay for a certain speed and an amount of bandwidth. That's all the provider should provide. An open pipeline to that free flow of information at the speed and bandwidth you have paid for.

So an ISP shouldn't be enabled to offer something which differentiates their service from a competitors, maybe charge a little extra for those that are interested in their features/content and are ok with paying for it? Content which another ISP doesn't provide and shouldn't just have free access too?

[FaninAma]

And the internet is more than "free flowing information'. It has become the source of huge revenue and its growth over the past decade can be traced directly to the revenus that companies are able to capture from providing services via the internet. I don't blindly trust big corporations to do the right thing but I trust the federal governemtn even less.

All of the regulatroy agencies that are now strangling business and opportunity in this country were all created with a noble purpose originally. The internet is one of the last bastions or pure free enterprise. I hate to see the feds get their mits on it in any form...even if it seems to be a worthy cause.

[SoonerorLater]

This may well be the only time I ever say this but Obama has the right stance on net-neutrality even though I'm sure I might disagree on any of the given specifics on how to best address it. When you talk about net neutrality there are various factors that come into play but the crux of it is do you want your ISP to furnish bandwidth and just get the hell out of the way or become an internet content service that can regulate what and how much you receive.

[SoonerorLater]

And the internet is more than "free flowing information'. It has become the source of huge revenue and its growth over the past decade can be traced directly to the revenus that companies are able to capture from providing services via the internet. I don't blindly trust big corporations to do the right thing but I trust the federal governemtn even less.

All of the regulatroy agencies that are now strangling business and opportunity in this country were all created with a noble purpose originally. The internet is one of the last bastions or pure free enterprise. I hate to see the feds get their mits on it in any form...even if it seems to be a worthy cause.

In this very limited case the Fed is promoting free enterprise. The city or county already grants a monopoly franchise to the Comcasts and ATT's of the world effectively making them the only viable ISP for any given area. Right now you pay for a pipe that gives you access to the internet backbone at a certain service level (speed). The end of net neutrality would allow the ISP gatekeeper to step in at the door and exact a toll in some fashion, beyond what you already pay for access. What the ISPs would like is to fashion the internet more in the form on Cable TV service where they can make calls on content and tap into new revenue sources. To do this they have to do away with unfettered internet access.

[FaninAma]

In this very limited case the Fed is promoting free enterprise. The city or county already grants a monopoly franchise to the Comcasts and ATT's of the world effectively making them the only viable ISP for any given area. Right now you pay for a pipe that gives you access to the internet backbone at a certain service level (speed). The end of net neutrality would allow the ISP gatekeeper to step in at the door and exact a toll in some fashion, beyond what you already pay for access. What the ISPs would like is to fashion the internet more in the form on Cable TV service where they can make calls on content and tap into new revenue sources. To do this they have to do away with unfettered internet access.

Thank you. Your post makes the issue much clearer. So thanks to previous government involvement(franchise agreements) the ISP providers have quasi-monopolies of internet services in the area of their contracts. So to counter the effects of this government produced monopoly we need the government to come in and reign in the monopolies.


I assume it would be unrealistic to open up the regional markets to more ISP providers so if that is the case then I do support regulating the monoplies via the net-neutrality proposals. Either that or coming up with a way to get more competition into the market place.

[Ton Loc]

I think about only half of the people that hear about net neutrality actually understand it. Regardless of how many times its explained and how it is explained and that's one of the biggest problems.

[SoonerBBall]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4891619]I am trying to understand your point of view. For most of us non-IT experts there doesn't seem to be an issue that would require government regulation. You can get upset all you want but it doesn't help support your point of view.[QUOTE]

1.Who owns the bandwith that will be regulated? Currently, the ISPs (but their networks were built on the back of huge government subsidies of taxpayer dollars)
2. Aside from being directed to webstites initially that you don't want to go to is there any other negative consequence? Will my bandwith service be slower than the rate I was promised if the ISP companies are not regulated? Depends, the content they offer and support will be at full speed, but competing content could be slower or even inaccessible
3. Instead of directing me to an outside link maybe you can give us some examples of how a non-neutral internet policy adversley affects you personally or your business/profession.
4. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more for the bandwith they use? They do. They pay one or several ISPs for their bandwidth allocation. The issue is that an individual pays their ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth (say 50mb/s) and they should be able to use that bandwidth how they see fit. If I want to use all 50mb/s on Netflix, I should be able to. Net Neutrality ensures that Comcast can't charge either party extra for using their bandwidth the way they see fit, regardless of whether it is on their own or competing services. Keep in mind, bandwidth isn't a limited resource but a measure of throughput. If Comcast sells someone a 50mb/s connection, they are saying that they can provide 50mb/s at all times (or, at least, they should be).
5. If Netflix doesn't like what Comcast did why don't they(or a group of companies that use a lot of bandwith) start their own ISP provider and compete with Comcast? Because the barriers to entry are far too high. Comcast has already spent tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies to build a massive network. This allowed them to build a gigantic customer base and snowball those earnings into larger, better networks. Google is actively building out internet services in several areas, but it is a long, complicated process and in each area the dominant ISP is fighting against them using bought politicians.

