Why would the republicans want to allow companies to control how much information we are allowed to have? Oh waaait.
3
"When people show you who they are, Believe Them! Over and over the GOP shows they are completely in the pockets of big businesses with utter disregard for average Americans. I guess Molly Ivins was 100% correct when she said, You got to dance with them that brung you!"
3
This is what's possible when we choose to really see what is going on and take ownership of our government. Good job. Now if we will only choose to do this for the bigger stuff we might actually wind up with a government that works for us like it should instead of the other way around.
2
Independent studies have shown the Average Internet customer will see fees and taxes increase $75/yr with it being regulated like a Public Utility Company. I hope all these middle class people that will pay the Lions share of these taxes takes it on the Democrats in the 2016 elections...
Where are these purported studies Mr. Comcast/Verizon? Links please.
3
Yes, because what Americans really want is fascism and censorship and right wing corporate entities choosing to shut down anything that they see as against their religion.
/snark/
/snark/
1
The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it.
It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. The principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred to as "net neutrality." Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation.
The Open Internet also makes it possible for anyone, anywhere to easily launch innovative applications and services, revolutionizing the way people communicate, participate, create, and do business—think of email, blogs, voice and video conferencing, streaming video, and online shopping. Once you're online, you don't have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don't have to get permission to share it with the world. FCC.gov
THIS is what net neutrality preserves. It makes NO sense for ANY individuals to be against this. Today's ruling is a victory for all internet users.
It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. The principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred to as "net neutrality." Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation.
The Open Internet also makes it possible for anyone, anywhere to easily launch innovative applications and services, revolutionizing the way people communicate, participate, create, and do business—think of email, blogs, voice and video conferencing, streaming video, and online shopping. Once you're online, you don't have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don't have to get permission to share it with the world. FCC.gov
THIS is what net neutrality preserves. It makes NO sense for ANY individuals to be against this. Today's ruling is a victory for all internet users.
6
This is a good day. Power to the People!
3
By choosing to regulate Internet providers as old-fashioned public utilities in order to enforce 'neutrality' mandates, the commission will discourage private-sector investment and innovation for many years to come, if only as a result of the litigation that will be spawned and the uncertainty that will be created. And the new government mandates inevitably will lead to even more than the usual special interest pleading at the FCC, as Internet companies try to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors by seeking favored regulatory treatment.
Nice job.
Nice job.
Nonsense. What we have NOW is net neutrality/ open internet and it will stand while any litigation is ongoing. NN makes it easy for ANYONE to launch innovations. The big companies don't like that, they don't want the little guy to succeed.
4
It is a puzzle how Republicans came to believe that championing the interests of cable companies would be a winning cause for them. Everyone hates their cable company .. and for many reasons. The cost is outlandish. The service is inferior. Cable providers have openly used legislatures to deprive consumers of other choices. Their current plan is a transparent effort to exploit their monopoly power to extract even more from their users. How does the GOP think it will benefit from facilitating such larceny?
9
By choosing to regulate Internet providers as old-fashioned public utilities in order to enforce 'neutrality' mandates, the commission will discourage private-sector investment and innovation for many years to come, if only as a result of the litigation that will be spawned and the uncertainty that will be created. And the new government mandates inevitably will lead to even more than the usual special interest pleading at the FCC, as Internet companies try to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors by seeking favored regulatory treatment.
Nice job.
Nice job.
1
JQuincyA .... Do you work for ComCast or TimeWarner?
4
our government again steps way beyond purpose
The purpose of government is to ensure that the PUBLIC welfare is the priority. Not the profits of the few. That is why meat is inspected and emissions are regulated. And that the internet, which everyone needs now, is a PUBLIC utility.
4
The political dichotomy on this issue is disgusting. As internet becomes more of a must-have available through single regional providers, let's call it what it is: a utility. Any reasonable internet user can deduce this.
If any politician does not recognize that regulation is necessary, they are just blindly playing for their team (party) and donors. How have American politics become so anti-productive?
If any politician does not recognize that regulation is necessary, they are just blindly playing for their team (party) and donors. How have American politics become so anti-productive?
2
The internet is a commodity much like gas, bread, milk, utilities etc. Once the controlling power believes that we cannot work, perhaps live without it is a prime opportunity to limit the "free"doms that have come with it. Limiting or controlling information(speed, content etc.), and/or access to, is loss of liberty. Unconstitutional plain and simple.
1
I'm thankful for this (thanks Obama) but where does the rest of the world (92% of the population) fit into this? We talk as if the US was the world. Why do other countries like South Korea and Estonia have much faster Internet than we do? Please give us a bigger picture.
3
South Korea has a much high level of consumer interest in the Internet than other countries. They also have a much larger population density. The U.S. has lots of space which is great if you like big houses and nice backyards, but is terrible when you have to figure out how to get fast Internet to everyone.
"Estonia
You can’t talk about digital excellence without mentioning Estonia, one of the three Baltic states so innovative, it’s nicknamed "E-stonia." In 2000, its government deemed Internet access a basic human right and free Wi-Fi became the norm throughout the land.
It was the first country to offer voting for general elections online and most Estonians file their taxes within minutes on their mobile phones. Their health records are stored in a digital cloud and can be accessed at any time with their electronic personal access key, which is also used for other services, such as registering a firm.
The country is investing in its next generation with programs such as ProgeTiiger ("Programming Tiger") aimed at teaching basic coding to kids starting at the age of 5. How did Estonia become a world leader in technology?
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Estonia gained it’s independence in 1991 and needed to build a new administration quickly and cost-effectively. Estonia is said to have the world’s most digitized government."
http://www.fastcompany.com/3030100/bottom-line/4-countries-that-are-leav...
So apparently it is because they have a government that cares about not being left in the stone age just so a handful of billionaires can get even richer.
You can’t talk about digital excellence without mentioning Estonia, one of the three Baltic states so innovative, it’s nicknamed "E-stonia." In 2000, its government deemed Internet access a basic human right and free Wi-Fi became the norm throughout the land.
It was the first country to offer voting for general elections online and most Estonians file their taxes within minutes on their mobile phones. Their health records are stored in a digital cloud and can be accessed at any time with their electronic personal access key, which is also used for other services, such as registering a firm.
The country is investing in its next generation with programs such as ProgeTiiger ("Programming Tiger") aimed at teaching basic coding to kids starting at the age of 5. How did Estonia become a world leader in technology?
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Estonia gained it’s independence in 1991 and needed to build a new administration quickly and cost-effectively. Estonia is said to have the world’s most digitized government."
http://www.fastcompany.com/3030100/bottom-line/4-countries-that-are-leav...
So apparently it is because they have a government that cares about not being left in the stone age just so a handful of billionaires can get even richer.
1
How does the private sector hold its own against the overwhelming power of the federal gov't? Let's recount - in 2010, it was healthcare and the financial industries. Now, in 2015, it's the communications sector. Good bye to the innovative Internet. Hello to the fees which will soon be assessed on consumers - for examples, review your telephone/cable bill ........
The tyranny of the regulators, who do not even publish the new 'rules' before acquiescing to the current Administration's demands on them, should be a wake up call to concerned citizens.
The tyranny of the regulators, who do not even publish the new 'rules' before acquiescing to the current Administration's demands on them, should be a wake up call to concerned citizens.
The Internet is one of the few things in our society which actually works, in large measure because the government has been kept out of it.... now, due to the useful idiots, the way has been cleared for government interference, with the inevitable result of censorship and political correctness taking precedence over free speech and technical innovation.
2
Actually, the opposite is happening. The government is ensuring there's no interference based on who has more money.
2
Net neutrality keeps the internet working just as it has been working.
2
The "government " created the Internet. See DARPA.
1
This fight was indeed the fight of the century. Keeping the internet open without the proposed "privileged class" channel was the most important step our democracy has made since the advent of legislation that let everyone have a telephone; no matter where they lived. While the likes of Comcast and Verizon saw this issue as a way to increase profits, at the heart of the issue was whether my TCP/IP packets got to their destination ahead of the other guys (or even made it at all). Imagine if newspapers were priced based on whether you wanted the truthful version or not?
The efforts of millions of supporters of a free internet paid off. Many thanks to all who helped pull this one off.
The efforts of millions of supporters of a free internet paid off. Many thanks to all who helped pull this one off.
6
A whole lot of Republicans like me sent letters to the leadership in Congress pointing out that Net Neutrality was a good thing and that our leadership was on the wrong side of this one. One has to think they were opposing it primarily because Obama was in favor of it, and of course, Boehner doesn't know squat about the Internet anyway.
4
Why, Ed? Why do you keep voting for them?
2
You mean the 99% actually won something? Wow!
5
if we think there are problems with cost and delivery issues now wait until we see how well 332 pages that we aren't allowed to read given to biased regulators and politicians works out
1
For Republicans, net neutrality is to the internet what death panels are to the Affordable Care Act. In their zeal to support their deep pocketed corporate monopolistic donors, the GOP has once again abandoned rational, fact-based thinking to the detriment of individual Americans.
The Republican misinformation campaign has succeeded in distorting public perceptions of the meaning of net neutrality for countless Americans. Net neutrality has absolutely NOTHING to do with government censorship or regulation of content available over the internet. Net neutrality is NOT the Federal government overseeing or regulating content providers. Net neutrality IS the Federal government ensuring internet giants like Comcast, AT & T and TWC, all of which own the transmission lines carrying the internet content into millions of homes and businesses throughout America, treat all content providers equally or neutrally, if you will. Comcast is in a somewhat unique situation since they not only own their own internet (and cable television) transmission lines but also one of the content providers, NBC/Universal, which represents a proverbial "fox watching the hen house" scenario that should have never been approved by the FCC.
The Republican misinformation campaign has succeeded in distorting public perceptions of the meaning of net neutrality for countless Americans. Net neutrality has absolutely NOTHING to do with government censorship or regulation of content available over the internet. Net neutrality is NOT the Federal government overseeing or regulating content providers. Net neutrality IS the Federal government ensuring internet giants like Comcast, AT & T and TWC, all of which own the transmission lines carrying the internet content into millions of homes and businesses throughout America, treat all content providers equally or neutrally, if you will. Comcast is in a somewhat unique situation since they not only own their own internet (and cable television) transmission lines but also one of the content providers, NBC/Universal, which represents a proverbial "fox watching the hen house" scenario that should have never been approved by the FCC.
7
You just stated the problem in your own reply! The FCC can't even be trusted to make a good decision regarding Comcast/NBC merger and yet with this ruling we are supposed to trust the FCC to approve or disapprove if the content we want to view on the internet is "lawful content". This is the exact definition of government censorship!
There is nothing about "lawful content" in net neutrality. It's about the speed--for big companies and little companies--regardless of content.
What a misleading headline. The GOP is not conceding to Obama, Obama is simply trying to extend government control over the greatest technological innovation of that last 40 years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Net neutrality does exactly that: leaves it just as it was, not broken.
1
It's the big ISPs that are trying to fix what ain't broke, not the gubmint.
ANY ONE who thinks this will be a good thing is a FOOL!!!! The very fact that the gov will control, tax and regulate what has been a wonderful, free experience since it's inception and the gov wants to insert their grubby paws will be just like Obamacare!!! The gov refused to publish the 330 page regulations keeping them a secret until AFTER the vote!!!!! Some transparency!!!!!
1
(Sigh) None of the scares you're scared about have anything to do with net neutrality. Internet users have always paid taxes on their service. The rest of your rant is pure, if second-hand, paranoia. And being "just like Obamacare" would mean being a huge success.
3
The internet is already a huge success David. Its the proverbial last frontier. Why tweak with a well oiled machine? How would you like to make it a huger success?
2
Troll Daddy, it's the big ISPs that are trying to tweak it, not the net neutrality folks! Net neutrality will stop exactly what you are afraid of!
The only reason the battle has been won for now is because it pitted corporations (Internet Providers) against corporations (internet companies). Only corporations have the power and money to battle against each other. If this was a battle between the people vs corporate interests we would've lost this fight a while ago. Nonetheless, I'm happy that for now the internet is to remain neutral and equally accessible for all
3
And just how do they plan on regulating this? Using the analogy in the video, should I expect that they will be checking the "Trucks" to make sure that everything is getting to me at an equal time, or? I'm just curious as to exactly how they would go about making sure all "Packages" are distributed evenly. Aside from that I don't see how this will really help us. All of the information will still be going through an ISP, according to the analogy this will just regulate how evenly the information is loaded to be sent to you, they didn't say anything about the ISP not being able to hold their "Trucks"/Throttle your connection. So instead of some sites being slower they will all be slowed at the same price rate as you've been paying with added taxes of whatever it is they will be using to regulate and check that their policy is in effect. The people claiming this will help combat ISPs have nary brought proof of such. Actually according to this, without the big sites i.e netflix, facebook,youtube etc. etc. spending more to have their data transmitted at faster rates that sounds like it will translate its way back to the users spending more to receive the data. Now im just going by what I've got here, we wont know what the actual 300 or so pages of the policy have in store for us until after the fact.
2
We ought to turn Fight for the Future and the other Internet activists onto the fight for gun control. They're very effective!
Net Neutrality seem to be one of the all time great media scams to increase corporate profits, right up there with protecting “family farmers” by forcing the rest of us to pay more for weaker gasoline. Answer these question for yourself:
1) Does it cost money to add greater speed to cable communications?
2) Do all users want greater speed, or just a select movie-hungry minority?
3) Where will the money come from to build higher speeds?
4) Net Neutrality would have everyone paying the same amount for the same speeds. Speeds would go up and all prices would go up. Those with limited use for higher speed would pay much more and would be supporting those who need to see movies on their computers. The poor supporting the rich is not new in America.
1) Does it cost money to add greater speed to cable communications?
2) Do all users want greater speed, or just a select movie-hungry minority?
3) Where will the money come from to build higher speeds?
4) Net Neutrality would have everyone paying the same amount for the same speeds. Speeds would go up and all prices would go up. Those with limited use for higher speed would pay much more and would be supporting those who need to see movies on their computers. The poor supporting the rich is not new in America.
@Larryat24
You don't seem to understand the concept of net neutrality at all. Net neutrality isn't about all users having the same speed connection - it has nothing to do with the prices ISPs charge customers. It's about preventing the large ISPs from extorting content providers. As the internet has worked thus far, customers (both home users and businesses alike) pay based on how much bandwidth they consume, aside from that, all traffic is treated equally by networks passing that traffic along regardless of who sent it or where it's going.
What the largest ISPs are trying to accomplish is the ability to charge one person more than another if they want customers to be able to access their content. For example, if a competing company, like Netflix, offers better content (or a better price for that content) than say Time Warner or Comcast, these companies want to charge Netflix additional money on top of the service Netflix already pays for, just to let their traffic pass. It's nothing more than a way for these companies to make it too expensive for smaller companies to compete. Netflix already pays a much higher price for the insane amount of bandwidth they have than, say, a home user. And users who want a faster speed already pay a higher price than a user who doesn't. It's about extorting smaller business in order to eliminate the competition and continue their monopoly, making money for failing (flat out refusing) to innovate as the market changes around them.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net neutrality at all. Net neutrality isn't about all users having the same speed connection - it has nothing to do with the prices ISPs charge customers. It's about preventing the large ISPs from extorting content providers. As the internet has worked thus far, customers (both home users and businesses alike) pay based on how much bandwidth they consume, aside from that, all traffic is treated equally by networks passing that traffic along regardless of who sent it or where it's going.
What the largest ISPs are trying to accomplish is the ability to charge one person more than another if they want customers to be able to access their content. For example, if a competing company, like Netflix, offers better content (or a better price for that content) than say Time Warner or Comcast, these companies want to charge Netflix additional money on top of the service Netflix already pays for, just to let their traffic pass. It's nothing more than a way for these companies to make it too expensive for smaller companies to compete. Netflix already pays a much higher price for the insane amount of bandwidth they have than, say, a home user. And users who want a faster speed already pay a higher price than a user who doesn't. It's about extorting smaller business in order to eliminate the competition and continue their monopoly, making money for failing (flat out refusing) to innovate as the market changes around them.
5
Even if providers are regulated as a utility, they will of course be allowed to pass their costs on to their customers with profit added. Customers will inevitably pay for the transmission costs of movies they watch. Whether that happens through increasing the monthly flat rate, paying for the amount of data transferred, or charging the content providers (who would just add the charge onto their content prices) seems like a fairly arbitrary choice. None of these ways unfairly limit content.
Last year, Neflix paid Comcast piles of money for a fast lane. Does Netflix get a refund? This should be retroactive and Comcast should be fined for it's mafia tactics.
4
Now the incentive for ISPs will be to spend less on engineers to improve their services and more on lawyers and lobbyists to curry favor with a new army of regulators.
2
I'd worry much more about that if I saw any indication that the ISPs were spending any money at all to improve my internet service.
2
Yep. In part, I think that one reason China has overtaken the USA as the world's largest economy is that our colleges graduate lawyers and MBAs, paper-shufflers who create nothing, where as China graduates 500K engineers a year...
My cable internet has gotten faster over the years and was an improvement over my old DSL which was faster than the dialup modems I had before that. My LTE wireless is faster than my 3G. This would indicate that ISPs have spent money to improve service. I worry the current ISPs that so many people seem to hate may actually use the FCC to become more entrenched by claiming, for example, the business models of new entrants are unfair.
The next logical step is for the government to prevent Disney and Universal from offering Fast Pass ride admissions in their theme parks, because it's not fair to those who stay off-property. And look for grocery stores to be forced into puttin high-demand items in the front of the store, to prevent throttling. Welcome to the nanny state, where everyone gets equally slow waits regardless of their willingness to pay.
2
Agreed, cos theme park rides are as or maybe even more fundamental right than a non-moderated access to the Internet.
2
Doug, you don't seem to understand the slightest aspect of what net neutrality is. Would you please read a few of the comments that explain it and take off those Fox-colored glasses while you do so?
1
I find it disappointing to see so many commenters here misrepresenting the issue at stake, like many news sources have done. Let's consider the following:
1. The rules under consideration were in effect before early 2014, when an appeals court ruled that the FCC could not apply them to an entity not classified as a utility. They are not new.
2. The rules existed to uphold a critical free market principal: a given service, in this case bandwidth, should cost the same amount, regardless of the buyer. Following the ruling, Comcast upended this by forcing Netflex, who competes with their TV business, to pay far more for bandwidth than other Internet businesses. Through this impropriety, Comcast was able to artificially shield itself from competition from other companies. (Online backup start-up Backblaze wrote a technical article detailing how they were damaged in the process: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/obama-backs-net-neutrality/)
Comcast's action would be the equivalent of UPS being charged five times the highway tolls of FedEx, for instance - they would not be playing on level turf. If the net neutrality rules were abolished, there would be nothing to stop entrenched interests from shielding themselves from competition this way. What would be next, Microsoft making a deal with Verizon to charge excessively for bandwidth being used for distribution of open-source software, such as the Linux operating system on which I write this post? The possibilities are endless.
1. The rules under consideration were in effect before early 2014, when an appeals court ruled that the FCC could not apply them to an entity not classified as a utility. They are not new.
2. The rules existed to uphold a critical free market principal: a given service, in this case bandwidth, should cost the same amount, regardless of the buyer. Following the ruling, Comcast upended this by forcing Netflex, who competes with their TV business, to pay far more for bandwidth than other Internet businesses. Through this impropriety, Comcast was able to artificially shield itself from competition from other companies. (Online backup start-up Backblaze wrote a technical article detailing how they were damaged in the process: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/obama-backs-net-neutrality/)
Comcast's action would be the equivalent of UPS being charged five times the highway tolls of FedEx, for instance - they would not be playing on level turf. If the net neutrality rules were abolished, there would be nothing to stop entrenched interests from shielding themselves from competition this way. What would be next, Microsoft making a deal with Verizon to charge excessively for bandwidth being used for distribution of open-source software, such as the Linux operating system on which I write this post? The possibilities are endless.
9
The issues at stake ? How about the fact that the cost of anything the government gets involved in absolutely skyrocket ? So, now, we are gonna have the Federal government do to the Internet what they have done to the public education system ? Turn it into an absolute disaster ? Truly, there is just no fixing stupid.
The service of Internet access is not simply 'bandwidth' nor must it need to be measured or sold solely as such.
"a given service, in this case bandwidth, should cost the same amount, regardless of the buyer" is not a free market (capitalism) principle.
a free market principle (capitalism) is: a seller and buyer can enter into an agreement for a mutually agreeable price
commodities have the attribute of being generally available for the same price regardless of buyer.
FTC has pricing regulations to protect for this already
"a given service, in this case bandwidth, should cost the same amount, regardless of the buyer" is not a free market (capitalism) principle.
a free market principle (capitalism) is: a seller and buyer can enter into an agreement for a mutually agreeable price
commodities have the attribute of being generally available for the same price regardless of buyer.
FTC has pricing regulations to protect for this already
"commodities have the attribute of being generally available for the same price regardless of buyer"
Congratulations. You just defined net neutrality.
Congratulations. You just defined net neutrality.
So this kind of makes sense to me. The fast hot rod (25 Mb/Sec) will reach the destination before my old pickup (5 Mb/Sec) will by using the same road. The road owner/operator doesn't care who's fast or who's slow. You want speed, then get a new car, but you still get to use the same road. I hope got this right...
1
25Mbs is not a fast hot rod. It's really the old pickup to the rest of the civilized world. S. Korea suburbs typically average 100Mbs.
Chattanooga has the fast hot rod. Google fiber is a fast hot rod. The rub is the ISPs already have the ability and capacity to increase your download and upload speeds, they would just prefer to change the rules in their favor to jack up prices.
Google Fiber is coming to Nashville, I can't wait to see how Comcast reacts.
Chattanooga has the fast hot rod. Google fiber is a fast hot rod. The rub is the ISPs already have the ability and capacity to increase your download and upload speeds, they would just prefer to change the rules in their favor to jack up prices.
Google Fiber is coming to Nashville, I can't wait to see how Comcast reacts.
2
That's the end of the greatest free-market communication medium since movable type and Gutenberg's press.
Government stifles and destroys everything it touches, and like everything else the government has meddled in the Internet will now stagnate into a bureaucratic morass of corruption and idiotic, suffocating, totally unnecessary regulation. And it'll cost users a lot more as the criminal bureaucracy bleeds it for every needless fee it can pile on.
But no one should be surprised at this latest stupidity. The gutless Republicans have already turned America into a banana-republic with a single political party -- the socialist/communist Democrats.
Government stifles and destroys everything it touches, and like everything else the government has meddled in the Internet will now stagnate into a bureaucratic morass of corruption and idiotic, suffocating, totally unnecessary regulation. And it'll cost users a lot more as the criminal bureaucracy bleeds it for every needless fee it can pile on.
But no one should be surprised at this latest stupidity. The gutless Republicans have already turned America into a banana-republic with a single political party -- the socialist/communist Democrats.
1
That's right, Why would we let government get their hands on something that was created by the govern.... oh, wait.
2
I never saw a government truck installing fiber optic cable on my street. Pretty sure that was Verizon.
1
Do you honestly not understand that the internet was created by the government? Or that this was a massive grass roots campaign to keep things as they are, rather than allow a new and even more advantageous situation to the largest providers? if you want to throw around the word stupidity, right back at you.
4
"Internet service providers say heavy-handed regulation of the Internet will diminish their profitability and crush investment to expand and speed up Internet access." The ISPs certainly deserve a prize for chutzpah. Anybody who has ever dealt with Comcast or others of their ilk or who has looked at other countries must be laughing out loud. Monopolists have ZERO incentive to innovate or improve.
4
This ruling by the FCC will protect through government regulation, small business. The whole point of the internet is that ideas not money will drive who succeeds; there is no large upfront cost to start media like Huffington Post or the Drudge Report. If the ISP's, like Comcast, had their way, it would return to money talks and thought walks. The programming languages and many operating systems like Linux, are owned by no one who anyone can modify to create profits for themselves, by providing services that help people. It has been an industrial revolution of ideas over economies driven by hard resources like oil; resources that require huge military budgets and wars to protect. Programming languages are ideas and ideas that should be kept free, because ideas are not like things which can be destroyed in a way that ideas can not. The FCC proposal is a step forward in ways that will continue to liberate us from the power held by too few.
15
Bandwidth is a commodity of the type provided by a utility. There is a reason that utilities are regulated: those who control the pipes that run critical services can otherwise tell you to pay up or shove off.
A corollary is the water company which would be glad to charge one customer more than another based on their income - or the power company that would levy fees for service a block farther than your house.
With enough capital, Hulu could put Netflix out of business by cornering bandwidth, regardless of the quality of their service.
All you need to do is search "Verizon Title II" to see how one cable company tried to warn the FCC to back off the public interest and how it backfired on them.
A corollary is the water company which would be glad to charge one customer more than another based on their income - or the power company that would levy fees for service a block farther than your house.
With enough capital, Hulu could put Netflix out of business by cornering bandwidth, regardless of the quality of their service.
All you need to do is search "Verizon Title II" to see how one cable company tried to warn the FCC to back off the public interest and how it backfired on them.
19
Internet access is not as simple as just bandwidth and there is not currently a monopoly so it's not a true utility
In many places is IS a monopoly. Even in big cities, you can get DSL--slow--or cable.
There are actually people running private water wells that serve subdivisions or small communities that have no regulations in Louisiana and Texas that I know of, probably other states too.
The water can be brown or black and smell like rotten eggs and there is nothing the customers can do about it. If anyone complains, they just shut off their water and it is not like you can shop around for a better water company.
There have been long running stories about it on local news here, still nothing is done about it because of lack of regulations in southern states.
There was a news crew trying to get a statement from an owner of a water business and he actually said, "If they don't like it. they can move!" But they can't move can they? You cannot sell a house that does not have running water!!!
Try sinking a well in your own yard when the owner of the private water company is the brother-in-law of man who issues permits to drill a well.
This stuff happens in places like India and Cameroon, it should not happen in America but it does because of lack of regulations.
The water can be brown or black and smell like rotten eggs and there is nothing the customers can do about it. If anyone complains, they just shut off their water and it is not like you can shop around for a better water company.
There have been long running stories about it on local news here, still nothing is done about it because of lack of regulations in southern states.
There was a news crew trying to get a statement from an owner of a water business and he actually said, "If they don't like it. they can move!" But they can't move can they? You cannot sell a house that does not have running water!!!
Try sinking a well in your own yard when the owner of the private water company is the brother-in-law of man who issues permits to drill a well.
This stuff happens in places like India and Cameroon, it should not happen in America but it does because of lack of regulations.
The Republican Party is nothing if not consistent...They seem to be on the wrong side of every issue, blatantly siding with big business on issue after issue.
Yet all they have to do is occasionally throw some red meat, divisive wedge issues to the loyalists and they fall right in line, voting against their own best interests over and over again.
Hopefully the social media will be the one issue that raises the blinds from the faithful, because no matter how much they hate same sex marriage or believe that abortion is a sin, no matter what roadblocks they throw up to prevent voting, they all want their internet fast and even they can see that the huge ISP's are driven not to give us better and faster Internet service but to provide better and bigger profits to their shareholders.
The Internet is and should always be viewd as a utility
Yet all they have to do is occasionally throw some red meat, divisive wedge issues to the loyalists and they fall right in line, voting against their own best interests over and over again.
Hopefully the social media will be the one issue that raises the blinds from the faithful, because no matter how much they hate same sex marriage or believe that abortion is a sin, no matter what roadblocks they throw up to prevent voting, they all want their internet fast and even they can see that the huge ISP's are driven not to give us better and faster Internet service but to provide better and bigger profits to their shareholders.
The Internet is and should always be viewd as a utility
5
The article is deeply disingenuous in calling "an army of Internet activists victorious". I'm a member of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, who said this week: "We hope we are close to sustainable and sensible open Internet rules, and there are things to like about what we're heard so far. But we are also worried about some of what the FCC seems to be contemplating, and we certainly can’t fully support rules we haven’t read."
"Net neutrality" can mean anything, the devil's in the details. Most of us share deep concerns about their proposed "open conduct" regulation, and the potential for rate regulation and bureacracy, among other things. 300 pages of regulations doesn't sound like a clear, targetted solution.
"Net neutrality" can mean anything, the devil's in the details. Most of us share deep concerns about their proposed "open conduct" regulation, and the potential for rate regulation and bureacracy, among other things. 300 pages of regulations doesn't sound like a clear, targetted solution.
1
How is this the 'biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality'?
Why are we pretending that this is new? Net Neutrality regulations have fostered the greatest economic growth story of our generation. The rules have been there forever.
Why are we pretending that this is new? Net Neutrality regulations have fostered the greatest economic growth story of our generation. The rules have been there forever.
2
Big Brother is watching you now he will be able to arrest you and put you into the Democrat Gulag for what you say or do on the net. Not the crooks they will always be one step in front of the stupid government but YOU that played a illegal song or have a picture of your girl friend on your computer. You voted for Obama now he is going to TAX the internet at your ISP and show you just how stupid you are. Enjoy
1
I keep seeing these identical falsehoods popping up on numerous posts, usually ending with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Was this all from a Rush Limbaugh rant or something? (PS. My monthly provider's bill charges me $6.75 for taxes. There have always been taxes attached to Internet service. Seriously, where are you getting your talking points?)
5
In the words of Dr. Sheldon Cooper: Neener, neener! :-) (I personally called every one of them, myself! Grassroots works!)
I pay a higher fee to AT&T now for a faster connection to the internet and pay more for a higher volume data plan on my cell phone. As I understand it that won't change. It just keeps the internet providers from in turn charging those that transmit the data in addition to the recipient. UPS and FedEx can run their trucks up and down the road net at the same cost regardless of what they carry even if they are empty. If I want a faster delivery, they charge me a fee and don't get charged more road use taxes for travelling the same distance.
1
A small problem with your analogy. If more people wanted faster delivery Fed Ex would have to add truck capacity. If they added that capacity as heavier and bigger trucks, there would be costs imposed on the highway providers. In fact highway providers (govt's mostly) do charge different license fees for heavier trucks as they should. The carriers should have the same ability when it comes to "traffic" providers.
I agree that the analogy is flawed, but I disagree about why. In the case of the internet, unlike with the road, I am already paying the ISP for the data that I request. The data from Netflix doesn't cause any more "wear and tear" on the internet than the recipe my mom emailed me, there's just more of it.
If the ISP cannot handle the bandwidth, they are free to raise MY fees (and I have no doubt that they will do so, as they always have) or change my plan to limit the amount of data I'm allowed to use. They can also increase the fees they charge Netflix by basing them on volume; there's nothing in the new regulations to prevent charging a fixed cost per gigabyte transferred.
What they CAN'T do is prioritize service for certain customers based upon the content of their internet traffic. What they are selling is basically transportation, which means that a better analogy would be that the ISPs own both the roads AND the delivery trucks. And they somehow charge both the shipper and the receiver for each delivery. Under the FCC regulations, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally drive slower for shippers that didn't or couldn't negotiate a higher delivery fee.
If the ISP cannot handle the bandwidth, they are free to raise MY fees (and I have no doubt that they will do so, as they always have) or change my plan to limit the amount of data I'm allowed to use. They can also increase the fees they charge Netflix by basing them on volume; there's nothing in the new regulations to prevent charging a fixed cost per gigabyte transferred.
What they CAN'T do is prioritize service for certain customers based upon the content of their internet traffic. What they are selling is basically transportation, which means that a better analogy would be that the ISPs own both the roads AND the delivery trucks. And they somehow charge both the shipper and the receiver for each delivery. Under the FCC regulations, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally drive slower for shippers that didn't or couldn't negotiate a higher delivery fee.
2
Anyone who thinks, as Senator Thune does, that our bought-and-paid-for Congress would do a better job regulating the Internet than a bunch of bureaucrats at the F.C.C. is dim, crazy, or him- or herself in the employ of the industry. The bureaucrats at least have the job-description of defending the interests of the consumers. The Congress forgot its duties a while back, and now sees its mandate as to get re-elected, with the help of corporate and wealthy donations.
2
The FCC refuses to release their proposed regulation changes before they are voted on. Does this sound like an open and transparent government to anyone? Like all his bloviating, Obama is once again proved to be a liar.
2
Actually, the FCC released proposed rules in their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) many months ago, with periods opened up for comments, and then replies to those comments. This is how the FCC always operates. They received over 2 million public comments on this topic. 'sounds transparent to me. They are now prepared to vote on adopting an Order, based on the NPRM, as revised by the comments received. As I said, this is how things are done at the FCC since its inception. And you did submit your own comments, right?
5
Ah, I feel so much better, an entity of government will have more control over what was a open avenue for information, discourse and debate. Apart from whoever mangles the policies and practices of this assuredly corrupt and politicized nightmare the point is that henceforth and at least for the next two years the shadow of Obama and the heavy arthritic hand of government will do what is to be expected, lay on control, harassment, and favored, partisan politics.
We may hope Obama does leave office in 2017, he is a little unpredictable after all.
We may hope Obama does leave office in 2017, he is a little unpredictable after all.
You'd prefer the dainty, supple hand of TimeWarner or Comcast in your pocket?
4
You forgot to add more taxes.
Net neutrality is a joke. All those lacking critical thinking skills are supporting it because the original premise will prevent interference from the services providers having influence over content or speed of traffic.
Unfortunately what sounds like a good idea to a hypothetical concern is entirely unfounded. U.S consumers have nearly unfettered access over content and performance is based on price as it should be. Currently there are no regulations and the free market is working just fine. I pay 66.95 a month for 29mbps and no content is being filtered or throttled. No one is providing any evidence that there is a problem--because there isn't one.
Net neutrality regs. are addressing an issue that doesn't exist. There has been no market failure requiring government intervention. Net neutrality is only addressing the irrational fears of the ignorant and uniformed. Internet access isn't a human right--it's a business provided service.
There is always additional cost for the government to regulate business.
Regulations almost always limit freedoms either directly or indirectly.
Inserting the government in internet service will cost you the taxpayers through additional government employees, offices, etc. Business will pass on the additional cost necessary to comply to you customer.
Worst of all, the government will we be one step closer to controlling content.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
U. of Md. Comp and Info Sci major, econ minor
Unfortunately what sounds like a good idea to a hypothetical concern is entirely unfounded. U.S consumers have nearly unfettered access over content and performance is based on price as it should be. Currently there are no regulations and the free market is working just fine. I pay 66.95 a month for 29mbps and no content is being filtered or throttled. No one is providing any evidence that there is a problem--because there isn't one.
Net neutrality regs. are addressing an issue that doesn't exist. There has been no market failure requiring government intervention. Net neutrality is only addressing the irrational fears of the ignorant and uniformed. Internet access isn't a human right--it's a business provided service.
There is always additional cost for the government to regulate business.
Regulations almost always limit freedoms either directly or indirectly.
Inserting the government in internet service will cost you the taxpayers through additional government employees, offices, etc. Business will pass on the additional cost necessary to comply to you customer.
Worst of all, the government will we be one step closer to controlling content.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
U. of Md. Comp and Info Sci major, econ minor
2
To quote a popular commercial, "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works." Net neutrality is what we have now, that you're so happy with. And now, despite efforts by the major telecoms to take it away, this ruling preserves the net neutrality you love so much.
7
I am grateful that someone with advanced critical thinking skills has explained the shortcomings in the irrational fears of ignorant and uniformed people like me. And, the wise guidance is even more appreciated when it comes from a Terrapin computer nerd with a minor in econ (Hayek and Rand, no doubt).
2
It's unsettling to see a U. of MD CS major make a statement so stunningly inaccurate in nearly every regard. Let's begin:
The net neutrality regulations you suggest are new were in effect before early 2014, when an appeliate court ruled that the FCC could not, under existing law, apply such regulations to entities not defined as utilities. The court specifically mentioned that the FCC is within its power to reclassify ISPs as utilities, at which point the regulations would be legal under the same law.
US consumers have not had "nearly unfettered access" to the Internet since the ruling, in direct contradiction to your assertation. Soon after the ruling, Comcast began throttling Netflix traffic before driving them to agree to pay significantly higher rates for the same bandwidth other companies spend less on. It's not hard to see that Comcast was manipulating the market to protect its own TV business from Netflix: by artificially raising Netflix's cost of operation via its control of bandwidth prices, Comcast shielded itself from competition from startups, which directly contradicts the free market principals about which you pontificate. (Online backup startup Backblaze wrote a technical article on how Comcast's operations damaged their business: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/obama-backs-net-neutrality/ - this should be of interest to you.)
It would behoove you to compare your Internet service to that enjoyed by Europeans before you make these scathing remarks as well.
The net neutrality regulations you suggest are new were in effect before early 2014, when an appeliate court ruled that the FCC could not, under existing law, apply such regulations to entities not defined as utilities. The court specifically mentioned that the FCC is within its power to reclassify ISPs as utilities, at which point the regulations would be legal under the same law.
US consumers have not had "nearly unfettered access" to the Internet since the ruling, in direct contradiction to your assertation. Soon after the ruling, Comcast began throttling Netflix traffic before driving them to agree to pay significantly higher rates for the same bandwidth other companies spend less on. It's not hard to see that Comcast was manipulating the market to protect its own TV business from Netflix: by artificially raising Netflix's cost of operation via its control of bandwidth prices, Comcast shielded itself from competition from startups, which directly contradicts the free market principals about which you pontificate. (Online backup startup Backblaze wrote a technical article on how Comcast's operations damaged their business: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/obama-backs-net-neutrality/ - this should be of interest to you.)
It would behoove you to compare your Internet service to that enjoyed by Europeans before you make these scathing remarks as well.
5
Great, give more power to a government agency. a tad of control, a dash of censorship , a gloating incompetent, Obama, it all makes for a dire scenario in the near future.
1
That's just not what Net Nuetrality is in any way, shape, or form.
3
This is a foolish and ignorant comment.
5
Nobody's giving the FCC more power. Much like Dorothy's ruby slippers, the power was there all along. They are just choosing, after long and careful consideration, to exercise that power because the alternative is contrary to the public good that the agency exists to protect.
Until a few months ago, all signs suggested that the FCC would not use their power. This change of course indicates that Chairman Wheeler felt he had no other choice.
Until a few months ago, all signs suggested that the FCC would not use their power. This change of course indicates that Chairman Wheeler felt he had no other choice.
2
As of yesterday no one in Congress had read the 335 page bill to anyone's knowledge. This reminds me of Obamacare - "you have to pass it to learn what's in it". Believe me, the end results will not be as simple as people and our representative think. Hey, Congress, grab an IQ!
4
I can't drive 55.
Here in Westchester county I can choose between cablevision, Verizon Fios, Dish Network and Direct TV. Were is the monopoly? Mono means one by the way.
2
In my area of NJ there is a choice of Comcast, Comcast or Comcast and they are terrible. WE have a monopoly.
9
The same is true all around the country (NOT big cities) where there is very little choice, and prices are too high.
1
You can't get Direct TV or Dish TV?
Great news. But surprised the article doens't mention John Oliver. That's how most of us learned about this issue in the first place.
4
So, if you live in a poor area and do not have service yet from companies such as Verizon which use fiber-optics, then you will never see a Verizon truck on your street and you will be stuck perpetually with junky Comcast service. Way to go Dems!
1
That's right. In the U.S. companies are practically falling over themselves to offer services to poorer areas.
Unless your underserved location builds out its own local broadband service, as some municipalities have already started doing. Now they can, but had Comcast gotten its way, municipal broadband would never happen.
2
Verizon had already slowed the building new fiberoptic networks and announced their intention to stop expanding them entirely BEFORE this move by the FCC.
1
Does anyone know exactly what is in this regulation or are we just taking the word of those who are supporting it? A lot of claims were made about Obamacrap but none of those turned out to be true.
5
Keep the internet free. . . By forfeiting it to the same government that openly spies on its citizens!
6
What is it exactly that you think we are forfeiting to the government? What liberty that you currently enjoy will be discontinued under the new regulations?
2
So Dems won't talk about legislation until after the FCC vote, which is a shoe in as they have been told how to vote by King Obama. Spineless jerks!!
This is a solution in search of a problem. What is wrong with companies paying other companies for service? What is wrong with 'fast lanes' for adds, etc.? The Internet is (was?) free and nothing is really free, so it makes sense to let companies pay other companies to keep it free to the consumer.
The FCC has an outrageously poor track record. Additionally, now the government will add on fees and taxes because someone has to pay for the FCC's involvement and because the Fed always wants more money. Easy to get from stupid or uninformed or resigned consumers that just pay those utility bills without seeing what portion goes to the government in taxes and fees. Then the states will want a piece of the action.
Why do people here not get it? Why doesn't the NYTimes not speak the truth about this bogus agency takeover of the Internet? What do the citizens get out of this incorrectly named 'net neutrality?' Higher prices, more taxes and fees to pay. When that happens, will Obama and the Dems legislate subsidies for their favority segments of society - making sure that over 50% get something so they continue to be bribed by DC and vote for the giveaway, tax me more, fee me to death, and assure no outcomes government?
This is a solution in search of a problem. What is wrong with companies paying other companies for service? What is wrong with 'fast lanes' for adds, etc.? The Internet is (was?) free and nothing is really free, so it makes sense to let companies pay other companies to keep it free to the consumer.
The FCC has an outrageously poor track record. Additionally, now the government will add on fees and taxes because someone has to pay for the FCC's involvement and because the Fed always wants more money. Easy to get from stupid or uninformed or resigned consumers that just pay those utility bills without seeing what portion goes to the government in taxes and fees. Then the states will want a piece of the action.
Why do people here not get it? Why doesn't the NYTimes not speak the truth about this bogus agency takeover of the Internet? What do the citizens get out of this incorrectly named 'net neutrality?' Higher prices, more taxes and fees to pay. When that happens, will Obama and the Dems legislate subsidies for their favority segments of society - making sure that over 50% get something so they continue to be bribed by DC and vote for the giveaway, tax me more, fee me to death, and assure no outcomes government?
15
because those companies who pay for the "fast lane" also charge me more for it AND in the process they prevent other companies (with whom they compete) from getting into the "fast lane". Comcast is notorious for this kind of thing.
4
You have an unbelievable amount of faith in Comcast. Okay, so the $$ starts flowing in the B2B context, where do you think that will naturally lead? Hard data caps with different tiers? Choosing whether you can afford to stream a Netflix movie or not?
Come on, you know things don't end well with virtual monopolies (which is exactly what ISPs currently enjoy).
Come on, you know things don't end well with virtual monopolies (which is exactly what ISPs currently enjoy).
2
All government agencies have at one time or another had a 'bad track record.' It is usually when the republicans have control of the government and they would like to see all government agencies go belly-up and are intent on making it happen.
1
For me this one was a no brainer. If Comcast thinks it is bad, then my default position is that it is good.
20
They are not going to let anyone read it. This whole mess will end up as a way for the government to legally monitor your internet all in the way of "Fairness and Security" I am so sick and tired of how our government operates. I just want to be left alone.
6
So it's okay to turn the whole shebang over to the quasi-monopolistic communication giants? So my Honda Fit has to pay more to drive on the same highway as your Escalade? What happened to equality of opportunity?
We've seen time and again the down side of making products and services far more expensive than needs be and, in this case, far less competitive, all in the politically correct name of privatization.
I do not share your and your fellow posters' paranoia or agree that this is somehow "government interference". Its simply keeps things status quo where all citizens are created equal. Not some are more equal than others.
We've seen time and again the down side of making products and services far more expensive than needs be and, in this case, far less competitive, all in the politically correct name of privatization.
I do not share your and your fellow posters' paranoia or agree that this is somehow "government interference". Its simply keeps things status quo where all citizens are created equal. Not some are more equal than others.
8
So it's okay to turn the whole shebang over to the absolute monopolist federal government? So my Honda Fit can pay the same cost to drive on the same highway as your Esalade? What happened to common sense?
"Net nuetrality" is the big lie being used by the richest content providers to con the gullible "low information voters," in this case over-educated Millennials, into supporting subsidies for them. Which is exactly what preventing charging more for "fast lanes" is all about. Most of the traffic on the internet is already video, and most of that from Netflix. Why should someone who doesn't use Netflix have to subsidize people who do — or more precisely, the company that sends video down the pipes, namely Netflix?
It's not surprising then that the biggest, if quietest supporters (for obvious reasons) are the big internet content companies, happy to put the Mozillas out there as their beards.
The internet didn't get great because of the government, it got great because the government wasn't involved. This is killing the goose that's been laying the golden eggs. Or maybe, more accurately, this is about stealing from the poor to line the pockets of the rich, all the while proclaiming it's about what's fair.
"Net nuetrality" is the big lie being used by the richest content providers to con the gullible "low information voters," in this case over-educated Millennials, into supporting subsidies for them. Which is exactly what preventing charging more for "fast lanes" is all about. Most of the traffic on the internet is already video, and most of that from Netflix. Why should someone who doesn't use Netflix have to subsidize people who do — or more precisely, the company that sends video down the pipes, namely Netflix?
It's not surprising then that the biggest, if quietest supporters (for obvious reasons) are the big internet content companies, happy to put the Mozillas out there as their beards.
The internet didn't get great because of the government, it got great because the government wasn't involved. This is killing the goose that's been laying the golden eggs. Or maybe, more accurately, this is about stealing from the poor to line the pockets of the rich, all the while proclaiming it's about what's fair.
1
I'm almost sure that you have noticed the electric-only parking spaces front row next to the disabled parking spots.
Hmmmmmm?
Hmmmmmm?
This ruling makes it easier for small businesses to sell goods and services on the Internet so it is great for those who have a product and want to be independent.
11
And lrt's give a shout-out to John Oliver. Thanks, John.
6
Kinda says it all:
Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said the pro-net-neutrality advocates turned a complex and technical debate over how best to keep the Internet operating most efficiently into a matter of religion. The forces for stronger regulation, he said, became viewed as for the Internet. Those opposed to the regulation were viewed as against the Internet.
Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said the pro-net-neutrality advocates turned a complex and technical debate over how best to keep the Internet operating most efficiently into a matter of religion. The forces for stronger regulation, he said, became viewed as for the Internet. Those opposed to the regulation were viewed as against the Internet.
1
"The Republican resistance in Congress surrendered to President Obama..." "conceded" "grueling fight" "victorious"
Are we talking war or political action? Perhaps Jonathan Weisman was a combat correspondent.
Are we talking war or political action? Perhaps Jonathan Weisman was a combat correspondent.
"The Philadelphia-based company [Comcast] earned $68.8 billion during 2014, officials said in a quarterly earnings report this morning. That’s a 6.4 percent increase over 2013’s take of $64.6 billion; excluding the Olympics, which brought the company $1.1 billion through its NBCUniversal division, revenue was still up 4.7 percent." -Philadelphia Inquirer
And yet Comcast still charges exorbitant monthly fees for substandard service, when they're not replacing customers' names with obscenities on their monthly bills. This is why we need net neutrality: because Comcast et al need head-to-head competition instead of monopoly status. I cannot imagine anyone being against net neutrality unless they're on Comcast's board.
And yet Comcast still charges exorbitant monthly fees for substandard service, when they're not replacing customers' names with obscenities on their monthly bills. This is why we need net neutrality: because Comcast et al need head-to-head competition instead of monopoly status. I cannot imagine anyone being against net neutrality unless they're on Comcast's board.
21
I think you need to better understand net neutrality. It isn't about decreasing your costs, it's about not allowing companies to pay more for faster lanes. You get nothing.
PS Comcast may be making more money than you'd like and I am not happy with my bill either, but this will do nothing to solve that problem and your summary of their revenue means nothing. It's the profits, after paying all the workers, and the municipalities (yup, counties get a kick back in most states) that makes a point.
PS Comcast may be making more money than you'd like and I am not happy with my bill either, but this will do nothing to solve that problem and your summary of their revenue means nothing. It's the profits, after paying all the workers, and the municipalities (yup, counties get a kick back in most states) that makes a point.
5
but Mary, Comcast does charge its customers more to be in the fast lane. So when that option is gone Comcast should reduce your bill. Please note that I said should - knowing Comcast they won't.
3
I'm afraid you're mistaken, Hoosier Native. You are charged more for faster access to the internet, true, but that is a totally different issue from net neutrality. You are describing charging more money for access to more data, which is totally allowed. What net neutrality disallows is filtering that data by where it came from or what kind of data it is and slowing it down accordingly.
Another piece of our freedom gone and under government control. This administration has consolidated the control of so many things in Washington it should scare everyone, regardless of their politics. The slippery slope to tyranny just got steeper and slicker.
7
Read more on net neutrality. this is about government making sure the ISPs dont take away how the public can use and control the internet. it's not about returning freedom, not taking it away. if you're like me, you pay a small mortgage for your telecom services. this makes sure they can't turn the internet into cable TV.
4
I think you meant ensuring freedom.
This is simply cementing into FCC rules what ever common sense Internet user already wants. Do a little research.
This is simply cementing into FCC rules what ever common sense Internet user already wants. Do a little research.
2
Another oversimplification and black and white response to a very nuanced and complex issue. Free market dogma might work when you run a lemonade stand but it breaks down for a system as complex as the internet.
4
What about data capping? Seems like this would be a huge loophole for the Cable giants to slowdown speed after reaching a certain amount of GB downloads (similar to mobile data plan limits)?
4
This is completely allowed, and a probable outcome of this regulation. Net neutrality doesn't protect us from high internet prices, it just makes sure that all information on the internet has equal priority regardless of where it came from or what kind of data it is.
1
Whenever the Government is involved it is about control by the Government, nothing else. Something all Democrats support!
5
Democrats, in this case, supported a free market over monopolies. Wouldn't that normally be the Republican position as well?
7
In what world is turning ISPs into utilities "free market"? You have entered Bizarro Land.
Okay Dave, let me explain this to you:
Let's say you're opening a restaurant on Main Street. You serve hamburgers, french fries, this really good hot dog recipe you came up with that has shredded braised rib on top of it and oh my god yes. Across the street from you is a McDonalds.
In an unregulated environment, McDonalds can be approached by the gas utility, who say "if you give us $5000 a month, we'll give you preferential treatment and throttle Dave's Dope Burgers' supply." McDonalds, which has a larger scale business model and can leverage extra capital to destroy competition, jumps at the chance and all of a sudden your kitchen can only support a grill half the size of the one your business model requires. Lines grow, the wait gets out of control, and people say "Hey let's not go to Dave's, nobody got time for that."
Net Neutrality means that Comcast can't throttle your gas and ruin your business because your competitor can afford their fees. That's what a free market means, and it's what will save innovation in this country and around the world.
Let's say you're opening a restaurant on Main Street. You serve hamburgers, french fries, this really good hot dog recipe you came up with that has shredded braised rib on top of it and oh my god yes. Across the street from you is a McDonalds.
In an unregulated environment, McDonalds can be approached by the gas utility, who say "if you give us $5000 a month, we'll give you preferential treatment and throttle Dave's Dope Burgers' supply." McDonalds, which has a larger scale business model and can leverage extra capital to destroy competition, jumps at the chance and all of a sudden your kitchen can only support a grill half the size of the one your business model requires. Lines grow, the wait gets out of control, and people say "Hey let's not go to Dave's, nobody got time for that."
Net Neutrality means that Comcast can't throttle your gas and ruin your business because your competitor can afford their fees. That's what a free market means, and it's what will save innovation in this country and around the world.
4
To date, I have not seen the rules in this newspaper and have no idea what they mean as a practical matter.
Yes, it is like Obamacare for the internet because we 'have to pass the bill so we know what's in it.'
Yes, it is like Obamacare for the internet because we 'have to pass the bill so we know what's in it.'
9
Jurgen:
Try getting the quote right before you look more foolish.
Try getting the quote right before you look more foolish.
1
The full Pelosi quote was "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Oh, that's SO much better! [rolls eyes]
Oh, that's SO much better! [rolls eyes]
It is a lot better actually. In the original misquote she was saying she didn't know what was in it, in the actual quotation she is saying that they have to pass the bill that YOU can see it away from the fog of controversy. One implies she doesn't know whats in it, the other implies YOU don't know whats in it outside of all the fake controversy.