[FaninAma]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4891619]I am trying to understand your point of view. For most of us non-IT experts there doesn't seem to be an issue that would require government regulation. You can get upset all you want but it doesn't help support your point of view.[QUOTE]

1.Who owns the bandwith that will be regulated? Currently, the ISPs (but their networks were built on the back of huge government subsidies of taxpayer dollars)
2. Aside from being directed to webstites initially that you don't want to go to is there any other negative consequence? Will my bandwith service be slower than the rate I was promised if the ISP companies are not regulated? Depends, the content they offer and support will be at full speed, but competing content could be slower or even inaccessible
3. Instead of directing me to an outside link maybe you can give us some examples of how a non-neutral internet policy adversley affects you personally or your business/profession.
4. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more for the bandwith they use? They do. They pay one or several ISPs for their bandwidth allocation. The issue is that an individual pays their ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth (say 50mb/s) and they should be able to use that bandwidth how they see fit. If I want to use all 50mb/s on Netflix, I should be able to. Net Neutrality ensures that Comcast can't charge either party extra for using their bandwidth the way they see fit, regardless of whether it is on their own or competing services. Keep in mind, bandwidth isn't a limited resource but a measure of throughput. If Comcast sells someone a 50mb/s connection, they are saying that they can provide 50mb/s at all times (or, at least, they should be).
5. If Netflix doesn't like what Comcast did why don't they(or a group of companies that use a lot of bandwith) start their own ISP provider and compete with Comcast? Because the barriers to entry are far too high. Comcast has already spent tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies to build a massive network. This allowed them to build a gigantic customer base and snowball those earnings into larger, better networks. Google is actively building out internet services in several areas, but it is a long, complicated process and in each area the dominant ISP is fighting against them using bought politicians.

Thanks for adding the clarity. I simply hope the government, as it is prone to do, doesn't over-reach.

[dwarthog]

So, it looks like the FCC commissioner is pushing back on the Obama plan as currently stated. Apparently he feels it's a bit "simplistic" with regards to the task of actually regulating high bandwidth consumers, streaming services etc. so this should be getting more interesting.

No doubt we'll soon start seeing the politics surrounding this really come into play now.

[jkjsooner]

The way I view it, I pay the ISP to provide a bit stream to my house. I don't pay them to be content providers or to pick and choose the priority of what gets to my house.

I'm all for charging per bit, varying charges by the time of day, and even throttling heavy users as long as they follow a predefined policy on such things. I'm not for them picking Internet winners and losers. If Netflix is wasting too much bandwidth that go after the end users who are using up the local bandwidth.

They literally are only the last tiny leg in the whole chain. It's funny how their almost monopoly has turned the broadcast TV revenue structure on its side. The cable companies pay the content providers (ESPN, etc.) for the ability to distribute their content to the end user. For the Internet, it's the opposite.

[jkjsooner]

The Time Warner/Comcast merger is just about the most dangerous potential merger in American history. I can't overstate that enough.


I agree but one of the CEO's mentioned that it won't decrease competition because they don't share any markets (or share very few). Yep, he pretty much admitted that they're already structured to prevent competition.

[jkjsooner]

Thank you. Your post makes the issue much clearer. So thanks to previous government involvement(franchise agreements) the ISP providers have quasi-monopolies of internet services in the area of their contracts. So to counter the effects of this government produced monopoly we need the government to come in and reign in the monopolies.

Utilities generally have a monopoly whether it is enforced by the government or not. There is a massive investment required to lay cables and pipes to everyone's house. You're not likely to have multiple parties initially jump at the opportunity to spend that much money and compete with each other. In some places that is changing with fiber coming into areas that are already covered by cable. (You also have broadband from phone lines but that isn't really competitive from a bandwidth perspective.)