2
This legislation can't possibly be good, regardless of what goodness is supposed to be lurking in the shadows of it. Seriously people, the internet is like the biggest technological success story in history and as the saying goes, "If it ain't broke then don't fix it!"
6
It was broke. Now we're fixing it.
7
Unfortunately those giant providers (corporate monsters) wanted to charge you more, sqeeze out even the pennies they haven't yet stolen. If Netflix had to pay more to stream to your home you would too. The Internet is a success, built from the bottom up by early adopters, not corporate bullies. Now it's a necessity; would we let the electrical companies bully us by dimming the lights till we paid more?
6
Finally, enough representatives and bureaucratic administrators listened to the people and stopped this monopolistic ripoff attempt.
Now let's think bigger: call lobbying what it is - bribery, and outlaw it.
Now let's think bigger: call lobbying what it is - bribery, and outlaw it.
9
Brez, if we can believe what both sides have said, this will not address what "the people" want--more for less. Some politicians have said that it will (to garner support), but, those involved have said it won't.
The Republicans have folded again! Why the heck did we elect them to the majority for? Now the Administration will end up with total control of the internet. The cost will go up, the speed will slow down, and the truth will be harder to find because of more censorship.
7
The Administration supported competition over monopoly control.
6
You are wrong. It would be interesting to talk with you and see how much you really know about the net neutrality.
3
The bubble is strong with this one.
3
Why is this always referred to as "Internet activists". We're not bots, or ephemeral entities floating around cyberspace. We're people who care about technology, innovation, and a service that has become fundamental to the way we live in the world today. We're activists without adjective, who fought what we rightfully saw as corporate impingement on the development of our society as a whole, and we won.
12
Glad to see I'm not alone in my antipathy toward Comcast. And I know many New Yorkers who feel the same about Time-Warner. But what a great idea to combine the two--NOT.
I'm all for free enterprise and the like, but these two giants need to be broken up like old Ma Bell was and bring some competitors into the game. Maybe a company that offers decent customer service and well decent, service?
Still waiting for you to remove that line you ran in winter 2 years ago, Comcast, when you couldn't provide me with reliable internet service, and finally insisted it wasn't your problem, but couldn't figure out whose problem it was. I think we will just clip it ourselves instead of moving it every time we have to mow the lawn.
I'm all for free enterprise and the like, but these two giants need to be broken up like old Ma Bell was and bring some competitors into the game. Maybe a company that offers decent customer service and well decent, service?
Still waiting for you to remove that line you ran in winter 2 years ago, Comcast, when you couldn't provide me with reliable internet service, and finally insisted it wasn't your problem, but couldn't figure out whose problem it was. I think we will just clip it ourselves instead of moving it every time we have to mow the lawn.
1
Yea, that worked well for the telephone company in the early 80s. Real well.
1
Thanks be to God they got something RIGHT! This is the America I believe in!
3
To me it is unconceivable that anyone would not support net neutrality. Who's behind all this? Big business and the republicans. Does this come as a surprise to anyone? The message is clear. The people we send to Washington don't support us, they support the companies who give them the most money. This is wrong
7
John, this is an Obama administration initiative...it's the Dems pushing this.
So because President Obama supports it, it must be bad? Because Democrats like it, all good Republicans must hate it? Ridiculous. What kind of a world is this turning into?
2
This is the first step to more regulations by the gov't in regards to the internet. How soon before we're afraid to give out opinions about anything much less the gov't over the internet?
5
Such hyperbole is unconvincing.
2
Anytime the government talks of 'strong regulation' you know a tax is coming. To manage the internet like a utility is like having the government manage our healthcare...many people still don't realize that the ACA also known as Obamacare is a tax. I wish they would let the private sector sort it out.
Mark my words, the Obama administration will be taxing internet usage before he leaves office.
Mark my words, the Obama administration will be taxing internet usage before he leaves office.
5
You DO know you're already taxed for internet usage, right? And long before the black man became president. Its either a surcharge on your landline phone bill, or the tax you pay when you pay your cable bill.
Your welcome.
Your welcome.
2
I'd like to point out that nobody from the government is talking about "strong regulation." I did a search on this article, and the only place "strong regulation" shows up is in Tim's comment. So this warning is pretty much irrelevant.
1
The costs of any new governmental initiative or program are always downplayed in the beginning.... don't want to alarm the peasants now, do we ?
"Republicans have grown much quieter under the barrage"
I wish they'd do the same on their countless other unpopular positions.
I wish they'd do the same on their countless other unpopular positions.
5
So unpopular they swept the 2014 elections...
1
With less than 40% of the population voting.
This is plain and simple, it is a door through which the federal government sees and opportunity to first tax and then control information... Both side agree with the cause... the losers are we the people. Ironic how these rules are always past in the name of the people
3
Dan, you are blinded by the diatribe that incorrectly paints "capitalism" as the healthiest form of regulatory control, and we have seen it far too many times in the telecommunication industry and the financial districts. Your form and idea of free enterprise lead us into economic collapse in 2007-2008 and opened the doorways to allow companies like AT&T and Bank of America to fraudulently charge customers hidden charges and adulterate the idea of capitalism in exchange for profiting on the almighty dollar. Net Neutrality protects our right tot use the internet openly as we wish too, and protects our privacy rights even more so, in an era when NSA and the abusive government departments sought and seek to abuse those privacy rights guaranteed by our constitution. It opens the door and makes the first large leap hurdle for making the internet a telecommunication network with privacy rights just as a telephone call, requiring court ordered warrants or subpoenas to break those privacy rights. Sure it may allow for a few taxes, later down the road but only if federal law can stipulate costs versus need revenue.
A few more taxes are well worth it, IF that happens, to protect MY privacy and to regulate manipulations such as the sins Comcast used to manipulate the industry and limit the amount of internet choices and companies we could have in our certain areas. Your Repuke cronies can always control any new taxes in legislative chambers later.
A few more taxes are well worth it, IF that happens, to protect MY privacy and to regulate manipulations such as the sins Comcast used to manipulate the industry and limit the amount of internet choices and companies we could have in our certain areas. Your Repuke cronies can always control any new taxes in legislative chambers later.
2
The first rule in engineering is if it isn't broke, don't fix it. That seems to be the last rule for governments.
3
For decades, everyone accepted regulation of the "phone company" (mainly ATT) because it was a monopoly.
Now that there is some competition in phone business (cellular) - landlines have become slightly less regulated.
The internet is now considered an essential utility like landlines, electricity, water etc. It needs regulation because, like elctric lines and phone lines and water lines -- you can really only have one"pipe" going to a location.
Now that there is some competition in phone business (cellular) - landlines have become slightly less regulated.
The internet is now considered an essential utility like landlines, electricity, water etc. It needs regulation because, like elctric lines and phone lines and water lines -- you can really only have one"pipe" going to a location.
1
Are you oblivious? AT&T was broken up, tons of non-companies sold services to dissatisfied customers, and then AT&T came back together - better service than when they were broken up.
But less regulated?! Phone companies are regulated to death and we all pay for it - about 10% of my bill goes to the government now just because. The government brings no value for that money. And they won't bring value regulating the Internet.
But less regulated?! Phone companies are regulated to death and we all pay for it - about 10% of my bill goes to the government now just because. The government brings no value for that money. And they won't bring value regulating the Internet.
No corporations don't know best. Congratulations, the Republican attempt to make the consumer beholding to the large internet provider corporations has failed.
9
What a complete and total failure. The content providers believe transmission networks, broadband pipes, last mile connections are all free. The plumbing providers make Google, Netflix, Tumblr and Yahoo work. To build more capacity, the plumbers wanted to charge the largest players. My Lord no they hollered. You'll hurt the little guy. Now, the little guy, us the users, will pay so the likes of Google fly free. When we see our smartphone bills, internet access charges, cable TV and yes, even Netflix bills go up 200-300% to pay for network upgrades, just remember how "neutral" it al seemed folks. Wheeler and the FCC and the public got conned and sold another load of garbage from Heir Obama. What's next? Good bye gigabit networks.
3
They can still charge whatever they want. They can charge me whatever they want, they can charge Netflix whatever they want. They can charge their customers $20 per gigabyte if they'd like. It would certainly cut down on the traffic. They just aren't allowed to charge for preferential traffic.
3
I am SO sick of these GIANT conglomerates suing OUR government and sucking up OUR taxpayer dollars to try to control the air waves WE gave them permission to use. If the companies sue simply take away their license to operate as a utility. Knock them down to size.
6
As a former Republican female for 33 years, it is sad to watch the party of Eisenhower going down faster than the Titanic. What the GOP men have done is to create mass distrust of them and their ideology.
The things the GOP hates most, labor, education, voting rights, women's rights, unions, progress, advancement and reform in any way, shape or form, prove how low this party has now sunk. All of these things are the fibers in the fabric of what constitutes a democracy. The Bill of Rights states this. Only the GOP finds a neurotic need to reinterpret the US Constitution to suit their backroom agenda. The very agenda most Americans loathes and distrust.
How on earth is shutting the government down not a deliberate act of treason when it has ONLY been the GOP who has EVER done this? How is leaving millions of Americans in the most vulnerable areas of the country unprotected from terrorists not a deliberate violation of the US Constitution?
No matter how you look at the GOP today, they believe their majority is dictatorship. That too is a violation of the Constitution that protects the minority in Congress from a majority rule that becomes dictatorship.
As for their playing chicken with the President of the United States of America, if Kim Jung Un did this, the right wing and GOP would be outraged or at the very least, ready to spend another trillion on another endless war.
The things the GOP hates most, labor, education, voting rights, women's rights, unions, progress, advancement and reform in any way, shape or form, prove how low this party has now sunk. All of these things are the fibers in the fabric of what constitutes a democracy. The Bill of Rights states this. Only the GOP finds a neurotic need to reinterpret the US Constitution to suit their backroom agenda. The very agenda most Americans loathes and distrust.
How on earth is shutting the government down not a deliberate act of treason when it has ONLY been the GOP who has EVER done this? How is leaving millions of Americans in the most vulnerable areas of the country unprotected from terrorists not a deliberate violation of the US Constitution?
No matter how you look at the GOP today, they believe their majority is dictatorship. That too is a violation of the Constitution that protects the minority in Congress from a majority rule that becomes dictatorship.
As for their playing chicken with the President of the United States of America, if Kim Jung Un did this, the right wing and GOP would be outraged or at the very least, ready to spend another trillion on another endless war.
12
Former what ? former Republican, or former female ? As far as I know, the US government has not been ' shut down ' since 1815, when the Brits burned the capital. If you care to check, you will find that the tenure of Newt as Speaker coincidences exactly with the much ballyhooed budget surpluses of the Clinton era. personally, I think that forcing the government into ' Essential Services Mode ', with reduced government spending, is about the only workable way to begin to cope with the outta-control government deficit spending, and the currency devaluation which is ensuing....
The Republicans concede nothingb to Obama. What is probably happening is that many of their constituents are bombarding them with letters expressing otherwise. Despite eveything that they say, people are finally realizing that the Republican positions are in fact hurting the average" American People". words they use hypocritically constantly, as if they really cared for any but the top1%. With Obamacare. Gay MArriage, Immigration, etc., Republicans, thanks to the Tea Partiers in their midst, are making themselves obsolete. At every step, the White House is becoming farther away from their reach. The Supreme Court could still cause mayhem, but Roberts must still think of his legacy and I doubt that since the train has left the station, sort of, he will reverse some decisions that affect milions and millions of individuals.
3
I'm a sports fan and I'm tired of having to pay premium prices for good seats at may monopoly owned publicly funded stadium. When will the politicians wake up and start applying Stadium Seat Neutrality. All seats in the stadium have the same price.
Thin we'd have as many seats available in the long run? Do you think professional sports could survive this?
Thin we'd have as many seats available in the long run? Do you think professional sports could survive this?
3
Are you challenged? Seats at a sport game are materialistic; unlike the internet. Although you bring up a good point (unintentionally, of course), why change something that has survived and thrived for so long? What republicans are proposing would destroy the principles of the internet that has caused it to thrive; to be what it is today. Do you think that kid who researched a new way to diagnose pancreatic cancer (Jack Andraka) would've been able to do so in a internet controlled and censored by large corporations?
To compare the Internet to a sports stadium is silly. Nowadays, the internet is indispensable. One cannot apply for many, many jobs without going online. i am an independent contractor in the field of education, without the Internet I could not work. And yes, speed matters.
1
Of course speed matters. Just like better seats matter. Those who require higher speeds should have it. However, those that don't require the higher speeds and wouldn't use them at a higher price, won't have to pay for them. If everyone will have the same speed and someone has to invest to get it then everyone will see higher prices.
Think of my poor mother who only reads her email twice a day. She doesn't need high speed, but she'll have to pay for your high speed if the isp can't offer different speeds at different prices. So go get your high speed but don't be a parasite about it.
Think of my poor mother who only reads her email twice a day. She doesn't need high speed, but she'll have to pay for your high speed if the isp can't offer different speeds at different prices. So go get your high speed but don't be a parasite about it.
Thune's effort to persuade Congress to pass a bill that would prohibit the upcoming FCC rules was a direct parallel to what the Chief Justice of Alabama did recently.
Perhaps he thought he was sending a dog-whistle to the extreme right. Or perhaps he is just so ignorant of the Constitution that concepts such as "separation of powers", "Legislative Function", and "Executive Function" simply won't work for him.
Thune's blunder explains why Congress is broken.
Perhaps he thought he was sending a dog-whistle to the extreme right. Or perhaps he is just so ignorant of the Constitution that concepts such as "separation of powers", "Legislative Function", and "Executive Function" simply won't work for him.
Thune's blunder explains why Congress is broken.
1
Don't expect "Net Neutrality" to make things get better, as big telecom lobbyists will have the ear of the FCC as soon as things die down.
Under the old rules, big companies had the advantage; under the new rules they will continue to do so.
They will be throttling competition and it is doubtful that new internet service providers will appear on the horizon. One must remember that Ma Bell kept its monopoly for decades and guess who was responsible for that monopoly?
Government - under both Democrats and Republicans!
Under the old rules, big companies had the advantage; under the new rules they will continue to do so.
They will be throttling competition and it is doubtful that new internet service providers will appear on the horizon. One must remember that Ma Bell kept its monopoly for decades and guess who was responsible for that monopoly?
Government - under both Democrats and Republicans!
1
Hopefully, they'll do a better job with this than they did constructing websites are sending 800,000 people incorrect tax information. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the FCC was an independent agency just like the Federal Reserve. I wonder what the reaction would be if President Obama told Janet Yellin what to do?
2
Bottom line, the FCC will create stupid rules because of politics instead of fixing the problem. The Internet should be fast and cheap to the public supported by companies that profit from it, but that wouldn't be true capitalism. The public will cheer because the ISPs lost, the USA Internet will be slower than many countries, prices will be high for cost per Megabit and the 2 percent will party on from all big profits. What everyone forgets is the 2 percent are major stockholders of the Internet Commerce companies. Internet Commerce companies depend on the Internet being cheap.
After regulation, my Comcast rates will still be overprice, Netflix prices will keep raising until it affects the stock price, and Google, Yahoo, Facebook will continue raising their rates to their advertisers and never ending partying for the 2 percent.
After regulation, my Comcast rates will still be overprice, Netflix prices will keep raising until it affects the stock price, and Google, Yahoo, Facebook will continue raising their rates to their advertisers and never ending partying for the 2 percent.
1
It seems to me that everything the obama administration and the democrats are in favor of both raises taxes and limits freedom on middle class hard working Americans .
2
Is that what it seems like??? Exactly how does this do either of those?
3
While we're at it, should we do away with other premium services like overnight shipping for an extra charge?
1
Wrong analogy. It would be more like FedEx refusing to allow mom&popshop.com to overnight a package to a paying customer because they have a deal to only overnight packages from Amazon.
ISP customers still have the ability to pay for faster internet if they desire.
ISP customers still have the ability to pay for faster internet if they desire.
1
Good analogy. But the internet is even worse. If the analogy were more accurate, no other shipping company would be allowed to bring you packages because FedEx also owned the road to your house. Net Neutrality is the equivalent of the government saying "okay, FedEx, you don't have to let anyone else use that road, but in exchange you're going to have to let every shipper have equal opportunity to buy your delivery services.
1
Just another have and have not promotion by the GOP and cable company lobbyists. The innate desire to step on someone to get ahead.
3
Providers discovered that most users preferred fix-priced plans for unlimited usage, so you are promised "all you can eat". As soon as you try to take them up on that offer, the network suddenly gets "congested" (read "deliberately throttled").
A user finds it difficult to say whether his own provider is throttling him, his local network just happens to be crowded, or there is a bottleneck outside the provider's network.
Charging content providers for a "fast lane" was a creative way out of this dilemma, but providers could just charge users directly for the data that they move, much as the water company or gas stations charge by the gallon. The only reason this is difficult to do is that the current pricing system is unrealistic: all you can eat for ten bucks, and all these big eaters have started showing up.
It's time for providers to admit they can not really give you a 1 Gbps connection for a low price and let you watch all the movies you want without paying extra. But to do this, they have to own up to the lies they have been telling us all along.
The FCC will have its work cut out for them, trying to sort through claims of throttling and distinguishing that from legitimate congestion. Anyway, what is "legitimate congestion" anyway. It just means that not enough investment has been made in the network to keep up with the insatiable demands of users. Trying to regulate all this will make the legal issues with "stand your ground" look easy.
A user finds it difficult to say whether his own provider is throttling him, his local network just happens to be crowded, or there is a bottleneck outside the provider's network.
Charging content providers for a "fast lane" was a creative way out of this dilemma, but providers could just charge users directly for the data that they move, much as the water company or gas stations charge by the gallon. The only reason this is difficult to do is that the current pricing system is unrealistic: all you can eat for ten bucks, and all these big eaters have started showing up.
It's time for providers to admit they can not really give you a 1 Gbps connection for a low price and let you watch all the movies you want without paying extra. But to do this, they have to own up to the lies they have been telling us all along.
The FCC will have its work cut out for them, trying to sort through claims of throttling and distinguishing that from legitimate congestion. Anyway, what is "legitimate congestion" anyway. It just means that not enough investment has been made in the network to keep up with the insatiable demands of users. Trying to regulate all this will make the legal issues with "stand your ground" look easy.
3
Sadly, a celebration is not called for yet. Just as Social Security is still under attack, so too will "net neutrality" be under attack perpetually until such time as we recognize that hoarding disorder also applies to the hoarding of dollars and the top 0.1% will never be satisfied until the rest of us have nothing.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hoarding-disorder/basics/d...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hoarding-disorder/basics/d...
3
The Republicans were completely on the wrong side of public opinion over this. They have no idea of how despised the major cable companies are. Another victory for Obama and good government.
50
And another way for the government to put its hand in our pockets in the form of new taxes that are sure to come.
2
You really think Obama is doing it for the good of the American people ??.
1
Lise....do try to get over partisanship on every single issue. The only people putting their hands in your pocket had we lost net neutrality would have been the cable companies who control the delivery system as even many reasonably intelligent Republicans recognized.
3
I want to see VZW CEO's face when John Thune told him they lost. The blatant anti-customer behavior of these big companies is unbelievable.
42
"Bipartisan" for lawless, fascist Dims means unconditional surrender. The RINO GOP is a spineless accomplice to this crime that will only sabotage the web as the government gets involved. For the fools who pretend this fictitious "net neutrality" is a good idea, just remember the "fairness doctrine" example of government speech control and think how great that will be when applied to the whole web! More of Lenin's useful idiots.
7
This is so true. Look how the government messed up our highway system, and failed miserably to put a man on the moon. We should be more like China where the government does not regulate air quality or food. Look how much faster and richer that economy grew. The government should only protect its people from foreign invaders; there is no need to protect its people from those trying to make as much money as possible by whatever means possible. That's what makes capitalism such a great economic system. Silly Democrats!
4
Hi Russ,
I seem to recall that when the fairness doctrine was in place, we had more reasoned political debates, and the GOP hadn't turned childlike name calling into its sorry excuse for debate.
But please do go on.
I seem to recall that when the fairness doctrine was in place, we had more reasoned political debates, and the GOP hadn't turned childlike name calling into its sorry excuse for debate.
But please do go on.
2
You give yourself away when compare the fairness doctrine to "government speech control". Since the fairness doctrine was abolished there's been no diversity of political thought on the radio - at least not in my hometown. There's your speech control.
2
Republicans are good at giving monopolies more money but complain when it is done by a Democratic President note the concern over the healthcare industry. Keep the veto pen busy we need to stop the asinine proposals Republicans present.
28
We in the USA have slowest speeds and pay the highest price for Cable and Internet in the Western World. Corporate greed supported by the GOP.
61
Biggest winner in the long run : NSA.
6
Great! Go NSA! Down with hackers! Down with greed! Down with traitors like Snowden! Down with Russia and China!
2
This issue is only one of many that opponents of corporate control need to confront. This one is very encouraging if the FCC does as expected Thursday.
The larger issue for democrats/progressives/freedom lovers is electing a democrat to the Presidency. Hilary is not perfect, but try to imagine what the Republican Congress would ram through otherwise.
And to middle class voters of South Dakota: do you really feel that someone like John Thune represents your true interests? Think about it.
The larger issue for democrats/progressives/freedom lovers is electing a democrat to the Presidency. Hilary is not perfect, but try to imagine what the Republican Congress would ram through otherwise.
And to middle class voters of South Dakota: do you really feel that someone like John Thune represents your true interests? Think about it.
12
"And to middle class voters of South Dakota..."
Yeah, both of you ! What do you think ?
Yeah, both of you ! What do you think ?
"Who will help me dig the ditch to run the wires?" said the little red ISP. "Not I", said the government. "Who will help me build the facilities and fill them with equipment so that the wires can be made to carry data?" said the little red ISP. "Not I", said the govermnent. Now the bread is baked, and suddenly everyone wants a bite.
To those who would reply that the government paid for the internet: The feds - in the form of DARPA (you perhaps should look up what that stands for) - funded research in the 1970's that resulted in the creation of DARPAnet, which evolved into today's internet. There has been almost 40 years of incredible progress made since that time, and all of it has been paid for privately.
To those who would reply that the government paid for the internet: The feds - in the form of DARPA (you perhaps should look up what that stands for) - funded research in the 1970's that resulted in the creation of DARPAnet, which evolved into today's internet. There has been almost 40 years of incredible progress made since that time, and all of it has been paid for privately.
10
And by "paid for privately" you mean by charging subscribers more and providing poorer service than in other post-industrial nations because American cable operators have cleverly declared a truce amongst themselves such that taken all together they are an oligopoly and in any given locality you are likely to find a virtual monopoly. And they have been proposing a tiered service scheme so they can charge even more and effect the same tilted playing field that moneyed interests have established for themselves over the past 35-40 years. Whether you realize it or not, that is what you mean. Take a look at what happened during the T.Roosevelt administration. At the time his policies were called Trust Busting". We could use a little of that so profits are possible for those who would innovate, and not ceded to those who would only grow fat and obstructive.
3
Funny how private, regulated monopolies did just fine bringing electricity and phone service to farms.......once city users were taxed to support universal power and phone and the profit motive got out of the way.
You make it sound all or nothing. It is not, nor has it ever been. And if you don't think that government funded research isn't a silent partner in many of today's alleged private business advances, dig deeper.
You make it sound all or nothing. It is not, nor has it ever been. And if you don't think that government funded research isn't a silent partner in many of today's alleged private business advances, dig deeper.
2
1/ The internet comes to homes through pre-existing phone or cable lines, so no new ditches to dig. The facilities and equipement specific to Internet service are financed by users when they pay their monthly fees. Verizon, Comcast and Co have managed to make tidy profits so far on this business model and this whole controversy was about keeping things the way they are, so no corporate martyrs here.
2/ Cable companies CHARGE homeowners and PAY the TV channels they want to distribute (makes sense: they buy content from broadcasters and re-sell it to consumers), but somehow, for Internet access, they want to CHARGE BOTH consumers AND content providers...
And guess which Party thinks it's an awesome idea ?
2/ Cable companies CHARGE homeowners and PAY the TV channels they want to distribute (makes sense: they buy content from broadcasters and re-sell it to consumers), but somehow, for Internet access, they want to CHARGE BOTH consumers AND content providers...
And guess which Party thinks it's an awesome idea ?
4
So the enemy is within the gates, and it's name is "Republican".
19
How sad for you and people like you that you see your own neighbors as your enemy. They have a difference of opinion. Does that make you my enemy?
5
The majority of voters over the last four years have been choosing to replace Democrats in congress with Republicans. You should try to understand why Americans made that choice and you apparently didn't.
1
"Internet service providers say heavy-handed regulation of the Internet will diminish their profitability and crush investment to expand and speed up Internet access."
Absent of regulation, ISP's provide American consumers with high cost, low speed service, relative to other developed nations. Until they start doing a better job, they deserve diminished profits.
Absent of regulation, ISP's provide American consumers with high cost, low speed service, relative to other developed nations. Until they start doing a better job, they deserve diminished profits.
27
Sorry to disagree, but diminished profits means diminished investments, that means even worse service.
It is really a complex matter, but I think it is wrong to believe the government, or FCC, could make ISP do something against their interests.
It is really a complex matter, but I think it is wrong to believe the government, or FCC, could make ISP do something against their interests.
"If they did not pony up, they would be stuck in the slow lane." Exactly. The real world has a name for that: extortion. What's more, the whole issue gave Comcast and the other service giants bait to show their true hand, and show it they did. They accused us, their clients, of being too lame-brained to understand the wisdom of their ways. We should all keep their opinion of us in mind in any actions going forward.
23
Monopolies stifle innovations that threaten their business model. That should be case enough for conservatives to support Net Neutrality. Jobs and innovation follow a system that permits new products to emerge.
The old AT&T, as a regulated monopoly, blocked its own innovations in magnetic storage, fax machines, and data transmission. These came from Bell Labs but never say the light of day for years, or in some cases, decades.
The only reason I can see Republican resistance to the FCC and Obama approach is the GOP's payola to them from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast.
The old AT&T, as a regulated monopoly, blocked its own innovations in magnetic storage, fax machines, and data transmission. These came from Bell Labs but never say the light of day for years, or in some cases, decades.
The only reason I can see Republican resistance to the FCC and Obama approach is the GOP's payola to them from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast.
33
Internet providers are not a monopoly and they are working fine.
Comcast supports net neutrality.
Not if they have hefty stock in the monopilies . . .
The GOP once again is an enemy of regular people? Is anyone really surprised?
23
Most people do not see things the way you do. That's why over the last two elections people have chosen to give both houses of congress a majority of Republicans.
If you think about it, Net Neutrality would give the same quality of service to an online P. C. backup which does not require it, to a streamed video that does which is foolish. We would never want shipping neutrality but instead choose overnight for urgent packages and ground when time does not matter.
Doing the same for Network Streaming would allow different service levels. If you had plenty of money, you could pay for a higher price service that pays providers for faster streaming. If you are cashed constrained you could select a streamed video provider that does not watching the same movie at a lower quality and price.
I prefer the free market over central planning.
If you think about it, Net Neutrality would give the same quality of service to an online P. C. backup which does not require it, to a streamed video that does which is foolish. We would never want shipping neutrality but instead choose overnight for urgent packages and ground when time does not matter.
Doing the same for Network Streaming would allow different service levels. If you had plenty of money, you could pay for a higher price service that pays providers for faster streaming. If you are cashed constrained you could select a streamed video provider that does not watching the same movie at a lower quality and price.
I prefer the free market over central planning.
I'm going to give John Oliver the win on this one. He took a very important issue that was getting little or no attention in the national press and vaulted it into the limelight. The FCC's comment page exploded after his insightful comedic attack on the impending policy change. It is an interesting turn of events that comedians have assumed the role as arbiters of social conscience in the United States. We owe them thanks for their service.
33
Thank you President Obama. Net neutrality check, Keysone pipeline veto check. Let's keep going.
31
Whenever we see government involvement, always at the promise of a brighter day and wide-eyed liberals, we get slower, more expensive products and services. This will not be the panacea as expected: it will turn into a heavy handed, fee oriented mess overseen by government bureaucrats. It will quickly evolve and grow into something with many tentacles, insatiable, and carrying a badge. Congratulations.
6
ABSOLUTELY wrong. The history of telecomm is against you here.
3
If I have to choose between a cable TV monopoly and the Federal government, I will take the government. I already know how I get treated by the cable TV monopoly.
22
Yo Goodguy6410 - WRONG - Electric companies are private companies, but they are heavily regulated by the government. Government regulations stop electric companies from doing the same kind of monopolistic price gouging currently enjoyed by cable companies. My cable bill is now TWICE the size of my electric bill. I would FIRE my cable provider, but there is only ONE cable provider in my area. And that IS the problem - a total lack of competition in the cable industry. I am a free market guy, but there is NO free market in the cable industry - therefore the cable industry MUST be regulated !
15
Internet speeds currently offered by providers are already suspect. So I would be against rules that allowed for faster speeds over certain then others because ultimately I will be the loser if I can't pay up or will pay more for content because of the content's faster speed. Eliminating this blackmail on consumers is very welcomed. Can't we skip the politics in every piece you publish NYT?
7
I suspect that for once the GOP was not able to whip up support among their base of right wing voters to give them cover on this one.
16
Did you read the article? It was Democrats who forced this. The Democrats in Congress refused to even talk about this. They were under Harry Reid the obstructionists and still are.
More bureaucracy - great news for my property values in the DC metro area. Bad news for the cost of the Internet in the long run.
3
No, competition will drive prices down. The current monopoly status of Comcast et al allows those companies to keep their monthly fees wildly inflated.
1
Coming soon to a monthly cable bill near you -- taxes!
You didn't think the thousands of new, permanent civil servants it will take to make sure a dozen big providers don't cheat would be free did you?
Better yet, there will be the "socially responsible" charges to support those who cannot afford the new, higher bills and the messing up of services that always comes when politicians rule techies. My bet is for a "Dream Internet" for those in a political base before the 2016 campaign.
Wait, it gets better -- a couple of those social edicts might get ineptly tried by career politicians, but most of the new taxes will be stolen for what government does best -- buy votes! Take a look at your phone bill for the past 15 years to see the "911 Charge" -- yet last week a woman talking to a 911 operator drowned because the operator didn't know where she was even though she had a phone with GPS down to the foot. The billions collected? Stolen.
You didn't think the thousands of new, permanent civil servants it will take to make sure a dozen big providers don't cheat would be free did you?
Better yet, there will be the "socially responsible" charges to support those who cannot afford the new, higher bills and the messing up of services that always comes when politicians rule techies. My bet is for a "Dream Internet" for those in a political base before the 2016 campaign.
Wait, it gets better -- a couple of those social edicts might get ineptly tried by career politicians, but most of the new taxes will be stolen for what government does best -- buy votes! Take a look at your phone bill for the past 15 years to see the "911 Charge" -- yet last week a woman talking to a 911 operator drowned because the operator didn't know where she was even though she had a phone with GPS down to the foot. The billions collected? Stolen.
6
The $6.00 access fee was imposed on us after AT&T was broken up to go into a fund to help small telephone companies convert their equipment. That has been a long time. It was kept on to wire schools for internet, subsidize internet users, etc. No tax ever disappears. Who remembers the temporary telephone tax that had to be renewed from WW2? At long last they finally just made it permanent.
Cable bills are taxed now. My bill includes $14.49 in communications service taxes. You make it sound as if this will be something new. Don't be dishonest.
2
Great news! As a public library director, I was very concerned that our internet services would get priced out of our ability to pay. We have 100's of people come to the library each day to access the internet, people who can't afford to have it at home. It is so refreshing to have something good happen for "the people". Go President Obama!
32
Given how much ordinary people dislike and distrust Comcast, Verizon, etc., it is no wonder that any grass-roots appeals to oppose what they wanted would take to the winds! Any opponent of Comcast must be my friend!
27
Yes cable is bad but Obama is worse. This article makes it all sound so simple. Cable companies bad. Little guy good. We will all be equal, yeah. So why will the final bill be 2000 pages that no one will read and have a negative surprise every six months like Obamacare. Oh, I didn't know I was going to have to pay an annual license for my website. Caveat Emptor. Caveat Emperor Obama.
3
There is no guarantee you will be paying more taxes. 2000 pages may not be necessary but legal push back by Comcast and Verizon will definitely make you pay more not because of the Government taxes but because they are monopolies who think they are better than anyone else.
7
I smell FREE. And EQUALITY.
Tommy wants to be equal to Sam and pay the same price Sam pays. Only Tommy wants to use 5x or 1000x what Sam does.
Tommy and the free stuff crowd think they have won over the current criminal enterprise's bosses to get them stuff for free. Sort of like free healthcare.
Any of them notice that the big healthcare providers who were universally united against Obama Care are now offering briefs to the Court in its support?
Free. And equal. Sure, government will get us that.
Tommy wants to be equal to Sam and pay the same price Sam pays. Only Tommy wants to use 5x or 1000x what Sam does.
Tommy and the free stuff crowd think they have won over the current criminal enterprise's bosses to get them stuff for free. Sort of like free healthcare.
Any of them notice that the big healthcare providers who were universally united against Obama Care are now offering briefs to the Court in its support?
Free. And equal. Sure, government will get us that.
9
You have no clue what you are taking about. This comment shows just how ignorant you are on the subject, truly embarrassing for you.
Here is how it works in a way a simpleton like you can understand...
Tommy and Sam both pay $75 a month for their high speed internet. Tommy uses 20gigs watching Netflix and news website. Sam uses 20gigs watching YouTube, playing games and reading blogs. Who should be able to get their content faster?! Neither, duh! They are both paying the same price for the access and speed, why does it matter what they choose to use their access and speed on?
If the crooks had it their way though they could arbitrarily decide what you can access depending on if an extortion was paid. You may just find your favorite websites and services slowed to a crawl all because the endpoint didn't pay a fee. They have nothing to do with the usage, it is the client requesting the bandwidth and the client already pays for that privilege.
Man, I hate it when people have opinions on things they know nothing about. It is this kind of ignorance that keeps us from making progress in this country when people are split on things that should be a given due to shear stupidity.
Here is how it works in a way a simpleton like you can understand...
Tommy and Sam both pay $75 a month for their high speed internet. Tommy uses 20gigs watching Netflix and news website. Sam uses 20gigs watching YouTube, playing games and reading blogs. Who should be able to get their content faster?! Neither, duh! They are both paying the same price for the access and speed, why does it matter what they choose to use their access and speed on?
If the crooks had it their way though they could arbitrarily decide what you can access depending on if an extortion was paid. You may just find your favorite websites and services slowed to a crawl all because the endpoint didn't pay a fee. They have nothing to do with the usage, it is the client requesting the bandwidth and the client already pays for that privilege.
Man, I hate it when people have opinions on things they know nothing about. It is this kind of ignorance that keeps us from making progress in this country when people are split on things that should be a given due to shear stupidity.
3
NO, Bob, the big health care providers were never against the ACA, because they needed all of our support to relieve them of the mountainous bad debts they were incurring from lack of access by 20-40% of the public to health care. And, it's why they they support the ACA today, aware that with a little tweaking the law would be even better. There is no free lunch, but some "public goods" are appropriately paid for by ALL of us. And, oh btw, that's not socialism- it's cooperation!
1
Well, the corporacracy sure didn't even come close, did it?
The reality is that really, really poor service here costs $25/mo via Verizon DSL. Anything reasonable costs two and three times that. I'm talking about the costs once the "come hither" introductory prices are gone. My electric bill, arguably more important is only $50 (regulated, BTW, even poorly here in FL.)
If you use your cable broadband for anything approaching server usage, they shut you off or force you to pay even MORE for "business class" service.
Monopolies have NEVER helped their customers without government coercion. If the marketplace was truly so marvelous, it would have worked by now. Instead, we just have collusion and mergers.
The reality is that really, really poor service here costs $25/mo via Verizon DSL. Anything reasonable costs two and three times that. I'm talking about the costs once the "come hither" introductory prices are gone. My electric bill, arguably more important is only $50 (regulated, BTW, even poorly here in FL.)
If you use your cable broadband for anything approaching server usage, they shut you off or force you to pay even MORE for "business class" service.
Monopolies have NEVER helped their customers without government coercion. If the marketplace was truly so marvelous, it would have worked by now. Instead, we just have collusion and mergers.
1
Net neutrality...The situation with social services should be taken under control, because they play their dirty games with users but it seems that officials don`t want to do anything to improve the situation. But why do we need net neutrality? Officials would better do something about data leaks and hacking.
1
I have the feeling that the most important thing is the image of politics and parties in the country. Politicians pursue their own interests although they should promote citizens' opinions and try to improve the lives of citizens but not their.
1
Congratulations to We the People! While we're at it, let's begin slowly to take our country back from the. Oligarchy / plutocratic bloodsuckers. This has shown we can do it, but we must apply sustained effort. And thanks again, President Obama, for watching our collective backs.
19
By vetoing Keystone XL, Obama has let the Koch brothers know that they can't create an oligarchy on his watch. It'll take the next Republican president to sell us out to the billionaires.
2
This is great for the small guy for once. Many may not know the impact of this decision, but they would have if the 1% had won. They would have noticed connecting to the internet would have taken longer.
12
actually it was more a surrender to the voices of 4 million plus demanding net neutrality.
12
I worry what Obama will do after he won this one. Did he hook up NSA systems to every internet hub? Do all calls get routed yjrough surveillance centers? What did we lose now?
1
Don't worry about the NSA they keep tabs on you any way. Finally this is a bery black day for the Reps. They thought that having the Majority will give them an essy ride for the next two years. Well it isn't.
Look at the bright side of life you didn't lose any thing beside a very slow internet if you don't pony up.
Look at the bright side of life you didn't lose any thing beside a very slow internet if you don't pony up.
4
NSA doesn't have to hook up anything to anything. All they have to do is legislate that the service providers send them what they want, when they want, at the service providers' expense. Thank the Patriot Act.
Our government actually got one right? Fantastic! Thanks to all the activists who made this happen!
21
It is shamefull that one needs activists to fight commoun knowledge.
2
Actually, the activists are fighting billionaires. And in the case of net neutrality and Keystone XL, the activists are winning.
2
How much will the FCC fee be
7
Any 300 page secret legislation is good legislation! Please pass more secret legislation because it's always a victory if the public can't read a bill before it passes. Long live democracy!
8
On my current bill, $14.49 in taxes, .08 to the FCC.
2
Gee, thanks for not waging a full blown war against Net Neutrality, despite your fervent desire to do so in the interests of helping corporations. Such an awesome party you have there, GOP. Remind me again what you actually contribute?
32
'Remind me again what you actually contribute?'
Well, the GOP is modest, so let us sing their praises: two unfunded wars (one based on false evidence), seventy per cent of the national debt, record deficits left behind by the last three Republican administrations, income and wealth distribution from the poor and middle class upwards to the wealthiest Americans, weakened environmental legislation, a complete denial of science (six-day creation of the universe, demonising of evolution, eyes closed and ears plugged to the reality of climate change), a systematic denial of voting rights for minorities and the poor in the name of non-existent voter 'fraud', the theft of the 2000 election, a Supreme Court that believes 'corporations are people', a refusal to accept that women may be capable of making their own decisions about when and whether to have children, a refusal to accept that women should be paid the same wage for the same work as men, fifty-plus House votes to take affordable health care away from over ten million people, an impeachment of a President because of marital infidelity (led by a Speaker who was at the time engaged in his own adulterous relationship), Watergate, Iran-Contra, homophobia, etc.
How proud they must be of that legacy,
Well, the GOP is modest, so let us sing their praises: two unfunded wars (one based on false evidence), seventy per cent of the national debt, record deficits left behind by the last three Republican administrations, income and wealth distribution from the poor and middle class upwards to the wealthiest Americans, weakened environmental legislation, a complete denial of science (six-day creation of the universe, demonising of evolution, eyes closed and ears plugged to the reality of climate change), a systematic denial of voting rights for minorities and the poor in the name of non-existent voter 'fraud', the theft of the 2000 election, a Supreme Court that believes 'corporations are people', a refusal to accept that women may be capable of making their own decisions about when and whether to have children, a refusal to accept that women should be paid the same wage for the same work as men, fifty-plus House votes to take affordable health care away from over ten million people, an impeachment of a President because of marital infidelity (led by a Speaker who was at the time engaged in his own adulterous relationship), Watergate, Iran-Contra, homophobia, etc.
How proud they must be of that legacy,
7
In the end we're going to find out Republicans were right on this issue. Forced to use a 1934 law to do this in secrecy, this will be another' boon for big corp & Bigger Government . I believe this administration will design laws & regulations to the point we'll need to have our website content approved by regulators.
I know I sound crazy but if anyone takes the time (lots of time) to read Obamacare we find over 50% is how to tax & control
Hope I'm wrong but I no longer trust thr President or his cronies.
I know I sound crazy but if anyone takes the time (lots of time) to read Obamacare we find over 50% is how to tax & control
Hope I'm wrong but I no longer trust thr President or his cronies.
Secrecy? SECRECY?! This regulation is happening because millions of Americans have been paying close attention and making their voices heard. I can't remember the last time I saw a public issue at the federal level that involved so much public engagement.
You may disagree with the outcome, but this was not some back room, midnight decision by a shadowy cabal of elites. Say what you want about net neutrality, but to call say that it was done in "secrecy" is just insulting to anyone who's been paying attention.
You may disagree with the outcome, but this was not some back room, midnight decision by a shadowy cabal of elites. Say what you want about net neutrality, but to call say that it was done in "secrecy" is just insulting to anyone who's been paying attention.
I have been playing with big mainframes since my broter introduced me to them over at Col.Univ in'71. There were one or two with phosphor screens but most used accordion paper readouts. I have played with, built and done some programing on Micro-computers since 1985-when they ran on 8088 chips. The ARPA(or DARPAnet) was the backbone of the modern US version of internet . It was all but free and real slow. no pictures, just words and data. When modems gave way to DSL, and cable lines and other forms of high bandwidth, and everyone had to pay-the internet became by definition, segregated into fast and slow lanes by wallet size. WHy no one seems to recognize this is amazing! I pay 30 beans/month for between 20 and 700 KB/Sec download speeds. The only reason it doesn't waste the whole day is faster machines. Even if it were not already split into dollar sign lanes, the chip and program makers would find eventual workarounds to pack and fold data so as to increase the apparent speed of small computers. Otherwise, it would die-the internet-on the copper vines the old Ma Bell and her daughters left us.
It would end like France's Minitel-a full fledged shopping and data exchange system no french folks cared to use.
To run a business, you must have satisfied suckers-or customers. Imagine if buying a Volkswagen Beetle back in 1959 also meant, not just cheap gas and small car, but that it only went 20 MPH?See the pojnt. . .
It would end like France's Minitel-a full fledged shopping and data exchange system no french folks cared to use.
To run a business, you must have satisfied suckers-or customers. Imagine if buying a Volkswagen Beetle back in 1959 also meant, not just cheap gas and small car, but that it only went 20 MPH?See the pojnt. . .
5
On Jay Arr's comment- are you kidding on gigabyte service rendering the debate moot? Modest streaming nd regular surfing/email renders any limited service an expensive joke. Time to wake up that this is a national economic and communication core issue. Access to the jnternet is a utility, plain and simple.
8
That it is a Utility must be changed. Internet with st least 20 Mbps U/D should be free for every household. Want speed you pay like a Utility. Look at Chattanooga TN 100 Mbps city wide for little money. It can be done.
Poor John Thune; the telecoms must be suffering buyer's remorse right about now. This was a topic that had Ted Cruz in hysterics too, so I assume he's also on the payroll.
23
Now if we can do this to get a congress that is not sold to the highest bidder.... But, that as many republicans would say, will stiffle free enterprise.
19
It got sold over 40 years ago when the GOP decided it was permanently the party of interests which pay their way lavishly. The rest of "wethepeople" can go and communicate with drums or pay for telegrams.
14
In a word: fantastic! It would be such a despicable outcome if the Internet were to lose the very features that make it so viable.
13
I pay $120 per month for very limited internet access. I am throttled after 15g of data. The sole provider in my area is contracted by DISH network. I live 35 miles east of Atlanta. Hmmm sounds like a monopoly....Sounds like we might need to lay some national
infrastructure like...Rawanda.
infrastructure like...Rawanda.
21
This makes me so happy. Makes Obama's two terms worth it and some more.
12
What most people fail to understand is that net neutrality is not about corporate interests and telecoms trying to make money, it is about feasibility. Simply put, not all data is created equal.
When most consumers get service, they get UP TO XMB/sec up and down speeds. What they don't realize is that if you are getting half that speed, you're still getting wait you pay for because they never promised a minimum. For companies that require a minimum speed and are heavily internet reliant, that minimum cannot be guaranteed unless their data is given priority. If you don't want to sit and wait while your HD video buffers, you have to give it priority over things like email and web surfing. Thanks to net neutrality, that will no longer be an option. Believe it or not, "equality" is not always a good thing.
When most consumers get service, they get UP TO XMB/sec up and down speeds. What they don't realize is that if you are getting half that speed, you're still getting wait you pay for because they never promised a minimum. For companies that require a minimum speed and are heavily internet reliant, that minimum cannot be guaranteed unless their data is given priority. If you don't want to sit and wait while your HD video buffers, you have to give it priority over things like email and web surfing. Thanks to net neutrality, that will no longer be an option. Believe it or not, "equality" is not always a good thing.
4
that's not how it works at all. How did you made it up? It is almost ironic given that the most notable breach of neutrality to date has been the throttling down of Netflix, so that the internet providers could make it pony up some money.
10
That's interesting because we have been operating under the equivalent of net neutrality and these problems have not surfaced. Priority billing hasn't yet occurred and hopefully now will not.
11
That's not what this is about it's about companies paying to get there bull stuff ahead of yours and mine or haveing priority access the data stream at the expense of your and my access. This would then give the ISP the option of offering you a higher priority access for a fee just as they do now for faster ie: higher data transfer rates. They would then be making more cash off the same things but charging bus and individuals for greater access. It's the golden money tree do nothing different just charge more and say you are. Who's to know?
2
"The new F.C.C. rules are still likely to be tied up in a protracted court fight with the cable companies and Internet service providers that oppose it, and they could be overturned in the future by a Republican-leaning commission"
Another reason to vote for a Democratic president in 2016.
Another reason to vote for a Democratic president in 2016.
30
A free and open internet fosters innovation for many kinds of businesses. The cable companies would have you believe the opposite. Just look at the way the Chinese and North Korean governments control access and content. The cable companies would operate in the same way if we were to loose net neutrality.
16
Climate change, same-sex marriage, Keystone XL, Benghazi, government shutdowns. My word. What will Republicans be wrong about next? Does anyone still take them seriously?
43
I guess those people that voted for a Republican Congress, and 48% that voted for a Republican President and the appointed Conservative Supreme Court. Someone is taking them seriously.
Rather, it's the 48% of the 36.4% of eligible voters who voted in 2014 that are taking them seriously -- fewer than 1 in 5.
2
What the Republicans and their corporate puppet masters wanted was control. This isn't just about corporate profits. It's about squelching democracy. They know that so long as websites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos can be born and grow, their neocon agenda will be challenged.
Good for the good guys — for now at least.
Good for the good guys — for now at least.
38
It's heartening to see legislation that favors all individual Americans over corporate interests. Comcast and its peers are most definitely not people, too. Generally speaking, if the Republican Party is opposed to something, I am for it. Thank you President Obama for your unbending support of net neutrality and your veto of the Keystone XL pipeline construction. Putting both people and the environment ahead of corporate interests shouldn't be a partisan issue.
44
Do you think Netflix isn't a corporate interest? Why should they not have to pay for the pipe they pump their competing product down?
because the users are already paying the internet providers for the service. That's why.
13
The distinction is the large monopolistic corporate interests versus smaller companies like Netflix and individuals. The internet is a public interest - and should be defined as a common carrier. Some things should not be left to the whim of monopoly.
9
Thank god for the Democratic party out protecting consumer interests. it seems these days that all the GOP does these days is pander to industry and short term gain for the fee at great expense to everybody else.
What is it with the republican party?
What is it with the republican party?
30
Why does EVERYTHING need regulation in the first place? If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
5
It is broken, and it was going to be more and more broken without regulation. Witness the purposeful Netflix throttling to extort money.
11
It became "broke" when the monopolies decided to charge for priority access.
10
What is Net Neutrality? Everyone in America should have fast fast internet. Not this garbage we've got now. Nationalize these communication companies, along with railroads and banks and utility companies.
13
Let's be happy that we have net neutrality now, Steve. Let's not reach too far. The others you mention come with their own set of complexities, and 2016 is not that far away, and the last thing this country needs is arguments over nationalizing anything.
8
Just as a caution. This is not the time for self-congratulation and patting ourselves on the back. The omens may look good but we need to view and understand the fine print.
The next phase needs to be to pressure and lobby to have the FCC force the cable companies (as utilities) to sub-lease their lines to competitors and give consumers choice.
Given Net Neutrality without strings, there are essentially two areas that require to be addressed, three if we include rural availability.
1. Regulation should be put in place requiring the cable companies to implement and expand their use of fiber optics to increase capacity, reliability and quality; in simple terms- provide the consumer (business or residential) with higher speeds.
2. Regulation should be put in place requiring the cable companies to open up their networks to local area competition. This will involve the sub-lease of their network to competitors. This will drive standards of service up, and prices down.
Of course the cable companies should be allowed to continue to make a profit and invest in the future of their networks. It should be their responsibility to develop and present detailed business plans for the development and profitability of their networks in line with regulation.
Keep up the pressure.
The next phase needs to be to pressure and lobby to have the FCC force the cable companies (as utilities) to sub-lease their lines to competitors and give consumers choice.
Given Net Neutrality without strings, there are essentially two areas that require to be addressed, three if we include rural availability.
1. Regulation should be put in place requiring the cable companies to implement and expand their use of fiber optics to increase capacity, reliability and quality; in simple terms- provide the consumer (business or residential) with higher speeds.
2. Regulation should be put in place requiring the cable companies to open up their networks to local area competition. This will involve the sub-lease of their network to competitors. This will drive standards of service up, and prices down.
Of course the cable companies should be allowed to continue to make a profit and invest in the future of their networks. It should be their responsibility to develop and present detailed business plans for the development and profitability of their networks in line with regulation.
Keep up the pressure.
19
Sub-leasing lines would require payment for use of the cable companies' infrastructure, I assume. How is that any different than charging the few corporations who use half of the bandwidth for that bandwidth?
1
If you own stock in a cable or phone company, propose a shareholder proxy item to require the company to support net neutrality. I expect to propose such an item for Verizon this year.
11
Which one of you who agree with this have read the legislation? Hmmm, just what I thought.
5
I know enough to know that I don't want fast lanes for big business and crowded slower lanes for all the rest of us. Now, if you think oligopolies like AT&T and Comcast are going to innovate and provide new inexpensive services without oversight, I'd suggest you look back on their histories, and then their proposals for the future.
19
From the most transparent administration in history I'm glad they are trusted so much. At least you can take your $2500 savings from health care and spend it on Internet services.
We haven't won yet. They will litigate and litigate and litigate until a nice friendly Republican gets into office and destroys our democracy just a little bit more.
12
Really? Is your Internet broken? Nah, didn't think so.
4
Yes, my internet is broken. It's run by a monopoly, it's costing me a fortune, my broadband speed is barely 25 Mbps and my provider's customer service is arrogant and useless. And I have no alternative.
2
I love it when people complain about 25Mbps speeds. It means the internet really has come of age. It only took 30 years.
10 years ago 25Mbps was a pipe dream; people in the know said that 10Mbps would be all anyone would ever need, and that anything faster would be wasted. 10 years before that, 25*KILO*bps was fast. My how far we've come.
Yep, other countries have faster speeds. Look closely at who paid for it. Yep, taxes. Here in the US, what we have now has been built with private money. We should not complain that it is what it is unless and until we are ready to pony up some tax dollars to do something about it. Better still, to work in concert with private industry to do something about it!