In rural areas the situation is even worse. This is where government created time limited monopolies are beneficial. We would not have had water and electrical service to the rural areas when we did unless the government was allowed to step in and regulate the industry. It's funny how many rural residents despise the government when their grandparents or great-grandparents definitely knew and appreciated the role the government played in getting services to their small towns and farms. Go to any FFA speech contest and you'll see plenty of speeches on this topic - administered by people who most likely don't realize that the topic they're discussing completely conflicts with their own personal political views.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It's funny how many rural residents despise the government when their grandparents or great-grandparents definitely knew and appreciated the role the government played in getting services to their small towns and farms. Go to any FFA speech contest and you'll see plenty of speeches on this topic - administered by people who most likely don't realize that the topic they're discussing completely conflicts with their own personal political views.

Horse ****.

[FaninAma]

Hmmmm, another opinion on this issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/13/Here-s-what-net-neutrality-is-and-what-to-think-about-it

It looks like Obama is just playing politics with this issue and that the big corporations like Netflix who support net neutrality have been doing a lot of lobbying themselves.

It is a bit confusing for all of us IT illiterate types. The government gives the ISP providers a virtual monopoly to markets. So now the government has to come in with more regulation to correct that problem. Yep, this is going to end well. LOL

[SoonerBBall]

Horse ****.

You clearly don't understand how much it costs to deliver utilities to rural residents, and that private corporations will simply forego the costs (or choose the cheapest of all available options) without a specific government mandate.

A lot of people forget that capitalism in its truest form requires a very powerful, yet very limited, government to intervene and ensure that monopolies and oligopolies are not formed and also to ensure necessary, common infrastructure is built to provided citizens utilities (electricity, water, gas, internet access) regardless of cost.


In other news, Tom Wheeler is saying he needs to determine how to "split the baby". This is ironic because this parable in the bible points out the folly in trying to appease both parties and casts those calling to literally split the baby in the worst light.

[SoonerorLater]

Hmmmm, another opinion on this issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/13/Here-s-what-net-neutrality-is-and-what-to-think-about-it

It looks like Obama is just playing politics with this issue and that the big corporations like Netflix who support net neutrality have been doing a lot of lobbying themselves.

It is a bit confusing for all of us IT illiterate types. The government gives the ISP providers a virtual monopoly to markets. So now the government has to come in with more regulation to correct that problem. Yep, this is going to end well. LOL

I guess I'll just have to disagree with this guy. He conveniently glosses over a lot of detail. In these articles they almost always elude to Netflix or other streaming services but what he for sure fails to mention here is that subscribers that would use Netflix are already paying for 12, 18, 24 meg or greater service to their house. That's why people buy this type of service in the first place. You don't need that type of bandwidth to shoot off a few emails or make posts like this on the SoonersFans Board. It is sort of like saying we sold you this bandwidth but we really didn't think you would use it and we don't want to spend the money to upgrade out network to carry the volume of traffic we are charging you for.

To me it's a bit of a red herring anyway as what ISPs really want is a way to interject themselves in your on ramp to the internet. It kills these guys to be regulated to the mundane task of just carrying bits and bytes of data without being able to step in front and get a cut of the action.

[SoonerBBall]

I guess I'll just have to disagree with this guy. He conveniently glosses over a lot of detail. In these articles they almost always elude to Netflix or other streaming services but what he for sure fails to mention here is that subscribers that would use Netflix are already paying for 12, 18, 24 meg or greater service to their house. That's why people buy this type of service in the first place. You don't need that type of bandwidth to shoot off a few emails or make posts like this on the SoonersFans Board. It is sort of like saying we sold you this bandwidth but we really didn't think you would use it and we don't want to spend the money to upgrade out network to carry the volume of traffic we are charging you for.

To me it's a bit of a red herring anyway as what ISPs really want is a way to interject themselves in your on ramp to the internet. It kills these guys to be regulated to the mundane task of just carrying bits and bytes of data without being able to step in front and get a cut of the action.

Additionally, both Netflix and its customers ALREADY PAY FOR THE BANDWIDTH THEY ARE USING. I don't think that can be overstated. I have no problem with the ISPs providing a "business" tier that provides better up-time guarantees or whatever, but no one should have to pay extra to use the bandwidth they already pay for in a way of their choosing, regardless of who hosts the content.

[SoonerBBall]

This is horrifying. The FCC commissioners don't even know what Net Neutrality is actually about. This one thinks it is about forcing ISPs to give everyone the same connection speed (including businesses).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/fcc-official-warns-obama-backed-net-neutrality-plan-will-bring-backdoor-tax-on/

I weep for our republic of fools.