10 years ago 25Mbps was a pipe dream; people in the know said that 10Mbps would be all anyone would ever need, and that anything faster would be wasted. 10 years before that, 25*KILO*bps was fast. My how far we've come.
Yep, other countries have faster speeds. Look closely at who paid for it. Yep, taxes. Here in the US, what we have now has been built with private money. We should not complain that it is what it is unless and until we are ready to pony up some tax dollars to do something about it. Better still, to work in concert with private industry to do something about it!
Republicans concede to common sense.
4
Those who opposed net neutrality had an opportunity to act responsibly and they blew it.
Why do Republicans seem to always be on the wrong side of every issue? I get they are beholden to their corporate masters but so are the democrats and yet they seem to be able to push for change that will benefit ordinary americans and not just the economic elite.
Why do Republicans seem to always be on the wrong side of every issue? I get they are beholden to their corporate masters but so are the democrats and yet they seem to be able to push for change that will benefit ordinary americans and not just the economic elite.
18
So why is the stock of the Telecommunication Services industry sector (comprised of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and similar) up 3.3% this year?
3
Because they grow by acquisition, increase consumer prices for the "service" while they increase all the rates on what we have to rent, and rent more items than they used to. Plus, their operating model has eliminated lots of jobs and allowed them to close more service hubs. The only thing they don't charge for is the box they send you when you need to return something.
2
Do not mistake this for the last word. Stay vigilant.
16
Just to be clear: there has been a grassroots fight for net neutrality for more than a decade! (The article seems to wrongly suggest the battle started last April and it was led by small internet companies.) And, this battle was sustained by millions of regular people. How about a shout out to the Free Press, a grassroots nonprofit that helped to lead the grassroots movement?
17
Once or twice in every generation, it's about time that those in Congress, always catering to the big boys for "perpetual" donations like Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner and NCTA, to be tsunamied by 4 million of the grass roots...notwithstanding that they can't take those donations with them to heaven, anyway.
8
This, my fellow Americans, is what activism can do. Being a democracy it is our government and our responsibility to assure that we are being governed well. We can make the changes that get things done. We can break up the deadlock in Congress and we can stop inequality in a land that boasts Freedom for all. It never was totally true from day one, but we can make it so. Put down the TV remotes, the video game controls, get off the couch and get involved. We can do this, in fact we must or we will remain divided and sink beneath the weight of our discord.
20
You seem to confuse freedom with equality. If you think this is anything more than a power grab by the feds you are confused.
5
Interesting how so very many obedient citizens automatically praise the impact of an entirely new 500 page policy (controlling perhaps their most important tool) when the politicians who prepared it are keeping it secret from those same citizens.
5
In fact what it does is remove control and promote commerce.
3
Regulation is necessary for civic commerce. bland meaningless sloganeering is only that
4
Taking control out of the hands of private interests who are answerable only to their shareholders, and devoid of any notion of service to the public interest, seems praiseworthy enough. Who's afraid of a little more competition?
5
The fight for an open internet is not over. The cable companies will file lawsuits to overturn the will of the voters as well as fund the next GOP Presidential candidate heavily on the quid pro quo of: "you win, and I'll appoint GOP commissioners to undo these regulations."
12
The subtext of this (and many other things that are happening) is that most of the American public simply does not trust the goodwill or good intentions of the elite. America is unraveling.
Period.
Period.
13
Republican voters sure seem to trust the elite. Why else would the Koch brothers' pet ideologies carry so much sway with the so-called grassroots?
8
Nobody should trust the so-called elite ... especially the elected ones.
4
You mean the elites on the boards of Comcast and Verizon? Why on earth would we, any more than we trusted in the benevolence of George III? As American as apple pie.
2
A dragon just got stabbed in the eye with a sharp sword. That doesn't happen very often and it matters a lot. When enough people speak up, democratic values can still prevail.
46
thank the democrats
4
Absolutely.
Little guy wins. It is rare when the people can sway the party of the one percent, the "big" guys.
15
What did you win?? The policy document is secret .
5
I guess your argument is that the federal government is not the "big" guys?
3
If the document is secret, and we don't know what we won, I'd ask you what you lost.
3
It is really too good to be true that Net Neutrality has ruled the day. We have a Democrat in the White House to thank for this victory. With an assist from John Oliver. Truly.
But I am reminded of the old Capitol Hill adage that to keep a bad idea from becoming law you must kill, kill, kill until it's dead, dead, dead. Even then it's not dead.
Those who seek to make money from special privileges granted them by the US government will regroup and together with their fifth column inside the beltway will lay siege to Net Neutrality again. Net Neutrality is an ongoing fight. See you on the ramparts.
But I am reminded of the old Capitol Hill adage that to keep a bad idea from becoming law you must kill, kill, kill until it's dead, dead, dead. Even then it's not dead.
Those who seek to make money from special privileges granted them by the US government will regroup and together with their fifth column inside the beltway will lay siege to Net Neutrality again. Net Neutrality is an ongoing fight. See you on the ramparts.
38
Question, if data transmission is slowed down to be equal for all, why would companies invest to expand future bandwidth capabilities if Uncle Sam places these restriction limits?
If a company A needs "x" amount of bandwidth to operate and willing to pay more and company B needs less, why restrict the market forces?
I rarely have empathy for the cable companies, but in this case I find the government should not place such restrictions.....
If a company A needs "x" amount of bandwidth to operate and willing to pay more and company B needs less, why restrict the market forces?
I rarely have empathy for the cable companies, but in this case I find the government should not place such restrictions.....
6
Net Neutrality doesn't mean that a company or consumer can't buy more bandwidth, but that it's none of the ISPs business how you decide to use the bandwidth you paid for. So the ISP can't turn around and charge a company a fee for access to "their" customers, or block a service that happens to compete with one of their offerings.
8
Because the only way liberals can make things "equal" is to make everybody equally miserable. They are like the four year olds who scream "if I can't have it nobody can have it!"
2
For the amount they are charging for our communication bills our internet speeds are awfully slow.
7
Comcast was created in part from the ruins of Adelphia whose management went to JAIL. Large parts of Adelphia had been granted cable monopolies by municipalities who *never intended* that those monopolies be sold for less than pennies on the dollar (by a judge) and appropriated to Comcast (to which Congress was a knowing conspirator through passage of the Telecommunications act of 1996. Comcast now hugely overcharges for a monopoly it was granted by the courts. The FCC can hardly undo this gigantic mess that monopoly capitalism, the courts, and criminal Adelphia management caused in this country. But, the beginning of unwinding the mess is the declaration that the Internet is a utility. Only the beginning. But, oh, what a mess!
18
Nice first step. Now break up all the telecoms into bite-sized, co-dependent bits.
13
And make them regulated utilities. Then wait and revisit in ten to twenty years, when new technologies may have arisen.
3
I say do the opposite, combine them into one company owned by us, the rate payer.
6
Good news. The internet is not 'for' commerce. It is for communication, both commercial and non-commercial.
11
More government, more, more, more... Is there nothing Democrats can resist governing? I meant to type ruining, but Siri strangely converted ruining to governing. Anyway, I sort of enjoyed the Internet. RIP.
3
You might want to use your beloved internet to understand this before you bash it. Nothing is changing because the Democrats protected the status quo.
10
Government governs things such as a safe steady supply of water and electricity to homes and businesses, as the market forces did not ensure clean safe water and a stable provision of electricity.
Such governance for the good of the people has been good for a century.
Neither household water supply nor electricity went away. So why would the internet? Not all governing is bad. To imply so repudiates 230 years of American progress - not all of which has been due to "market forces."
Such governance for the good of the people has been good for a century.
Neither household water supply nor electricity went away. So why would the internet? Not all governing is bad. To imply so repudiates 230 years of American progress - not all of which has been due to "market forces."
15
You do know that the internet began as a US Government project, right?
8
Control has replaced Freedom in America and the Liberals have succeeded in convincing their followers that they need to be controlled. It's diabolical.
3
On the one hand we have the option of being controlled by a couple of huge monopolies who buy their influence behind closed doors, and who put profits ahead of the public good. On the other hand we have the option of limiting the power of monopolies through an admittedly messy political process of that results in laws and regulations.
One of those two options is what happens in a democracy.
One of those two options is what happens in a democracy.
10
once you stop using meaningless terms you will be able to engage in a meaningful understanding
1
The Internet, developed originally with public funding under DARPA, has become far more important as means of communication than anyone could have possible imagined. Maintaining the Internet as the last frontier of free and open communication is not just a matter of policy, it is a matter of public duty. For example, the greatest weapon the people have to combat the oceans of corporate money unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision to flood the electoral process is indeed the Internet. Companies who lay cable cannot be allowed to control Internet information content. We must fight to maintain Net Neutrality and this significant victory by and for the people will be a landmark for the future struggles that the Internet will surely face in order to remain free.
23
The public have spoken. The FCC has collected over a million public comments on the issue of net neutrality. The results were overwhelming in favor of net neutrality. Some reports said 99% of the comments were in favor of net neutrality. That number is hard even for a partisan like me, but the consensus is over the top that the public supports the action of the Obama administration on the issue for net neutrality.
The People Have Spoken. Keep the Internet and America Free!
The People Have Spoken. Keep the Internet and America Free!
21
My company, CenturyLink has 12 Internet speeds and you pay more for faster speeds. CoxCable in this state has just announced that their basic speed of 1mbps (one megibit per second) will be sped up to 5mbps with the capability to go to 150mbps.) Of course, you pay more for the faster speed. The cable companies are cruising along as though there is no Net Neutrality discussion.
If that was what the shouting has been about, then who decides what the standard rate for downloads will be. and what will the rate be? My company slowed our download speed considerably starting Sept 3rd, last year, way below 1mbps.
If that was what the shouting has been about, then who decides what the standard rate for downloads will be. and what will the rate be? My company slowed our download speed considerably starting Sept 3rd, last year, way below 1mbps.
A major misconception is that Net Neutrality concerns tiered end-user speed options. It does not. It concerns the ability of the ISP's, eg, the Comcasts and ATTs , to charge more to Internet content providers if they want better, more privileged access to the consumers at the other end. What ever be your download speed at home based your chosen service you will still have equal access to all the information available on the web under Net Neutrality. That is the key.
5
Your download speed is not what the shouting has been about.
Net neutrality has to do with whether some kinds of data, or data from certain sources, gets preferential treatment by an ISP. One example would be Comcast favoring the delivery of the data from NBCUniversal (its corporate sibling) over Netflix; Netflix's customers would have a lower-quality experience than NBCUniversal's over Comcast's network. Netflix (or any other content provider) could achieve parity with NBCUniversal only by paying more. How much more? Who knows? Could my hypothetical new content-providing startup, promising a better experience than NBCUniversal's, afford to get access to Comcast's pipes? If Comcast decided to charge my startup fifty times what it charged existing content providers, would I have a legal recourse?
Net neutrality has to do with whether some kinds of data, or data from certain sources, gets preferential treatment by an ISP. One example would be Comcast favoring the delivery of the data from NBCUniversal (its corporate sibling) over Netflix; Netflix's customers would have a lower-quality experience than NBCUniversal's over Comcast's network. Netflix (or any other content provider) could achieve parity with NBCUniversal only by paying more. How much more? Who knows? Could my hypothetical new content-providing startup, promising a better experience than NBCUniversal's, afford to get access to Comcast's pipes? If Comcast decided to charge my startup fifty times what it charged existing content providers, would I have a legal recourse?
7
Much misinformation here. Nothing in the FCC decision determines what ISPs can charge for whatever speeds that they offer, and no one is lobbying for that. What's needed is a repeal of state and local laws against community broadband networks that ISPs promoted. Then there will be competition, and only that will determine price points.
8
Internet access is a human right. -United Nations
4
I don't understand. The people are actually winning a round in the big ring, for all the marbles, against big business oligarchies?
And that even though they will send up the logical fallacies of straw man, red herring -- the gov't regulations boogieman (lions and tigers and bears...oh no!) -- and will even trot out a "you can keep your internet you have now" meme, those in the kmow?
They know the public just one won.
Which is a rare thing.
I, for one...am buying!
Set 'em up.
Drinks are on me.
We should all tie one on and blow the doors off! The Internet just escaped that small gang of five corps or so that were about to strangle the internet, and our wallets, forever.
It's a good day.
And that even though they will send up the logical fallacies of straw man, red herring -- the gov't regulations boogieman (lions and tigers and bears...oh no!) -- and will even trot out a "you can keep your internet you have now" meme, those in the kmow?
They know the public just one won.
Which is a rare thing.
I, for one...am buying!
Set 'em up.
Drinks are on me.
We should all tie one on and blow the doors off! The Internet just escaped that small gang of five corps or so that were about to strangle the internet, and our wallets, forever.
It's a good day.
12
Is there anything in the regulation, or is there anything in the FCC's charter, which would allow the commission to issue regulations that regulate speech on the Internet, like it regulates speech on the public airwaves.
In other words, would this move by the FCC and the Obama Administration, ever allow regulations that lead to the "seven dirty words" case involving George Carlin's famous route (i.e., the Pacifica Foundation case). Would the FCC now be able to regulate the time, place and manner of porn on the Internet? Could it introduce a "fairness doctrine" for political speech on the net?
Is anyone at the NY Times askin these questions? Don't you think the time to demand answers is before these regs get approved?
In other words, would this move by the FCC and the Obama Administration, ever allow regulations that lead to the "seven dirty words" case involving George Carlin's famous route (i.e., the Pacifica Foundation case). Would the FCC now be able to regulate the time, place and manner of porn on the Internet? Could it introduce a "fairness doctrine" for political speech on the net?
Is anyone at the NY Times askin these questions? Don't you think the time to demand answers is before these regs get approved?
2
There you go again. Wild accusations clothed in soothing words. No. There will not be more government control. We already have some, like no child porn, and the level of control overall will not change.
Okay? Got it?
Okay? Got it?
8
The Big Paranoid Idea that Obama wants to take over the country, or in this case the Internet?
It's been six years and so far...no dictatorship or secret FEMA camps or, well, you get the drift. So why not stick with issues and leave crazy at the door. We're all full up on crazy here.
It's been six years and so far...no dictatorship or secret FEMA camps or, well, you get the drift. So why not stick with issues and leave crazy at the door. We're all full up on crazy here.
6
As more communities get gigabit services, net neutrality will become moot. Sadly that is a few years away. Thankfully small companies will compete, in the meantime, with the same rules as the giga-companies. Good democracy.
6
“Tech companies would be better served to work with Congress on clear rules for the road. The thing that they’re buying into right now is a lot of legal uncertainty,” said Mr. Thune.
Maybe so, Mr. Thune, but you and you're party have zero credibility on any issue these days. You guys had your chance to engage and play ball with us for 6 years. But no, you guys made a decision to follow your colleague Ted Cruz and become obstructionists, hoping for the day when the GOtP would be the Senate majority and could stick it to the Dems. Now that you have that majority, you want to 'govern'? Well, guess what? You've burned whatever bipartisanship, or well-meaning proposals, were left on the table.
This is what happens when you demonize half the electorate. We're onto you, Thune, you and your do-nothing-until-we're-in-charge ilk.
Maybe so, Mr. Thune, but you and you're party have zero credibility on any issue these days. You guys had your chance to engage and play ball with us for 6 years. But no, you guys made a decision to follow your colleague Ted Cruz and become obstructionists, hoping for the day when the GOtP would be the Senate majority and could stick it to the Dems. Now that you have that majority, you want to 'govern'? Well, guess what? You've burned whatever bipartisanship, or well-meaning proposals, were left on the table.
This is what happens when you demonize half the electorate. We're onto you, Thune, you and your do-nothing-until-we're-in-charge ilk.
20
Doesn't anyone find it funny that they never put the bills that affect us all on a ballot anymore? Like creating DHS, Unlimited access to our personal information, our rights of freedom to travel unmolested anywhere in our country without having to explain it to everyone in the government.
3
Since when do we vote on bills? Since Obama showed up? Oh! That's It!
1
Elections DON'T have consequences.
Sure elections matter.
But Obama won twice and McConnell/Boehner and the tea party paid no attention to that, now did they?
And at any rate the FCC is independent of our Executive and Legislative branches....they make the decision.
You apparently didn't know that...the reflexive victim card conservatives show when they don't get instant agreement with all their demands?
Tiresome. Boring. And redolent of ignorance.
But Obama won twice and McConnell/Boehner and the tea party paid no attention to that, now did they?
And at any rate the FCC is independent of our Executive and Legislative branches....they make the decision.
You apparently didn't know that...the reflexive victim card conservatives show when they don't get instant agreement with all their demands?
Tiresome. Boring. And redolent of ignorance.
6
Interesting that China, Cuba and North Korea control the internet of their citizens. Surely their citizens appreciate that.
1
You got that backwards. You want Comcast and Verizon to control it. You love the corporations for God knows what reason. Why is that?
6
All those who consider this a victory, haven't read title II, which is tucked into this bill. You think you will be saving money, but the opposite is true. Read Title II here http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12-Lita...
2
If you like your free and open Internet, you can keep your free and open Internet.
14
Sure.
1
When was Internet access ever free?
2
Dont let your guard down....this internet broadband thing is only going to become more confusing as time goes on.... the future internet consumer will be so woven into the fabric of 1's and 0's that will make those addicted to heroin look normal. This is a puppet show that does not bode well for our children.
6
It's not the Internet you need to worry about concerning the future lives of our children. It's pretty low on my list.
6
I have no idea what you're even saying.
4
Stop everything digital in your life for 30 days and you will understand.
forgot to put "consequences" in after monumental
1
What one constantly needs to point out to opponents of net neutrality, those who claim government control and regulation will only undermine it, is that the internet began as a government-funded, public sector project. Since it's inception and subsequent phenomenal growth, ushering in the so-called information age, the internet, under government regulation, has served us well, so well that there are those who now want to privatize the internet for their own profitability. And that is the best argument as to why the internet needs to remain under public sector control. But I fear the more profitable the internet becomes, the more aggressive the oligarchic grab will become.
47
The bogus focus on "government regulation" of a free market ecosystem is just that! bogus. The real danger is "control" of a free market ecosystem by a very few corporations who by the way are the farthest from being "democratic" entities. The point is... is that the internet is becoming a serious neural network for mankind and should not be subject to the manipulation of narrow minds and ignorance of how vast the future will be. There will come a time when the internet will call for it's equivalent of the "Philadelphia Convention" and will have monumental for the future.
20
Businesses, or anyone for that matter, will be required to register their websites with the government, for a fee.
3
That would be NO. FALSE. LIE.
8
This is good for using the internet in America but what about the rest of the economic and social issues that have been forced upon Americans by corporate interests?
There is a lot more work to be done.
There is a lot more work to be done.
14
Correct. This is an oasis of a sort. So many industries have become oligarchies. And some of the mergers that have been allowed to go thru are bad for consumer inlcuding Comcast's aquisition of NBC/Universal and recent several recent airlline mergers. Other than TMobile, these large telecom companies are hugely unpopular. It's going to take a lot of work and a lot of luck to make this stick.
5
This is NOT good for Americans! This is about MORE government control. This bill is going to cost you more, not less, for internet access. Have you heard of Title Ii, which is tucked into this bill. Read it here: http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12-Lita...
I hope people aren't supporting net neutrality because they think it will lower their internet bill, because that's never what it was about in the first place. Net neutrality is about the free exchange of data, and any price changes or lack thereof are just side effects.
5
The money crowd and the plutocrats lost a major battle. But the people can't afford to relax since the Republicans still control the House and Senate. Just as sure as night follows day, they will spare no attempt to do their masters' bidding.
Which brings me to this question - why do so many working men and women vote consistently vote against their self-interests and elect Republicans. Look at what they did in Kansas. Look at how Scott Walker (with the blessings of the Koch Brothers) destroyed the public unions. And the Wisconsin legislators still are not satisfied when it comes to unions.
Then you have the people in the Red states who opposes Obamacare but fail to realize that if their state did not set up a health exchange, they risk losing their coverage due to high premiums.
I don't know if these people have been brainwashed by Fox News and conservative talk radio to the point where they believe that the 1% are looking out for them.
I am not saying that the Democrats are perfect. But if you look at the history of the last 100 years, Democrats have done more to help the average Joe than Republicans.
Then, too, when we get to the point where a large percentage of working people hate unions (and we have), what is left except the 1% getting more wealth.
Which brings me to this question - why do so many working men and women vote consistently vote against their self-interests and elect Republicans. Look at what they did in Kansas. Look at how Scott Walker (with the blessings of the Koch Brothers) destroyed the public unions. And the Wisconsin legislators still are not satisfied when it comes to unions.
Then you have the people in the Red states who opposes Obamacare but fail to realize that if their state did not set up a health exchange, they risk losing their coverage due to high premiums.
I don't know if these people have been brainwashed by Fox News and conservative talk radio to the point where they believe that the 1% are looking out for them.
I am not saying that the Democrats are perfect. But if you look at the history of the last 100 years, Democrats have done more to help the average Joe than Republicans.
Then, too, when we get to the point where a large percentage of working people hate unions (and we have), what is left except the 1% getting more wealth.
24
I'm not a R so I can't speak for them but the reason I never vote for a Democrat is because I had a mommy growing up and don't need one as an adult. I can take care of myself.
1
Kudos! Great comment! You summarised the liberal agenda oh so perfectly!
"Republicans have grown much quieter under the barrage."
Republicans would be more credible if they just admitted they are for net neutrality too.
Republicans would be more credible if they just admitted they are for net neutrality too.
8
Meanwhile, because congress has never allowed "a la carte" cable tv purchase by consumers... cable will now die a slow agonizing death. And television will stream over the internet instead. I guess cable will just become a pipeline for the internet. Justifiably regulated.
12
Most people commenting here know squat about how the internet works and the technical issues behind this regulation. It has become another bogeyman for liberals to rally around...
5
Actually, many of us "liberals" understand it quite well – that's one of the reasons why you people call us "elites"
6
I know a lot about the Internet. And I am not so foolish as to think that big corporate broadband providers would ever be fair to customers or the competition, hence the need for regulation. Companies like Comcast and AT&T a have already proven that they're out to rule the world. Shouldn't someone stand in their way?
7
Technical, shmecktical.
This was about proving a point. The point being "we're watching very closely". Too many times, so-called 'technical issues' involving regulation turn out to be backdoors for granting political favors to well-connected donors. Today's Washington is not a place for substantive discussion of anything, much less 'technical issues' involving the internet. I mean, look at what happened to Dodd-Frank and their 'technical issues'. Its been defanged to the point of irrelevance.
We may have lost control of our financial system, but we're darn well not going to sit back and let a wink and a nod fool us into losing control of the 'fair use' internet. Come back when you've earned some trust, Congress.
This was about proving a point. The point being "we're watching very closely". Too many times, so-called 'technical issues' involving regulation turn out to be backdoors for granting political favors to well-connected donors. Today's Washington is not a place for substantive discussion of anything, much less 'technical issues' involving the internet. I mean, look at what happened to Dodd-Frank and their 'technical issues'. Its been defanged to the point of irrelevance.
We may have lost control of our financial system, but we're darn well not going to sit back and let a wink and a nod fool us into losing control of the 'fair use' internet. Come back when you've earned some trust, Congress.
6
I rather have the internet run by people appointed by elected officials than by the self-appointed twits at ComCast, Verizon, and Time-Warner.
40
Yes, everything they do is so good (sarcasm).
1
Much better than the oligarchs in the corporations whose only goal is more money for themselves.
2
The internet itself exposes the need for Republicans to squeeze money from regular people while protecting the huge non-regular people who pay the money that makes regular people believe that non-regular people deserve to be in office. No, I don't understand this issue completely. I know I have my routine online, the weather, the news, my email and getting sidetracked into something unexpected. I know I have lost vast sums in stocks, thank you internet for exposing my foolishness. But I also know that in so many ways regular people are getting an overdose of the truth: Some non-regular people are in charge who do not have our best interests at heart. This is a win for regular people. It's 9:30 at night and I shall celebrate with a regular coffee.
8
As usual misinformation by special interests aided by an ignorant public won over common sense.
3
See what people can do if we use our power! Let's wake up on other issues as well.
13
Ok, the ISP's as basically monopoly providers of internet network service want to set prices based on the volume/bandwidth use of the network. In other words volume of use is directly related to ISP network cost to provide service so higher prices are justified for users using a greater volume of the bandwidth of the internet network provided by the ISP. This all sounds reasonable BUT as a monopoly you can't just set this usage based price unilaterally for a service that is needed by the public; invested with the public interest. You need to open your books to prove that the prices are justified based on actual costs since there is no competitive pressure to control prices. This the ISP's will not do. They want to control price and bandwidth provided unilaterally.
4
Lets roll with a different analogy here. The data you stream travels to you on a highway, so to speak. Right now, you are not charged for the use of the highway. Your payment to the ISP is taken as payment for use of the highway. Now, lets look at a real-world highway, a public good. There are toll roads all over the place. People pay extra all the time to use roads that will get them to their destination faster. And furthermore, people can pay for EZ-Pass to get there even faster than before. Essentially, this is what Verizon and Comcast wanted to do: create an EZ-pass system for data. Guess who primarily uses EZ pass? Large companies with large geographical distribution areas. Shipping companies. The rest of us don't HAVE to for EZ pass on these toll roads, but we still have to pay the toll.
If you are against the plan put forward by Verizon, then I hate to break it to you, but you're against EZ pass as well. You're also against Toll Roads. But considering the Government is going to regulate this as a public good, what's to stop the government from implementing this on their own, via their regulations? Stop and think before make a decision on this issue. Streaming via netflix uses up a TON of bandwith. Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay more to use that finite bandwith?
If you are against the plan put forward by Verizon, then I hate to break it to you, but you're against EZ pass as well. You're also against Toll Roads. But considering the Government is going to regulate this as a public good, what's to stop the government from implementing this on their own, via their regulations? Stop and think before make a decision on this issue. Streaming via netflix uses up a TON of bandwith. Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay more to use that finite bandwith?
5
It's about the PIPES and the TUBES and how they are CONNECTED.
1
You are already paying your ISP and Netflix is already paying their ISP. If consumers didn't pay their ISPs then I agree Netflix should pay more to ISPs that deliver content to consumers, however, since consumers are already paying then it is essentially double charging. Again, Netflix already pays its own ISP based on the amount of traffic it generates, nobody is getting a free ride.
5
Hence why I specifically made the analogy to a Toll Road. Netflix paying ISPs is like us paying our taxes for public roads. We still pay extra for Toll Roads though. Netflix and high volume streaming sites like it are the exception to the internet rule when it comes to bandwith used. The amount of data these sites and services use up is extraordinary, far beyond a usual website, and this places a burden on the ISP to meet that demand above and beyond what it might normally have to meet. Right now, that cost is passed on to us, the consumers. The plan to charge Netflix for the extra bandwith would shift those costs onto Netflix and off us. We might actually see ISP prices FALL rather than increase. And besides, if you can't afford the two or three dollar increase from Netflix that would result from Comcast's or Verizon's plans, should you really be paying for netflix anyways?
If it happens it will finally be one for the "little guys."
Wonderful
Wonderful
7
Why did Obama wait six years to remember who voted for him?
4
Did he, JB? I don't think so, if you look at most of the issues he's worked at fixing while in office. They are "people issues". And he and his administration were kinda busy extracting us from the Great Republican Worldwide Recession.
9
Of all the dire, dire consequences coming upon America as sure as an Eastern rising Sun that had been prophesied over the last six years, not a single solitary one has come to pass...but here it goes again...dire, dire consequences if capitalistic exploitation by rape and pillage is fettered by a, gasp, level playing field...oh, the horrors of equality.
6
Nice writing, EuroAm, but I can't tell what side your on here.
1
The Republicans appear to be a pack of RINOs.
2
I work in the internet space. We need to see the details of the regulation (which they are suspiciously hiding), but if it is what I anticipate...it will lead to reduced new internet business, reduced internet freedom, and higher cost for internet access and services due to all of the new regulation. Very sad, very very sad. The internet was an export industry and will now crater.
6
You, and others like you, are both right and wrong. Regulation of the Internet as a utility certainly opens the door for taxes to start showing up on monthly bills for service. I'm not happy about that and I'm sure no one else is happy about it either. Now hold that sad or angry feeling about paying a couple of dollars more a month for Internet access and compare that to 10, 20 or 30 percent increases in your bill every year from TWC, Comcast or Verizon. The tax doesn't look as bad anymore. You also have to look at the increase in your Netflix bill because they had to pay a premium to Comcast, RCN, Verizon and others to not have their streaming video slowed down just to squeeze money out of them. Easy math, higher bills for access, higher bills for content adding 50% to 100% for the worst service in the free world or a couple of dollars in taxes. There will be more business on the Internet, not less since it's the only game in town around the world it's just that the cartel that brings it to your home or business won't be able to rape you anymore.
5
You are so right.
1
OK, so the corporate feed trough the Republicans eat out of will have a little bit less cash stuffed in it next fall. And the Democrats get a victory for fairness, openness and freedom of choice, things the Republicans used to stand for.
8
You're joking right. Both parties feed at the same corporate trough.
My understanding of Net Neutrality is that it distributes call content with the same responsiveness and speed. In other words, bandwidth is wasted on a background online backup, while a streaming HD streaming video stalls because it does not have it.
Pricing help assure limited resources are put to best use. Should we have shipping neutrality and either have everything shipped overnight, or 5 day ground whether the item is a part for a grounded airlines or a coat someone is going to wear next season.
Additionally, the internet has gotten tremendously faster without net neutrality. Lets not invite the government in to break the free market and assure the precision resource of responsiveness and bandwidth is not put to the most efficient use. Considering how quickly the speed of the internet is increasing, how long will it be before bandwidth is not an issue for things like video. For me it is not now.
John
Pricing help assure limited resources are put to best use. Should we have shipping neutrality and either have everything shipped overnight, or 5 day ground whether the item is a part for a grounded airlines or a coat someone is going to wear next season.
Additionally, the internet has gotten tremendously faster without net neutrality. Lets not invite the government in to break the free market and assure the precision resource of responsiveness and bandwidth is not put to the most efficient use. Considering how quickly the speed of the internet is increasing, how long will it be before bandwidth is not an issue for things like video. For me it is not now.
John
3
Net neutrality is exactly what *has* existed to date and is one of the major reasons that the Internet has flourished, not, as you say, that the success has happened without it. This fight has occurred because some corporations want to undo it, not add it.
6
John, (1) I have no idea what you mean by "call content", and (2) who are you to say that the completion of the backup is more important than the streaming video? Is the ISP to decide one customer is more important than another? (I might accept that data connections for emergency services agencies should get priority, but otherwise, it would be a hard sell.) And since data travels over multiple networks ("Internet" = "internetwork"), "the" ISP is a fantasy: there are any number of network providers who might want to express their preferences.
Finally, "the Internet has gotten tremendously faster" NOT without net neutrality, but WITH it. Neutral treatment of traffic is the status quo. All the public outcry wanted was to ensure that continued to be the case, contrary to what some of the big ISPs want.
I'd say your understanding of net neutrality needs work.
Finally, "the Internet has gotten tremendously faster" NOT without net neutrality, but WITH it. Neutral treatment of traffic is the status quo. All the public outcry wanted was to ensure that continued to be the case, contrary to what some of the big ISPs want.
I'd say your understanding of net neutrality needs work.
4
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Net neutrality is what we have had to date.
It is deeply satisfying to see the oligarchs defeated just once! But this is only a brief respite. Count on the 1% to come back with another plot to rob the poor consumer. Be vigilant.
17
A great moment -- and the FCC has shown decisively that it's *not* an anachronism. Originally constituted as the Federal Radio Commission in 1926, it has had to change with the times, but the basic principle is still the same: the airwaves -- and the Internet -- belong to the public.
11
No American in their Right Mind would ever consider giving the Progressive Big Government criminals the power to regulate the last remnant of free speech on Earth.
5
I really wish more people would see this for what it is. Another government takeover controlling ONE MORE part of Americans lives. If everyone read Title II which is ominously tucked into this bill, they would know that our cost for internet access is going up, not down. All those who consider this a victory, haven't read title II, which is tucked into this bill. You think you will be saving money, but the opposite is true. Read Title II here http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12-Lita...
2
Seriously?
3
YES! Read my comment above.
1
Along with the Supreme Court decision requiring a warrant for police to search mobile phones, this is a massive, defining victory for the freedom of all Americans in the information age. Open and equal Internet access must be safeguarded by our democratically-elected government, not left to the selfish whims of unaccountable, unelected corporate bureaucrats.
7
Paying more for increased bandwidth / responsiveness helps assure those resources are put to the best use.
We don't have or want shipping neutrality. When we ship a part to repair an expensive piece of equipment, we choose overnight because it warrants the extra cost. When we order a spring coat in January, next season, 10 day ground is fine.
It is foolish to give the same quality of service to an online background backup and a video conference or streamed movies. In one case responsiveness makes no difference, and in the other it is critical.
When you buy lumber there are different levels of quality at different prices. It would be foolish to use the same quality of wood to make fine furniture and chicken coops but that is exactly what net neutrality seems to do.
John
We don't have or want shipping neutrality. When we ship a part to repair an expensive piece of equipment, we choose overnight because it warrants the extra cost. When we order a spring coat in January, next season, 10 day ground is fine.
It is foolish to give the same quality of service to an online background backup and a video conference or streamed movies. In one case responsiveness makes no difference, and in the other it is critical.
When you buy lumber there are different levels of quality at different prices. It would be foolish to use the same quality of wood to make fine furniture and chicken coops but that is exactly what net neutrality seems to do.
John
You will still be able to purchase different speeds, just like you can now. The only difference is that with net neutrality staying in place (it IS what we have now) your ISP cannot slow down or speed up the delivery of the content YOU choose to access. For example, I like to stream netflix. I can't do that with the slowest speed available from my provider, I had to choose a higher speed. That doesn't change.
"while smaller players — some household names like Twitter and Netflix"
Are you kidding me? The small multi-BILLION dollar player named Netflix?
Are you kidding me? The small multi-BILLION dollar player named Netflix?
5
I have more respect for the French and their white flags than I do for a Republican. What good are you if you do nothing? Does McConnell have breakfast with Reid to get his daily list of chores?
2
What I'm wondering is what else is contained in the 332 page proposal, that we are not being told, which affects the freedom of speech & freedom of information for everyday US citizens.
8
No more than will effect it if this were left to big business. Here we are, supposed to be the greatest country in the world, but our current internet service pales in comparison with other modern countries. It's horrible and yet we are paying WAY more than anyone else because of corporate greed. Net Neutrality is necessary and anyone foolish enough not to understand why should educate themselves. Whatever is in the proposal could not be anywhere near as damaging as corporate greed and what its done since its been deregulated.
3
Enough with the talking points. The regulation is 6 pages. It take 326 pages for the FCC to explain their reasoning * as they are required to by law *, and to dissect hundreds of substantive arguments.
4
Help me understand what is in these regulations and how they will help us.
3
If you want the government to control your access to the Internet, Net Neutrality is the way.
If you think the government will only do the right thing, all the time, every time, to keep your information safe on the Internet, Net Neutrality is the way.
China has "Net Neutrality". It forced Google to obey China's privacy rules.
Pakistan has "Net Neutrality". It redirected every YouTube request to its servers, because it wanted to prevent Pakistanis from seeing "bad things" about Islam.
If this is what you want, Net Neutrality is what the government will make sure you get.
The Internet was free, before Progressives decided they knew what "freedom" was best. They're about to dictate to you, what "freedom" you should have.
The Nazis would love "Net Neutrality". Because - it means the government controls what the Internet is about.
Shout to the world that you love "Net Neutrality". And know that in the same shout, you applaud everything the fascists do to take away your rights.
Net Neutrality = Destruction of Private Property. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve the freedom this country was created to preserve.
If you think the government will only do the right thing, all the time, every time, to keep your information safe on the Internet, Net Neutrality is the way.
China has "Net Neutrality". It forced Google to obey China's privacy rules.
Pakistan has "Net Neutrality". It redirected every YouTube request to its servers, because it wanted to prevent Pakistanis from seeing "bad things" about Islam.
If this is what you want, Net Neutrality is what the government will make sure you get.
The Internet was free, before Progressives decided they knew what "freedom" was best. They're about to dictate to you, what "freedom" you should have.
The Nazis would love "Net Neutrality". Because - it means the government controls what the Internet is about.
Shout to the world that you love "Net Neutrality". And know that in the same shout, you applaud everything the fascists do to take away your rights.
Net Neutrality = Destruction of Private Property. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve the freedom this country was created to preserve.
9
Oh for heaven's sake. Nazis? Congratulations, you just lost the argument.
1
Bravo!
2
Net Neutrality allows the Internet to be regulated like a state's Public Utility Commission regulates public utilities. It doesn't control content like you imply; it keeps it free and regulates how corporations (cable companies) give us access to it. I don't understand why the right must make anything they disagree with or don't understand into something Orwellian. Do you check for the boogie-man under your bed every night, too?
9
Great to see some decent coverage of net neutrality in the New York times. Interent Activism often defies traditional left/right politics -- too bad Republicans in DC didn't get that memo in time
7
What many Americans don't realize is that while U.S.created the Internet, it now has some of the most-expensive, slowest internet service in the world. This is the first step in reversing that.
By cutting Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and all the other greedy internet giants out of the picture, this decision might let us now see how the web is supposed to work, and bring the U.S. up to speed with the rest of the world.
And for once our voices were heard.
By cutting Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and all the other greedy internet giants out of the picture, this decision might let us now see how the web is supposed to work, and bring the U.S. up to speed with the rest of the world.
And for once our voices were heard.
21
How is that supposed to happen? The government's going to do it? I guess there is not enough room for bribes and corruption without net neutrality. Can't wait to see how great this all works out, cable monopolies are just great. This is why I'm an independent, neither party is any good.
OK, great. Net neutrality....for now. But there is a lot more at stake in this country than just equal access to the internet. What about equal access to vote, to a good job, to good health care, to an education, to retirement with dignity, to protection under the law and a thousand other things. I hope all the net heads who took time to make their voice heard regarding the internet can widen their vision and concern beyong their mouse and keyboard.
5
Chuck.....to add to your list, clean air, clean water and clean soil
Without the major factors addressed immediately all other issue become mute.
Without the major factors addressed immediately all other issue become mute.
As the owner of an e-commerce ISP I'm all for this change. The bandwidth is out there but the telcos and cable companies have been metering it to protect their own interests.
This is why the vast majority of people in the tech industry are behind this action.
This is why the vast majority of people in the tech industry are behind this action.
18
My own ISP, Comcast, randomly blocks various bandwidth intensive sites at their pleasure that can be bypassed by VPN/proxy (yup, just like what they have to do in China...). They don't even publicly acknowledge doing this, all you get is a innocent looking generic error message as if the sites just randomly go down during peak hours. Not only this, I live under the cap of a 200GB bandwidth cap (again, one of the lucky few 'select' Comcast markets that does this) every month, and at the end of the month I always left wondering whether the next page I visit will put me over the cap into more fee per GB land.
The service also randomly goes out multiple times a week for hours at at time without warning whenever they feel like it for maintainence. When that happens, I lose even home phone service and access to 911.
Why do I put up with Comcast? Because my house is ONLY served by Comcast (the houses across the street gets ONLY Cox in a long-standing monopoly agreement who knows who even drafted but I have 0 control over) - there is literally no other access to internet option for me, just like there is no other option for water and electricity, the other UTILITIES.
Thank you FCC, and everyone who has fought for net neutrality. You are fighting not for the small internet startups, but also for people like me.
The service also randomly goes out multiple times a week for hours at at time without warning whenever they feel like it for maintainence. When that happens, I lose even home phone service and access to 911.
Why do I put up with Comcast? Because my house is ONLY served by Comcast (the houses across the street gets ONLY Cox in a long-standing monopoly agreement who knows who even drafted but I have 0 control over) - there is literally no other access to internet option for me, just like there is no other option for water and electricity, the other UTILITIES.
Thank you FCC, and everyone who has fought for net neutrality. You are fighting not for the small internet startups, but also for people like me.
28
Why do you think it will be any better?
1
small business owner, why do you insist things can only get worse? Why should we think that letting the big ISPs have their way would be better for us? I have yet to hear a cogent argument from anybody on that score.
2
I am utterly delighted to see the number of ordinary folks and smaller businesses go to bat for net neutrality and win! Enough people signed petitions to convince even Republicans that if they sell out to corporations they will be risking their elected offices in the future.
I am thrilled that so many people understand what is at stake in the case of net neutrality. I so hope we can mobilize such a groundswell of action on other actions that are of major importance to ordinary people.
I think American voters can pat themselves on the back in this victory. But let us remember that we cannot relax and let the huge corporations take our freedoms away in other manners.
I am thrilled that so many people understand what is at stake in the case of net neutrality. I so hope we can mobilize such a groundswell of action on other actions that are of major importance to ordinary people.
I think American voters can pat themselves on the back in this victory. But let us remember that we cannot relax and let the huge corporations take our freedoms away in other manners.
39
You and all these people who are thrilled are you also thrilled to learn that you will now get two things more: one, double charging for both bandwidth and then the charge for not throttling back. And two, taxes...more than that mysterious tax on your phone bill for FCC compliance and maintenance.
This issue is straight forward---as straight into the big companies coffers and forward into complex (and taxable) government regulation. But hey, you asked for this right?
This issue is straight forward---as straight into the big companies coffers and forward into complex (and taxable) government regulation. But hey, you asked for this right?
1
Jay, there you go again. You people make predictions of doom and gloom, still waiting for the economy to implode from Obamacare, and nothing bad happens. You people are like the boy who cried wolf. Why should we believe you?
4
I'm amazed by the people who don't see this!
There is no reasonable explanation for why Republicans would support this, other than that they are the party for the rich and privileged.
25
I'm a network design engineer with nearly 25 years experience. Brian Dietz is wrong. This is NOT "a complex and technical debate". Internet service providers want to charge companies twice for high-speed access. Once for bandwidth, as provided by the fiber optics and switches, that they already lease and a second time so that they won't throttle that bandwidth back, using the software capabilities that the switches that the providers own.
42
Although the article wants you to believe it’s just Republicans who think the rules go to far, that is NOT the case at all. This just in from The Hill:
“A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said. The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.”
“A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said. The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.”
4
If you like your internet you can keep your internet, period.
6
Yes, yes, and painting the lanes on roadways is government interference with our right to drive any way we want. Thine is just trying to protect our freedoms! Sure he is.
With luck we will never see that more Republican F.C.C.
With luck we will never see that more Republican F.C.C.
41
Yea, because the Democrat FCC has managed our wireless oh so well.
2
Another Big Government, badly conceived, power play by a narcissist who knows nothing of business or the consequences of his mad interventionism.
12
WHAT??!!!! Really?
3
Apparently you are uniformed about what big, private corporations do to you with their intervention to try to buy government so they can intervene to control YOUR internet. You don't mind that, do you?
7
That may be true. On the other hand, that may not be true and may be for the greater good of the system in general.
Dear Techies; the next connected frontier is Peer To Peer communication using the internet WIFI infrastructure. I invite American software writers to write and publish peer to peer communication software for everything from computers to smart phones.
3
To better explain; people communicating from device to device directly without using the internet........like fancy walkie-talkies. I have seen a program published in Israel, but without widespread distribution and use, it's languishing because of a lack of marketing. Peer to Peer or person to person is the next step. Hook up with your neighbors using WIFI. Get it?
3
Time to start throttling the profits of these ISPs, instead of throttling the access of customers who are paying for more access and less quality service.
13
I'm uncertain how net neutrality could face potential reversal in the future from a "more Republican F.C.C." ?
If just for once the people of America have their way, then shouldn't freedom of information stay free of cost in Democratic country?
You'd think..
If just for once the people of America have their way, then shouldn't freedom of information stay free of cost in Democratic country?
You'd think..
8
Anything can be overturned by a future Congress and/or future administration. There's no Constitutional issue that would prevent one side or the other from revisiting this issue. The fight isn't over, and won't be as long as the big ISPs see big money to be made by ending traffic neutrality.
2
commissioner Pai's full statement is posted on the FCC site, but important to note he warns specifically that " Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will move us toward a monopoly. This is no accident." ( the legal maneuver they dredged up was for the Ma Bell monopoly )
" Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. And .., the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet."
" Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. And .., the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet."
2
And what exactly do they have now if it isn't a monopoly? I have no choice, and most people don't.
4
Commissioner Pai has disgraced himself. His statements are risible and unfounded in fact. There are legitimate arguments to be made on his side, but he hasn't made any of them.
4
First comes regulation. Then the taxes. Then the licenses. And, of course, you will only get a license for your web site if you toe the government line. This is a dream come true for the liberals. Finally they will control what's on the internet, and the truth will be berried forever. Dissenters will be denied access, and propaganda will run wild.
14
This Fox News drivel at it's worst. Must have been imported from Yahoo. If the GOP gets it's way you will only be able to access web sites run by the Koch brothers.
2
This law says that internet providers have to charge the same rate for the same speed to both big and small customers, so that Comcast pays the same rate as smaller companies like Netflix. You confidently predict a lot of things, but none of them are in this bill, at all. Who in the world is talking about licenses for web sites? You should think before you type.
6
Spot on. And those cheering net neutrality here today will play dumb since that is really what they are after in the end. Anyone with their eyes open can see this Trojan Horse opens the door for government abuse of our free speech rights.
1
STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
ON OBAMA’S 332-page plan to regulate the Internet which will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website.
Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. ...
deciding what content is 'fair' and 'lawful' opens the door to manipulation and corruption
ON OBAMA’S 332-page plan to regulate the Internet which will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website.
Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. ...
deciding what content is 'fair' and 'lawful' opens the door to manipulation and corruption
5
So did you whine and complain when Ma Bell was also regulated by the Federal Government, & yet your Phone was ON & CONNECTED every time you picked it up, even when the power was out??
Did you also whine because your water is clean? Air clean.... Job safety regulations in place?
Me thinks your post is more about your unmitigated hatred for President Obama then it is for doing what is RIGHT for America.
Just FYI, the #2 Lobbyist to the Federal government right behind the Military industrial Complex is
COMCAST!!!
Did you also whine because your water is clean? Air clean.... Job safety regulations in place?
Me thinks your post is more about your unmitigated hatred for President Obama then it is for doing what is RIGHT for America.
Just FYI, the #2 Lobbyist to the Federal government right behind the Military industrial Complex is
COMCAST!!!
12
Are you people serious? Is everything in the world just one big conspiracy on the road to Orwell's 1984? How much "micromanaging" does the federal government do of electricity providers and the various power management organizations like the PJM group that manages electricity flow in much of the northeast US? Please dial back the factless hyperbole about "the evil government that only wants to control our lives."
8
Of the 15 worst rated companies for customer service in 2013, Comcast is rated the second worst for TV service, the third worst rated for phone service, and tied with Time-Warner for the second/third worst rated for Internet service (http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-with-the-worst-customer-ratings....
In our large scattered family alone, if you go to visit relatives on Comcast, all they do is tell you horror stories and complain about Comcast incompetence and lousy customer service.
So, if Comcast wants "favors" you know it is a money-maker for it and a really bad idea for almost everyone else.
I was attuned to Comcast's demand to do away with net neutrality, and I signed a lot of petitions in favor of net neutrality and I even made a few phone calls.
Thank you Netflix and all those other companies that stood up early and often for net neutrality!
Imagine: big corporation 0; people and smaller businesses 1!!
Do you think it is a trend?
In our large scattered family alone, if you go to visit relatives on Comcast, all they do is tell you horror stories and complain about Comcast incompetence and lousy customer service.
So, if Comcast wants "favors" you know it is a money-maker for it and a really bad idea for almost everyone else.
I was attuned to Comcast's demand to do away with net neutrality, and I signed a lot of petitions in favor of net neutrality and I even made a few phone calls.
Thank you Netflix and all those other companies that stood up early and often for net neutrality!
Imagine: big corporation 0; people and smaller businesses 1!!
Do you think it is a trend?
58
Let us hope!
1
Yeah, but what about all of the other parts of this that you have no earthly clue about because the public isn't allowed to see all of the ACTUAL details before it's passed? Whatever happened to the American process where the public gets to voice an opinion before things get passed? You've only been told what you need to hear so you FEEL good about it. This is a very immature/naive generation of people in this country right now. SMH
1
Why hope???? Why not prefer to KNOW the consequences of decisions? Isn't that the mature and reasonable way of doing things? Whatever happened to common sense in this country?
1
One that the little guys appear to have won?
Napoleon was a little guy! Be careful what you wish for.
Napoleon was a little guy! Be careful what you wish for.
5
Napoleon was average height for his time. The "common knowledge" about his height (as well as so many things that Republicans advocate) is a myth, pure and simple. Congratulations on remaining true to form!
5
Napoleon was not a little guy in the sense that the phrase has been used above. He was short, but he was plenty powerful.
EQUAL access for ALL !!!
21
along with taxes and regulations.
6
Let's see, regulating a "problem" that may not exist by an administration who "has to pass the regulations so they know what's in them." Has anyone seen the proposed regulations? I think not. Thank God we have the most transparent administration in history!
8
Well, Rondo Bee, to know whether this business needs to be regulated, find your last cable bill, look at the cost of your broadband charge and speed, then Google worldwide broadband access and compare. When you see what others pay for at least twice what you have, your only comment should be; " What the...." Let me guess; you were probably one of the folks who said "Healthcare ain't broke, why fix it?"
12
The democrats have dirt on a number of republican and aren't afraid to use it. That is the only explanation I can think of for their cowardice.
Either that or the Republicans just don't have the votes for their increasingly unpopular position.
4
You lack imagination. You seem to have forgotten that politics is the art of the possible. Republicans have no possibility of prevailing on this issue in Congress.
For once they seem to recognize the futility of opposing net neutrality.
For once they seem to recognize the futility of opposing net neutrality.
5
So now the internet will be run like a public utility. Fantastic. I'm sure the internet being treated like the power company and the land line phone company will lead to cutting edge technology with our tech savy government, who spent $2 billon on a website that still doesn't work, running the show. Europe treats the internet like a utility and gets slower speeds and no innovation as a reward. But at least everone gets equally slow internet access. From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
9
Not true. Europe has much faster internet and they pay less.
6
RobT. Get the facts. NOT TRUE.
Europe and Asia have much higher download speeds at significant less cost then the US. (OECD) recent survey, the US is 23rd in the word in price/second of download. (Ookla) The US is 28th in the word in download speed. Sweden, HK, and Korea have 10 times the speed of high-end US plans at HALF the cost.
THESE ARE FACTS
Europe and Asia have much higher download speeds at significant less cost then the US. (OECD) recent survey, the US is 23rd in the word in price/second of download. (Ookla) The US is 28th in the word in download speed. Sweden, HK, and Korea have 10 times the speed of high-end US plans at HALF the cost.
THESE ARE FACTS
9
Please provide facts for your statement.....not my understanding of what is available for folks in the Netherlands or Switzerland.
3
The government wants to regulate content (censor) on the internet and everyone knows it. This is step 1.
8
I love how you people oppose net neutrality not because you think it is a bad idea or have any actual arguments against it, but because of all the other bad stuff that "everyone knows" is going to follow. Right.
10
"Net Neutrality" is to the web what "the Fairness Doctrine" was to talk radio.
The purpose of the FD was to prevent conservative viewpoints from being broadcast by demanding equal time for the Lefty point of view, even though nobody except Left-wing extremists wanted to hear it.
NN will throttle conservative websites that have an unfair amount of traffic compared to Lefty websites and shuttle the "excess" traffic to them.
If there were a market for Lefty talk radio, Air America would not have gone bankrupt. The Democrat base doesn't care about politics, they just care about watching daytime TV and having their EBT cards refilled.
The purpose of the FD was to prevent conservative viewpoints from being broadcast by demanding equal time for the Lefty point of view, even though nobody except Left-wing extremists wanted to hear it.
NN will throttle conservative websites that have an unfair amount of traffic compared to Lefty websites and shuttle the "excess" traffic to them.
If there were a market for Lefty talk radio, Air America would not have gone bankrupt. The Democrat base doesn't care about politics, they just care about watching daytime TV and having their EBT cards refilled.
7
I think you are misunderstanding the ruling. It has nothing to do with content. It simply says that an ISP cannot speed up access for those who pay more and slow down access for those who pay less. In other words, the Internet will continue to operate the way it is now.
9
Brilliant comment! Only someone who has listened to a lot of (daytime) conservative talk radio could have this kind of penetrating analysis.
10
Wow, EBT cards in Italy, who knew?
4
Technical arguments about pricing structure are really beside the point. Since the early days of telegraphy, the operators of the technologies over which we communicate have been considered "common carriers," a status that gives them certain privileges (such as immunity to lawsuits about the content of the messages they carry, e.g., for libel) and certain obligations (such as providing service impartially to anyone who wants to send a message). Recognizing the Internet as the communication technology of our time, and therefore subjecting it to common carrier regulation, is long overdue. (Instead, somehow the ISPs managed to get the benefits without the obligations.) Another obligation of common carriers, by the way, is to refrain from using the content of the messages they transmit for their own benefit. I can't wait until the FCC works up the courage to prevent ISPs from packet sniffing to sell advertising!
30
That is unsubstantiated paranoia. HAVE A LITTLE FAITH!
1
No....technical arguments are warranted due to the fact that we, as consumers, deserve to *KNOW* how much we are obligated to spend per MB/GB of data used. Perhaps with regulation (I said, perhaps), we can realize some efficiency gains and pricing (as well as service ?) transparency.
My last ISP, CenturyLink, charged me approximately $100.00/Mo. for service they did not deliver, this was despite the fact that I had a business account which was supposed to have guaranteed bandwidth. HA!
In short, this is one industry that begs for regulation.
My last ISP, CenturyLink, charged me approximately $100.00/Mo. for service they did not deliver, this was despite the fact that I had a business account which was supposed to have guaranteed bandwidth. HA!
In short, this is one industry that begs for regulation.
2
I look at net neutrality as equivalent to the first amendment, preventing government from encroaching on free speech. Non-net neutrality is the equivalent of Citizens United decision.
22
If you think net neutrality is about protecting free speech, you've got it completely backwards. The government will use net neutrality to control what speech is "allowed" on the Internet. Welcome to "The People's" Internet of China.
2
Okay. Explain to me how net neutrality will allow the government to control what speech is "allowed". I currently do not see any evidence at this time, with net neutrality already in place, of any government censorship, or restriction of communications. Please, give me one example. However, if Comcast, and Time-Warner are allowed to structure the internet to their liking, I do see restriction in communication.
5
Why do Republicans hate the government so? Somebody please explain that to me.
The government is US. For pete's sake. I am so sick of this unrelenting government-dissing. The only thing really wrong with it is too many Republicans doing the Keystone cops instead of their jobs. And thinking up silly names to call Democrats. And projecting silly "what if"s to disagree with every move made by a Democrat. What makes you people so pessimistic?
The government is US. For pete's sake. I am so sick of this unrelenting government-dissing. The only thing really wrong with it is too many Republicans doing the Keystone cops instead of their jobs. And thinking up silly names to call Democrats. And projecting silly "what if"s to disagree with every move made by a Democrat. What makes you people so pessimistic?
3
Net neutrality isn't some massive intrusion on ISPs, it's actually what's been the de facto standard of the Internet since its beginning. When both consumers and content providers pay for Internet connections, we're paying for both the connection to our ISP's network and all the networks they connect to (which is the very definition of the Internet). Consumer ISPs, like every other middleman with little to no competition, started to see themselves as essential to the success of every other company on the Internet, and wanted a piece of their business. "Netflix and Google are taking advantage of our networks for their gain" they say, but that's what we're already paying them for, to reach Netflix, along with anything and everything else out there. They want us to pay for more bandwidth than we would ever need (if we live where it's most profitable to provide it), but then they cry uncle when we actually use it as we expect to. And they're only in this position because a decade ago they promised that if freed from any regulation they'd gladly build out cheap and fast internet access far and wide.
43
Now, that's good and helpful information that I can understand. No silliness about the horrible things that will happen in the future if we have Net Neutrality. I believe what Steve wrote is essentially what's happening, and it doesn't sound threatening to me. But then, I'm a "lefty" and a "liberal" and I have a tendency to look straight at what's going on and hoping it will turn out to be good. I try to believe that most people do, too. And then I get on a thread like this, with Chicken Littles squawking their heads off about the sky falling and trying to make us all think that way. Relax, why don't you, and when nothing you predict happens, you'll be glad you saved your strength.
3
If the Canadians want to get their highly volatile shale derived oil to a seaport, let them build a pipeline over the Rockies to Vancouver. They can enjoy the small number of short term jobs AND the long term environmental risk.
The US gets little from the Keystone deal, except a gaggle of elected officials receiving lobbyists to collect the anticipated political contributions for votes in favor of the pipeline.
The US gets little from the Keystone deal, except a gaggle of elected officials receiving lobbyists to collect the anticipated political contributions for votes in favor of the pipeline.
5
Wow. So off topic. I see occupy Wall Street has arrive to randomize the conversation.
4
Highly volatile shale? Surely you must be kidding. And a pipeline over the Rockies? You definitely didn't pass Physics, or Chemistry
1
My mistake. My comment was intended for the article "Obama Vetoes Bill Pushing Pipeline Approval"
Rough crowd.
Rough crowd.
2
I signed that Mozilla petition- gotta love that company for being so proactive about privacy as well. They've got some really amazing tools available which allow you to see who is following you around as you click from site to site. Very glad so many citizens signed, called, commented in favor of net neutrality.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Republicans at this point. "Obamacare for the Internet". You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Republicans at this point. "Obamacare for the Internet". You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
103
Everyone should be fighting this, it has nothing to do with whether you are Republican or Democrat. Educate yourselves as to what this will do. We must come together and make Washington listen to us. NO to net "neutrality". Once it is done folks, we can't go back.
11
Yes, educate yourself by taking a bath in the right-wing paranoiasphere and soaking up their blathering, uncomprehending nonsense.
9
the insidious hitch is the IRS of broadband will have the power to label content 'afir' and 'unlawful'. ..like amnesty, there would be far fewer fighting this if it didn't give the administration even MORE power. the immigrants with the right to vote, the white house with the right to suppress content
1
You have no idea what you are talking about. Don't believe everything your corporate masters tell you to think.
22
The Republicans really are the "stupid party". They have the power of the purse, yet they let these statist Dems take control and cave in every chance they get.
The only way to end this is for the senate to nuke the filibuster rule.
The only way to end this is for the senate to nuke the filibuster rule.
8
It almost makes one think that they know in their hearts that they're on the wrong side of history.
5
at least your are an honest progressive
This is a victory for democracy!
37
The issue is far more complicated than it seems at first glance. As a consumer, I am totally in agreement that net neutrality is critical to the sustained working of a free and open internet. However, from a small ISP business perspective, especially a wireless one, this could well prove to be a disaster.
Wireless ISPs (WISPs) have very limited amounts of bandwidth available to deliver to a fairly large number of subscribers. Without the ability to manage the types of traffic that are on their network, a single user running a torrent can caonsume all the available bandwidth for all the other users on the network, effectively blocking thier access. The only wasy to manage it will be to charge for data, thereby imposing limits on the 'all you can eat model' currently in use. This will apply at some point to the major bandwidth providors as well.
As a consumer, I believ ethe Title II regulation of internet access will be a good thing. As a business person, the jury is still out.
Wireless ISPs (WISPs) have very limited amounts of bandwidth available to deliver to a fairly large number of subscribers. Without the ability to manage the types of traffic that are on their network, a single user running a torrent can caonsume all the available bandwidth for all the other users on the network, effectively blocking thier access. The only wasy to manage it will be to charge for data, thereby imposing limits on the 'all you can eat model' currently in use. This will apply at some point to the major bandwidth providors as well.
As a consumer, I believ ethe Title II regulation of internet access will be a good thing. As a business person, the jury is still out.
4
One of the elements which made rejecting the tiering of Internet service levels necessary was the complete lack of a measured and forthright response from the Internet Giants. They never offered a responsible plan to assure citizens' rights to perpetual quality access. They just said, "Trust us." I'm glad you support access. I wonder how many small providers spoke out in support of citizens' right to Internet based Free Speech prior to this point in time?
8
The big wireless carriers already constrain end users. You notice that every ad from them with the giant banner "unlimited data" has an asterisk? The fine print attached to that asterisk essentially takes away the "unlimited" part of the banner.
You don't need to manage traffic by type: you need to manage traffic by user. Nothing wrong with that. Managing traffic by type (or rather, origin) is what Comcast wants to do to favor its NBCUniversal content over, say, Netflix.
You don't need to manage traffic by type: you need to manage traffic by user. Nothing wrong with that. Managing traffic by type (or rather, origin) is what Comcast wants to do to favor its NBCUniversal content over, say, Netflix.
9
Oh please. Just charge for bandwidth used. End of story.
Net neutrality just means you cannot charge content providers different prices to deliver data to your customers who are already paying you.
Net neutrality just means you cannot charge content providers different prices to deliver data to your customers who are already paying you.
5
There is no way the Republicans are going to give up on this fight. If the F.C.C. actually does the right thing, then the GOP will push for an "opt-out" bill (similar to what happened with the whole healthcare fiasco). They're going to make a states' rights case about this thing, win, and then the debate shifts from DC to state legislatures across the country.
Now, since the GOP has the majority in most state/local politics they are going to give ISP's the ability to charge for faster download speeds if for no other reason than these telecom companies are the ones funding these politicians on a state level.
They can't win on the national front, so they're going to take it locally. We've seen them do this with the Affordable Care Act, Gay Marriage, and even energy regulation (all of these lawsuits going around to ban/allow fracking come to mind). There's no reason to think they won't apply the same logic here.
It would be very unwise to think this is going to go away anytime soon.
Now, since the GOP has the majority in most state/local politics they are going to give ISP's the ability to charge for faster download speeds if for no other reason than these telecom companies are the ones funding these politicians on a state level.
They can't win on the national front, so they're going to take it locally. We've seen them do this with the Affordable Care Act, Gay Marriage, and even energy regulation (all of these lawsuits going around to ban/allow fracking come to mind). There's no reason to think they won't apply the same logic here.
It would be very unwise to think this is going to go away anytime soon.
13
Eagerly and anxiously anticipating an open internet for the people
5
This is the Barry I voted for twice. Too bad it took him 6 years to throw off the yoke of trying to please everyone and actually pleasing a few. Veto of the pipeline and this wow! Keep your powder dry Barack and keep throwing the long ball. I am loving it.
73
if it's so swell, why don't they post it and let the public know what's in it this time,..as your Barry promised
2
Thank you to all the people who called, wrote and posted on this issue thus adding their voices to the swelling mass of true patriots.
The idea of paid fast-lanes is not only antithetical to innovation, it's against the very basis of the internet which was to share information.
I'm sure Big Cable will bemoan their loss and use their powerful and numerous lobbyists to try and convince us of our poor decision but stand firm, be vigilant! The very future of our technological development will always be contested while there is a buck to be made off internet traffic.
The idea of paid fast-lanes is not only antithetical to innovation, it's against the very basis of the internet which was to share information.
I'm sure Big Cable will bemoan their loss and use their powerful and numerous lobbyists to try and convince us of our poor decision but stand firm, be vigilant! The very future of our technological development will always be contested while there is a buck to be made off internet traffic.
42
It clearly isn't enough that Americans don't want to pay for what is free. Republicans "concede" that anticipated profits to their shadow lords will go a-begging because Democrats have "the people" in mind. The elephant took a beating today on a couple of fronts. Nice.
22
Show us the legislation then. Why hide it, unless it has little to do with what you claim? The Democrats have quite a track record of lying and then ramming through legislation so we can find out what's really in it. I have to assume that the amount of agitation for "net neutrality" by the left is commensurate with the harm it will have in a million "unintended consequences".
6
libertyfirst76, you really ought to give your suspicion a rest and learn something about the technological and policy issues. You would then find that the grassroots hullaballoo was (and still is) an attempt to keep Big Corporate from shutting out future competitors. Who knows? You might find this isn't really a Left v. Right issue so much as Big v. Little. You might even find the alternative pushed by Sen. Thune and Comcast not to be to your taste.
12
And, of course, you probably cannot name so much as one "unintended consequence" because you're obviously too ignorant to understand that you're probably for net neutrality to begin with.
3
This is not new legislation, it is applying existing rules to internet providers.
5
Now if we could do something about the "public good" provided by the information we get from the one-half hour of news to supposedly inform and educate the public in trade for the unfettered use of the public airways by the broadcast companies we'd be getting somewhere....
1
The inherent problem within the internet / consumer / provider equation is greed. Ask anyone of moderate means to guess at how much of our discretionary income our TV/ Internet and Phone providers want and the answer is "All of it!". In lives with finite budgets, this greed is short-sighted as if we could save on internet we could then upgrade phone or add a tier to cable. For those on budgets, the line between being moderately wired and going into debt just to stay connected is a narrow margin. If providers ever stepped away from the trough and began to balance profit with value the greater good and shareholders might both be served. As these industries charge now, our center can not hold.
6
Please take an introductory economics course. Businesses exist to create wealth for their owners. It drives their innovation. The businesses you mentioned invested and risked billions of dollars so you could have the convenience of an always-on internet connection. If that has a value to you, subscribe with one of them, if not - no one is forcing you to. But it seems a common theme with liberals to disregard the investment and hard work to create a successful product when they are clamoring to get it for free, or at least paid for by somebody else. In this case, what you are asking for is impossible without everyone paying more.
1
The internet does not exist to create wealth for businesses, it was created by the government, as a public service. Businesses risked nothing, once they had the contracts, and near monopoly cartel pricing ability. It's a license to print money.
Who says it's impossible without everyone paying more? The flip side of that is that is is possible, with businesses making less profit, and that's the way it's going to be. Republicans just lost this time, as they should have, and I'm fine with that.
Who says it's impossible without everyone paying more? The flip side of that is that is is possible, with businesses making less profit, and that's the way it's going to be. Republicans just lost this time, as they should have, and I'm fine with that.
5
It was not created as a 'public service'. It was created because in case of nuclear war all the radio waves would be fried and we wouldn't be able to communicate. The military needed a new form of communication and the internet was invented for that reason.
1
Interesting... about a week or so ago, my Internet service through AT&T slowed way down and became sporadic. When I called support, they advised that I get a new modem, and the tech could even come out within a couple of hours (on a Saturday!). I get the new modem and it still crawls. Low and behold AT&T sends out advertising that you can increase your speed if you pay $10 more a month. Because I was experiencing speed like the old dial-up service, I fell for it and agreed to the upgrade. Now I have the speed, but I feel taken. I wonder if they were trying to beat out this change in the law.
14
This is one of those times I am so glad that our President is Obama, and one of those times when I have a glimmer of hope that occasionally big money does not win in this country.
40
Without net neutrality every future entrepreneur (kid inside a garage, reinvented older worker, revolutionary investor, small business with a better idea) could easily get their internet-relying project (basically everything, from mobile computing, to social networks, to health tracking) killed and hobbled by the big guys.
Just as we need equal protection under law, so we need equality in the new arena of competition --net neutrality is a must for an equitable future.
Just as we need equal protection under law, so we need equality in the new arena of competition --net neutrality is a must for an equitable future.
18
Robert Reich On Wednesday, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, proposed reclassifying broadband Internet service provided by cable companies like AT&T and Comcast as a “telecommunications service,” thereby allowing the FCC to issue rules preventing the cable companies from charging some customers more for faster service. It’s a positive step toward net neutrality. But it doesn’t do anything about the bigger problem: the absence of competition among broadband providers -- which is why broadband Internet service is slower and more expensive in America than in any other advanced nation. The cable monopolies must be busted up. If the FCC won’t do it, the antitrust agencies at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission should. What do you think?
Petition: If you think taking away Net Neutrality is bad so is Comcast + Time Warner Cable = Disaster http://act.freepress.net/sign/consol_comcast_twc/?akid=4612.9862111.Jf7x...
2-23-14: Comcast’s deal with Netflix makes network neutrality obsolete http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-de...
Petition: If you think taking away Net Neutrality is bad so is Comcast + Time Warner Cable = Disaster http://act.freepress.net/sign/consol_comcast_twc/?akid=4612.9862111.Jf7x...
2-23-14: Comcast’s deal with Netflix makes network neutrality obsolete http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-de...
8
Wont the regulations that the FCC seems ready to implement make the Comcast deal with Netflix illegal?
This is like "Beanie and the Jets"; but, it's "Barry" and the (little) Nets. As one more private American asset after--highway lanes, actually going to a ballgame, access to what should be public beaches--are all sold-off to the highest bidder. But, finally the little guy wins.
We hardly have "plural" telephone companies, and they are bundling everything that even has a plug. The big guys seem to own most of the public media--newspapers, radio and TV stations--and freedom of information may be questioned. Mom and pop stores are truly boxed-out of the retail market. Small supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, etc…DITTO.
Lastly, Congress has sold themselves out to the Defense, Financial, Energy, etc. Juggernaut. And then, hopefully on Thursday, FCC will blow the whistle and declare "game-over" in favor of the little guy.
Thanks, President Obama!
We hardly have "plural" telephone companies, and they are bundling everything that even has a plug. The big guys seem to own most of the public media--newspapers, radio and TV stations--and freedom of information may be questioned. Mom and pop stores are truly boxed-out of the retail market. Small supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, etc…DITTO.
Lastly, Congress has sold themselves out to the Defense, Financial, Energy, etc. Juggernaut. And then, hopefully on Thursday, FCC will blow the whistle and declare "game-over" in favor of the little guy.
Thanks, President Obama!
12
I'm with you Cheekos!
3
The very idea that Comcast has your best interests at heart is laughable. They are looking to make money--off of you and me and anyone else who uses the Internet for pleasure, work, research, etc. They've been stopped for now, but activists must remain vigilant. This won't be their first turn at bat.
31
One this that is ignored in the discussion of Net Neutrality is the underlying technology of the Internet. Data is moved is small packets. A video might have a trillion of these packets. The packets get disassembled and take different paths. A downloads path from San Jose to Washington DC might travel might be routed through Argentina, Moscow, Africa, and Hong Kong and then reassembled at an individual computer. Creating "Fast Lanes" would only slow things down. Lanes would get bottled up.
1
Lanes get "bottled up" now. However, right now (and if net neutrality is enforced, going forward) the delays would trigger re-routing of the data along (one hopes) less congested paths. With preferred paths (blandly called, fifteen or twenty years ago, "differentiated services"), re-routing of unpreferred traffic would be significantly more difficult, if not impossible.
1
This is even better than when Comcast heard about Google Fiber and insisted that it was not a threat to them because "customers don't want fast internet." Yea, good luck with that.
10
There should never have been a question about the internet being defined as a public utility. I was one who signed petitions, and am glad I did.
16
It has been good sport to watch the right wing calling keeping the Internet the way it is as "tyranny."
Good sport indeed.
Good sport indeed.
20
So, you believe net neutrality is not a Trojan Horse then? Why hide the legislation - this is the most transparent administration ever, after all. No, this is way worse than it appears only you won't know it until it is too late. The fact the Democrats won't give it sunlight before they vote on it is all you need to know.
2
You have it wrong. The right wing opposes more government control of the internet.
3
I agree. What's the trouble? Why can't we see it before they pass it.
1
Someone needs to actually explain what problem is so immediate and dire that we should jam the Internet to a legal/regulatory regime designed for railroad and telephone monopolies that dates back to the 1800s. Does anyone, on either side of the aisle, think that its wise to do that, or to put the Internet at the whims of a demonstrably incompetent federal bureaucracy and a politicized commission that can be controlled with a 3-2 vote along party lines. Does anyone really believe that its prudent to give a federal agency broad powers based only on a vague promise to forbear using them? Remember the fable about the frog and the scorpion.
Are we stupid or what?
Are we stupid or what?
6
You don't realize that we're not jamming the internet. Net neutrality is the status quo. The danger was the possibility of allowing companies to jam the circulation of information based on fees that they alone could define and charge.
11
Actually, lots of people believe it. Lots and lots of very smart people, all around the world.
5
Do you really think its better to hand the control of the internet over to megamonopolies like Comcast? With a congress controlled by Republicans who have a vested interest keeping information and data out of the hands of individuals, who support corporate profits at any cost to our society? REALLY?
11
That was a great video explanation. You should also look at how telecoms do business with other networks. Remember last year CBS stations were dropped by Time warner over a pay dispute, without net neutrality the same thing will happen only it'll be Time warner slowing down Netflix because they didn't want to pay an fee.
5
So what is wrong with a service provider expecting a fee for use of the service they have invested in? It would be nice to get things for free but the internet has been a great success virtually without government controls. The profit motive and competition has been great in enabling the distribution of the technology to a large part of society. I cannot think of a particular problem that there is with the internet that need the heavy hand of government.
Your concern is misplaced. The cable companies are doing just fine. The CEO of Comcast took home $31.4 mil. this last year. In spite of obscene compensation at the top and huge profits, the cable companies have fallen behind on fiber optic cable which would provide far greater bandwidth. We rank 28th behind many other developed countries for the value of what we get. It's about time cable companies start living up to the monopoly privilege they have been given.
9
This is one of the few large policy changes in years that has not been in the interests of large corporations. Congress, the courts and regulatory agencies have continually allowed for-profit companies and their wealthy owners to obtain increasing government influence, market power and wealth at the expense of middle class consumers. While this decision by the FCC is a welcome surprise, I suspect that it was only made possible because this is one of the few cases where corporate interests (of content providers like twitter, netflix, etc.) aligned with those of consumers. Although this article says Google was not involved, I wonder if this can truly be verified given the amount of anonymous money that has flowed to politicians since Citizens United.
It's also worth noting that although the Republicans seem to have conceeded, the vote is not actually until Thursday. I also worry that they may be right in that a future FCC may reverse these changes, although I hope that this policy develops sufficient inertia to prevent this.
I should also mention that I chose to comment on this article because there seemed to be a disproportionate number of comments in favor of increased ISP control of the internet. I wonder if these writers are truly independent or if they are are supported by industry in some way.
It's also worth noting that although the Republicans seem to have conceeded, the vote is not actually until Thursday. I also worry that they may be right in that a future FCC may reverse these changes, although I hope that this policy develops sufficient inertia to prevent this.
I should also mention that I chose to comment on this article because there seemed to be a disproportionate number of comments in favor of increased ISP control of the internet. I wonder if these writers are truly independent or if they are are supported by industry in some way.
14
But you don't really know if it's against the corporations. They haven't release the regs, so we have no idea of what they are really passing.
The Republicant's endorsing neutrality?
Amazing.
I would have thought they would be clamoring for an invasion.
Amazing.
I would have thought they would be clamoring for an invasion.
2
This has nothing to do with neutrality. It has everything to do with control. The government regulators never make anything work better. This is ObamaCare, on steroids. As with that disaster, no one has read this thing and we will find out about it after the fact. This, coming from the people that are always warning consumers to read any contract before signing. For obvious reasons. This is all about control. pure and simple. Eventually, this will spread into content and the desire to control it, as well, because that's what government does.
4
"Obamacare on steroids"? That is so preposterous that it's clear you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about. Please educate yourself.
This is the opposite of "controlling" data. It is preventing your internet service provider from forcing content providers to cough up dollars to them in order to deliver content to you. If you want information to flow freely, you should support net neutrality.
This is the opposite of "controlling" data. It is preventing your internet service provider from forcing content providers to cough up dollars to them in order to deliver content to you. If you want information to flow freely, you should support net neutrality.
9
The Administration was quite unsupportive of net neutrality until it saw the campaign for support and (as usual) it decided to pretend it was in favor of it all along. This was not a partisan issue in DC, there are supporters of both paths in both parties. The great unknown now is how to regulate Internet service as a utility; that has not been too consumer-friendly with cell phone service or energy. This also gives more air cover to your local politicians to continue to sell you out and grant monopolies to big providers. So, stay tuned for further developments.
2
Another reach of regulatory power that will start a prolonged series of litigation lasting decades. Look for 'un-funding' of the FCC to be in the 2016 budget. Let's see if the power of the purse has any teeth.
2
More likely a feckless Congress will vote a grandstanding 50 times to defund, seeing as that's worked so well for them so far.
Lets see....an internet regulated by Comcast, the company with the worst reputation in the country, or an internet regulated by the FCC. Wow, that is a difficult choice.
10
Naive thought it may sound it proves the Republicans can read and listen when the noise is loud enough.
3
True to form, the Republicans could not care less about ordinary Americans and they blindly support the greedy and the big corporate interests. Got to keep their laissez faire delusion alive lest their egos should have to admit they are dead wrong about everything. Its good to see the President and the Democrats resisting the Republican criminals and giving them a dose of their own obstructionism medicine.
10
So we want the same people that run the USPS to run the Internet? Please tell me of one entity that the federal government regulates that has improved the service. The IRS? AMTRAK? OBAMACARE? And, what happens when the politicians decide to follow the IRS and target their political opponents? I guess we just have to pass this secret legislation in order to find out what's in it. Right, Pelosi? How's that working out? Un-friggin believable.
4
Go start your own country without the government you despise. Let us know how that works out.
5
I don't despise the government, but it's bloated and out-of-control. When was the last time anyone got fired for doing anything wrong? Never. If this is so great, let's see the regs. All the fine print. Remember how well the VA does things?
1
G , thank you. I would have said that if I had thought of it.
Why do these people allow their suspicions to simply eat them alive? Do they enjoy anything? Is there anything about America that makes them glad they live here? You'd have thought they'd be ecstatic that the Republicans took over both houses of Congress. Instead, it seems to have made them more saturnine and gloomy. What unhappy people, who can find so little to love about their country.
Why do these people allow their suspicions to simply eat them alive? Do they enjoy anything? Is there anything about America that makes them glad they live here? You'd have thought they'd be ecstatic that the Republicans took over both houses of Congress. Instead, it seems to have made them more saturnine and gloomy. What unhappy people, who can find so little to love about their country.
2
It seems strange that John Oliver wasn't mentioned at all in this article - his piece on the net neutrality issue was both compelling and entertaining, and significantly raised public awareness of a topic that Telecom companies hoped wouldn't get much notice at all. He also effectively shutdown the FCC webserver, by encouraging overwhelming numbers of comments from people who had watched the piece.
10
The big internet companies don't want to silence content providers—they just want to pick their pockets! Thieves and liars are in charge of practically everything, and it's a great day when they don't get their way!
9
The fact that there was even a debate about this is embarrassing... And a clear indication of the power of big corporate lobbying in Congress.
Tellingly, Sen. Thune was basically auctioning his support to the highest bidder.
Tellingly, Sen. Thune was basically auctioning his support to the highest bidder.
16
People in Washington need to be shut off from society and let them lead their little lives of insanity by themselves. This isn't leadership it is corruption and political gamesmanship. It is not representation either.
2
But they already are and do. Unfortunately, their doings affect everyone outside.
This is more about making money off the stock market by providing everybody with slow response on trades. Greed, Greed, Greed witch is synonymous with rebuplicans
3
The biggest trading houses have dedicated fiber from their computers to the various stock exchanges. It has nothing to do with the public Internet.
4
How did David beat Goliath?
Take a look at the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, founded in 1994 by researchers at U of Michigan.
http://www.theacsi.org
For two decades this group has tracked consumer satisfaction with products, companies, industries, and web sites. Their data is overwhelming. Americans are very happy with credit unions, auto companies, and some consumer product companies. They really like Amazon and Google. But they hate Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and all the rest of the internet service providers. As a group, Internet service providers have the lowest level of consumer satisfaction of ANY industry in America - lower than airlines, lower than health insurers, lower even than subscription television providers.
Why did millions of people protest giving ISPs more power? Because they didn't have the option of putting them out of business.
Take a look at the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, founded in 1994 by researchers at U of Michigan.
http://www.theacsi.org
For two decades this group has tracked consumer satisfaction with products, companies, industries, and web sites. Their data is overwhelming. Americans are very happy with credit unions, auto companies, and some consumer product companies. They really like Amazon and Google. But they hate Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and all the rest of the internet service providers. As a group, Internet service providers have the lowest level of consumer satisfaction of ANY industry in America - lower than airlines, lower than health insurers, lower even than subscription television providers.
Why did millions of people protest giving ISPs more power? Because they didn't have the option of putting them out of business.
8
Who did not want net neutrality? Obviously those who stand to make a lot of money from a lack of it. The question is whose internet is it? Certainly not having net neutrality would be a great disservice to the public and the public good.
6
How can this be? Thune is owned lock, stock, and, barrel by the cable companies.
I guess he's going to have to send them a refund.
I guess he's going to have to send them a refund.
9
It gives one hope that if government sees 4 million impassioned messages, that they will actually listen! Maybe not always. But this time.
7
Oh, Boo Hoo! Michael Powell, FCC chairman under President George Bush, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and son of General Colin Powell said the rules proposals are a "sad example of unreasoned decision-making." He is upset by this move.
If any Repub president were in office the internet would have been turned into a toll roadway, with the small people left on the rutted side roads while the high fliers would be sailing effortlessly flipping their used up apple cores at us. Make no mistake, this would be their plan.
Infrastructure. According to Repubs that would go to the highest payers. Nice roads for their gated communities, the rest can get along the best they can. Internet, paved roads, health care, livable wages, education, clean water and air. Anything. Anything at all that you can say, the Repub answer is "let them eat cake."
If any Repub president were in office the internet would have been turned into a toll roadway, with the small people left on the rutted side roads while the high fliers would be sailing effortlessly flipping their used up apple cores at us. Make no mistake, this would be their plan.
Infrastructure. According to Repubs that would go to the highest payers. Nice roads for their gated communities, the rest can get along the best they can. Internet, paved roads, health care, livable wages, education, clean water and air. Anything. Anything at all that you can say, the Repub answer is "let them eat cake."
23
The FCC has to act because apparently no lawyers bother to do their jobs anymore in the DOJ Anti-Trust division.
5
Cable companies aren't known for walking away from big paydays (nor are Republicans), so this is just one victory in a protracted war.
8
The gratitude and relief I feel knowing that people with far more reach and infuence than I could ever have helped to bring this about is something I cannot adequately put into words. I thank you in this public space.
To those people in that board room last April, I hope you get Nobel Peace prizes. This action by the FCC will single handedly do arguably more than any other event in history to preserve human beings' most fundamental right: the right to express ourselves freely.
As for any company who chose their self interests over all Americans by having "stayed in the background" like Amazon & Google, I hope the public demands that you explain yourselves, because your inaction is despicable.
To Netflix, I hope your customers demand you stop making extortion payments to Comcast and Verizon, recover what monies you already paid to them, and return that money to customers in addition to rolling back your fees to pre-extortion pricing.
I have long suspected that Netflix is the true hero here: if Netflix had not paid the extortion demanded by Comcast & Verizon, net neutrality might not have been taken as seriously as it is. It would have been just one more boogeyman in the American psyche. Thank you, Netflix. With that $1 fee increase, you made it really easy for everyone to understand what was coming before it got out of hand. (But, seriously, get back the $ and roll back the fees.)
To those people in that board room last April, I hope you get Nobel Peace prizes. This action by the FCC will single handedly do arguably more than any other event in history to preserve human beings' most fundamental right: the right to express ourselves freely.
As for any company who chose their self interests over all Americans by having "stayed in the background" like Amazon & Google, I hope the public demands that you explain yourselves, because your inaction is despicable.
To Netflix, I hope your customers demand you stop making extortion payments to Comcast and Verizon, recover what monies you already paid to them, and return that money to customers in addition to rolling back your fees to pre-extortion pricing.
I have long suspected that Netflix is the true hero here: if Netflix had not paid the extortion demanded by Comcast & Verizon, net neutrality might not have been taken as seriously as it is. It would have been just one more boogeyman in the American psyche. Thank you, Netflix. With that $1 fee increase, you made it really easy for everyone to understand what was coming before it got out of hand. (But, seriously, get back the $ and roll back the fees.)
6
The best way I've heard this argument described was - if when we were building the US interstate highway system the government decided to privatize the endeavor and the large companies that funded it then had the financial incentive to create slow and fast lanes and charge us all if we wanted to move faster. There might be limited incentive to build highways to out of the way places or to maintain roads that didn't bring in revenue. There might be incentives to create bottlenecks so people pay more for the fast lane.
Open PUBLIC high speed internet roadways that the rich and poor alike can travel down - through red and blue states - is the best thing for all Americans and will create more opportunities and ultimately more prosperity.
Open PUBLIC high speed internet roadways that the rich and poor alike can travel down - through red and blue states - is the best thing for all Americans and will create more opportunities and ultimately more prosperity.
24
I hope all those twenty-something geeks, hipsters and power users remember which political party supported net neutrality and which political party did not.
It's too bad liberals and progressives cannot maintain this type of movement religiosity when it comes to real issues like voting rights and campaign finance and corporate regulation.
It's too bad liberals and progressives cannot maintain this type of movement religiosity when it comes to real issues like voting rights and campaign finance and corporate regulation.
28
This is a great victory for Americans, and a great example of how the internet is a great tool for democratic action and the grassroots organization of small companies (those things that conservatives SAY they are for) saving us from being oppressed by the big money lobbyist (who the conservatives are really for) of the Telecoms, who would take away the even broadband that we pay them for... but as long as they are the Oligopoly that they are , they will keep trying. If a republican gets elected president next election it will be game over for net neutrality and all the small companies it creates.
20
I don't see any argument that says the internet isn't a public good. If the telephone and Cable TV were public utilities, the Internet has become more critical to our economy than both combined.
As far as a fast lane, I have wondered how slow the slow lane could be. Could my ISP make the slow lane to a competing ISP so slow it is effectively blocked? Could the ISP use the stopped lane to censor the internet any way they like? When I look at the potential harmful consequences of a fast lane, the benefits aren't worth the risk. Net Neutrality in the only way the internet can work.
As far as a fast lane, I have wondered how slow the slow lane could be. Could my ISP make the slow lane to a competing ISP so slow it is effectively blocked? Could the ISP use the stopped lane to censor the internet any way they like? When I look at the potential harmful consequences of a fast lane, the benefits aren't worth the risk. Net Neutrality in the only way the internet can work.
18
The ISP's wanted to situate themselves as middlemen, so they could wrangle deals and sign exclusive contracts with content outlets, and have the right to pump up their market by the sheer fact they were in control of the speed dial.
Well, they failed, and now they are left with something far nobler: now their lot in life is merely to collect an honest toll from one and all, with the only differences in fee being the number of axles you are trafficking over their bridge.
I'm sure we will all gladly pay an *honest* toll for the bridge, Mr. ISP, so don't grumble too much!
Well, they failed, and now they are left with something far nobler: now their lot in life is merely to collect an honest toll from one and all, with the only differences in fee being the number of axles you are trafficking over their bridge.
I'm sure we will all gladly pay an *honest* toll for the bridge, Mr. ISP, so don't grumble too much!
10
How is it that Republicans are consistently on the wrong side of policy and the 99%?
27
Because all they care about is representing rich people and corporations. Sadly, they are able to dupe a lot of voters into thinking that they are "protecting" them from big government.
2
As a developer who works at a small startup, I can't even begin to describe how important net neutrality is to the future of my company and my career. We simply could never afford to pay the ISPs in an attempt to level the playing field if fast lanes appeared.
The last year or so I've been so pessimistic that after months of debate, Comcast and Verizon would come out victorious like they always seem to do.
Unfortunately, tomorrow begins the work of defending internet freedom. The Comcasts, John Thunes, and others will undoubtedly try to undo everything that will be passed tomorrow in the months and years to come.
The last year or so I've been so pessimistic that after months of debate, Comcast and Verizon would come out victorious like they always seem to do.
Unfortunately, tomorrow begins the work of defending internet freedom. The Comcasts, John Thunes, and others will undoubtedly try to undo everything that will be passed tomorrow in the months and years to come.
27
What is in the new rules?
2
To those who ask about the FCC rules, they are available (ironically) on the internet here http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet
The link will take you to links to troves of documents about hate FCC rulemaking. The alleged secrecy is just more GOP scary smoke.
The link will take you to links to troves of documents about hate FCC rulemaking. The alleged secrecy is just more GOP scary smoke.
2
“Tech companies would be better served to work with Congress on clear rules for the road. The thing that they’re buying into right now is a lot of legal uncertainty,” said Senator Thune, who warned that the F.C.C.’s new rule would face litigation from opponents and a possible reversal from a future, more Republican F.C.C. “I’m not sure exactly what their thinking is.”
"But, he said, the Internet companies in some case are misleading their customers, and in some cases, are being misled on the intricacies of the policy."
These two statements just leave me shaking my head. They know full well why the pro-net neutrality side is in the driver's seat on this issue.....because we know that the ISPs and republicans have not been honest about what net neutrality is and how it works.
"But, he said, the Internet companies in some case are misleading their customers, and in some cases, are being misled on the intricacies of the policy."
These two statements just leave me shaking my head. They know full well why the pro-net neutrality side is in the driver's seat on this issue.....because we know that the ISPs and republicans have not been honest about what net neutrality is and how it works.
14
Wow, what a great day! President Obama vetoes the Keystone XL and Net Neutrality wins out. Good guys - 2, Bad guys 0.
14
Verizon's lawsuit against the FCC's original attempt at net neutrality led directly to today's situation. This time, the FCC has guidance from the federal court that ruled for Verizon in how to craft regulations that will survive challenge. My guess is that the big providers - Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner - will be much more careful about what they bring to the courts this time. It's not my impression that the FCC wants to work against the carriers, and in my opinion, they'll do a lot better for themselves by trying to help craft good regulations than they will through further litigation.
5
Why is it a good thing for government regulators to tell us who can speak, what they can say and when they can say it? This is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist.
1
You are correct, HalDaveO in TX. There is no problem. The Internet has been free and open from its inception. Verizon & Comcast wanted to change that. The FCC won't let them. By the way: it is Verizon & Comcast who want to tell you who can speak, etc.
11
You have it exactly backwards.
Two competing models exist:
Network neutrality is like telephones. You buy the basic service from a carrier but you're free to communicate with anyone you want, any time you want. The carrier plays no role what so ever.
The alternative is cable TV. You buy service from the cable company and they decide what you watch and when you watch it. Your only choice is to select channels.
The internet started on a telephone model and we should all fight to keep it that way.
Two competing models exist:
Network neutrality is like telephones. You buy the basic service from a carrier but you're free to communicate with anyone you want, any time you want. The carrier plays no role what so ever.
The alternative is cable TV. You buy service from the cable company and they decide what you watch and when you watch it. Your only choice is to select channels.
The internet started on a telephone model and we should all fight to keep it that way.
8
"Why is it a good thing for government regulators to tell us who can speak, what they can say and when they can say it?"
That would indeed be a bad thing and also unconstitutional. Good thing no one is proposing anything like that. You should consider the possibility that you are being lied to.
That would indeed be a bad thing and also unconstitutional. Good thing no one is proposing anything like that. You should consider the possibility that you are being lied to.
2
Thank you John OLIVER !!!!
13
This is the best news I've heard in a while... Having worked for one of the 'giants of the tech world' for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that their singular goal is maximizing revenue and profit. Good public policy doesn't matter. I was always uncomfortable listening to the pep talks about the need for the company to 'control' who gets what speed. They have successfully kept cities and towns from building out wifi networks, and you can be sure as night follows day that they will abuse consumers and small businesses on this front if allowed. Like it or not, ubiquitous broadband at reasonable prices that treats all content the same is a fundamental infrastructure for the U.S. In the current monopoly environment, we don't even get the first two. On an international basis, we have less widely available broadband than many other nations, with the highest pricing. I have one, maybe two providers to choose from. Many areas of the country have none. Prices go up constantly despite record revenue and profits. Capitalism is only as effective as the regulation that keeps it in check.
377
Bravo. Implication by all gets positive results. Now, onward to 2016...
5
My only worry with FCC regulation is that the FCC is still run by Wheeler and people of his background; that is, people who are former telecom lobbyists. Once they have more control, where will it go? I have a feeling the ideas of diversification of ISPs and the end of localized monopolies are going to move a few steps further away, while similar things like co-op/town run ISPs will become a thing of the past. I worry that we just won a battle that cost us the war.
3
You might be a Liberal if you think net neutrality is Obama caring about your isp service.
It's about controlling the internet as you know it. "Neutrality" is merely a distraction to get your support. How does it feel to be duped, again?
It's about controlling the internet as you know it. "Neutrality" is merely a distraction to get your support. How does it feel to be duped, again?
2
Oh dear, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
10
Conservative lies about net neutrality haven't changed the facts or made your silly arguments any more believable.
11
Obama has nothing to do with it. Get your facts straight - the FCC is an independent agency.
3
I have a confession to make. Ever since this corporate greed scheme was hatched up I've been inundated with emails from every single liberal advocacy group asking me to sign petitions, call my representatives in Congress, etc. I did and was convinced it was all a waste of time. I'm a cynic and I've earned- we all have- that right by constantly observing we the people getting steamrollered by big money sloshing around the floors of Congress from large corporations looking to ratchet up the bonus pools for top executives. Well, I was wrong- this time. Maybe this is a wake-up call to all citizens that grass-roots efforts at the bottom can make a difference. There are even larger social and political issues that need to be redressed and capital will spend every last dime they have to maintain the status quo. For these, signing petitions won’t cut it. It will require the same street tactics used in the late sixties and seventies to grab the attention of government and yield to our pleas.
278
So far, the result of the internet is greater concentration of wealth into the hands of those who control the internet for their own purposes. It has also greatly increased the wealth of the intelligent criminal class that can beat the computer security defenses of corporations that use it to increase the wealth of the wealthy.
Needless to say, the criminals claim they are justified by the greed of the wealthy establishment that makes most of their ability to make MORE money through internet control.
For everybody else, the internet is just a convenience, a means to avoid state taxes, and to take advantage of the least cost of internet retailers who do not have to incur costs of retail showroom floors and the salesmen and employees they entail.
But I think neutrality really means security - internet transparency in which transactions among individuals whether for economic or social transactions are not interfered with by those whose intent is to gain by exploitation.
Needless to say, the criminals claim they are justified by the greed of the wealthy establishment that makes most of their ability to make MORE money through internet control.
For everybody else, the internet is just a convenience, a means to avoid state taxes, and to take advantage of the least cost of internet retailers who do not have to incur costs of retail showroom floors and the salesmen and employees they entail.
But I think neutrality really means security - internet transparency in which transactions among individuals whether for economic or social transactions are not interfered with by those whose intent is to gain by exploitation.
BRAVO! Well said.
1
@Wolff in AZ,
Hi Wolff,
There is no security on the internet. The NSA violates the constitution and stores all Americans use of electronic communications in huge computer storage facilities. This may be a boon to the USPS. As citizens, we may have to resort to snail mail to maintain some privacy. It would be very expensive for the government to hack and store copies of mail.
Hi Wolff,
There is no security on the internet. The NSA violates the constitution and stores all Americans use of electronic communications in huge computer storage facilities. This may be a boon to the USPS. As citizens, we may have to resort to snail mail to maintain some privacy. It would be very expensive for the government to hack and store copies of mail.
1
All anyone really needs to know about this is that Comcast, TimeWarner, et al, are busy renting state legislatures to pass laws prohibiting cities from either providing or even helping companies like Google provide alternatives to the cable monopolies.
So, they want an unregulated monopoly to provide internet access, and then they want to charge certain businesses more to provide content to their captured market.
That would be great for them, if they can get away with it. Hopefully they can be stopped. The actions of the FCC are a good step in the right direction.
So, they want an unregulated monopoly to provide internet access, and then they want to charge certain businesses more to provide content to their captured market.
That would be great for them, if they can get away with it. Hopefully they can be stopped. The actions of the FCC are a good step in the right direction.
289
Gotta love the free market!
3
Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association , said net neutrality is a bad idea. Something about not understanding the 'intricacies' of the policy. When a corporate suit can't tell you what the problem is because it's too complicated you know the 'problem' is corporate profits.
454
The power of Populism seems to have preserved net neutrality. Now if it can take hold in other realms, where corporate interests and their congressional puppets seek to undermine the public good for a quick buck, then we'll restore the republic our founding fathers envisioned.
135
Low information voters probably stayed out of this one. Do they know what net neutrality is?
I'm not sure this is going to be a good outcome. The head of the FCC, The FCC head, Wheeler is an ex-lobbyist who was planning on undermining net neutrality. This change will expand his powers over the internet in the US. There is no way to be sure where that will lead over the long run. Now the court ordered limits on the FCC's powers over the internet have been removed. The problem with regulators is that tend to become captives to the industries they serve and make their decisions under pressure from lobbyists and out of sight of the public and Congress.
36
so you think it is better to have for profit companies decide?look how well that has worked in the past,like lets say smoking...worked real well.
4
Republicans in Congress are talking about re-writing the Telecommunications Act to do an end-run around the FCC's neutrality decision. Republicans are not going to back down to consumers when their corporate sponsors are clamoring for more and more money. Keep an eye on legislation coming out of Congress in these next two years, and in particular, keep an eye on ANYTHING that involves the Telecommunications Act. They're not done. They're not backing down.
10
Additionally, I'm concerned. More power has been given to the FCC to regulate the internet. Bad things could come from it.
I wish they left the internet alone, and change nothing.
I wish they left the internet alone, and change nothing.
2
Well good for the tech firms. It happens their interest coincides with the broad and vital public interest in net neutrality.
Yet the Republicans don't even get this one? They don't even get that their voters -- not their donors but their voters -- are like everyone else line all the time and that, when it comes to access, no one -- whether right or left, middle, up, down or in-between wants or will suffer being treated differently from anyone else.
The analogy? Letting freight companies, trucking businesses decide who gets to use and on what terms they get to use the interstate highways.
Cable networks and the like did not invent the internet, didn't pay for the research that brought created it and are making lots of money conveying it to all its users. In fact the people who paid for the research and the development of the internet are all of us, we, the taxpayers of the nation and the national government that underwrote the work that produced the internet.
It belongs to us with equal access for all.
Yet the Republicans don't even get this one? They don't even get that their voters -- not their donors but their voters -- are like everyone else line all the time and that, when it comes to access, no one -- whether right or left, middle, up, down or in-between wants or will suffer being treated differently from anyone else.
The analogy? Letting freight companies, trucking businesses decide who gets to use and on what terms they get to use the interstate highways.
Cable networks and the like did not invent the internet, didn't pay for the research that brought created it and are making lots of money conveying it to all its users. In fact the people who paid for the research and the development of the internet are all of us, we, the taxpayers of the nation and the national government that underwrote the work that produced the internet.
It belongs to us with equal access for all.
187
Great synopsis, thank you
1
Except that the Internet is mostly built and supported by private companies. This is more like interstate rail, where most of the lines are not public. And yep, the Provste rail companies charge for the traffic that goes over them.
2
The ISPs indeed invested billions of dollars running millions of miles of fiber and cable to practically every home in America. The technology of the internet did not do that - the ISPs made it possible for you to access the technology. So explain how that infrastructure belongs to you? It belongs to the investors who risked their money to provide you a service in hopes you would pay for it and earn them a profit.
1
Wonderful, to protect a few corporate clients who don’t want to pay more for their high Internet usage we have given the government control of the Internet so they can tax it, censure it and the NSA can tap our privacy even more.
38
Arg...auto correct.. censure=censor
Not sure why this comment was chosen as a pick. Perhaps some of the editors have the same misunderstanding as the author?
Net neutrality doesn't prevent you from being charged more for high Internet usage. It just means that you can't charge more for, or give priority treatment to, different kinds of data. But you can, of course, still charge more for 100 GB usage than for 1 GB!
And the NSA can already read data straight from the backbone. Net neutrality is a completely separate issue from surveillance.
Final point: the Internet used to be a collection of government networks. It was deregulated, commercialized, and made widespread thanks largely to the efforts of Al Gore. (He never claimed to invent it. He just claimed to have pioneered its creation in Congress, which is absolutely true.) Now, we're just putting some sensible rules on it to prevent abuse by the people that own the pipes.
Net neutrality doesn't prevent you from being charged more for high Internet usage. It just means that you can't charge more for, or give priority treatment to, different kinds of data. But you can, of course, still charge more for 100 GB usage than for 1 GB!
And the NSA can already read data straight from the backbone. Net neutrality is a completely separate issue from surveillance.
Final point: the Internet used to be a collection of government networks. It was deregulated, commercialized, and made widespread thanks largely to the efforts of Al Gore. (He never claimed to invent it. He just claimed to have pioneered its creation in Congress, which is absolutely true.) Now, we're just putting some sensible rules on it to prevent abuse by the people that own the pipes.
13
Those corporate customers are paying for their high usage. They are paying their ISP. I'm paying Time Warner to deliver that content to me. Time Warner wants to charge for the data delivery a second time. They have never been able to do that in the history of the internet. If they had, Google, reddit and Netflix wouldn't have been able to be startups that matured into new media companies.
The cable companies want to protect their old school business models and IP.
Net Neutrality allows the next startup (out of a garage) in 2016 to start and become the next Google.
The cable companies want to protect their old school business models and IP.
Net Neutrality allows the next startup (out of a garage) in 2016 to start and become the next Google.
7
The internet must be open. Crooks MUST not be allowed to control it. Period!!!
39
Great, but this is going to result in massive campaign contributions by the monopolists like Comcast and Verizon to elect a Republican president and filibuster-proof Republican Congress that will authorize Internet access to be governed by "pay-to-play" non-regulation, thereby bulking up the obscene profit margins earned by the monopolists.
10
You're making an argument to not ever pass a law that the republicans don't want, because if we do their supporters will try harder.
This is not the only issue in the world and sometimes the good guys win.
This is not the only issue in the world and sometimes the good guys win.
4
Sad, that this is the biggest victory that we as a people can achieve, but it IS something.
80
Very well said.
2
The decision is a no-brainer. But above all it requires technologists to develop more secure mechanisms for protecting users of the internet from attackers - either based on national interests or criminal interests - but protects free speech insofar as the rights of individuals to express themselves, and to have the collective decide what is right and what is wrong.
Hopefully the current melee which allows everybody to contest everything will converge on what is best for everybody.
If it does not then it will converge on what is worst for everybody.
The future will decide whether freedom or control is best for the Human species, or if there is some definition and implementation of control that is best for everybody (or just somebody).
Hopefully the current melee which allows everybody to contest everything will converge on what is best for everybody.
If it does not then it will converge on what is worst for everybody.
The future will decide whether freedom or control is best for the Human species, or if there is some definition and implementation of control that is best for everybody (or just somebody).
3
I find it shocking that a handful of bureaucrats can vote themselves the authority to regulate something so important without explicit Congressional approval beyond an act passed in 1934, decades before the internet and intended for broadcast radio. Can we see the regulations first? Debate them? Where's the democracy? It's like something handed down to us from Mt Olympus.
14
Proposed Regulations were published months ago in the Federal Register, which is online and accepted more comments from the public than any other proposal. And nothing has been handed down as yet.
9
Steve, kinda dumb comments. The FCC receives its power from Congress. That's your democracy right there.
3
Maybe the work is not quite done. Affirmative votes by all three Democratic Commissioners is required. This report:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/233626-fcc-dem-wants-last-minute-...
says that Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn suddenly "wants to eliminate a new legal category of 'broadband subscriber access services,' which was created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways that companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet."
This is inside baseball, but is an important part of the new regulatory structure. Perhaps she is willing to see that, like much other regulation and legislation, the parts have to all be present for the thing to work properly. I hope so. According to Ms. Clyburn, “I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/233626-fcc-dem-wants-last-minute-...
says that Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn suddenly "wants to eliminate a new legal category of 'broadband subscriber access services,' which was created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways that companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet."
This is inside baseball, but is an important part of the new regulatory structure. Perhaps she is willing to see that, like much other regulation and legislation, the parts have to all be present for the thing to work properly. I hope so. According to Ms. Clyburn, “I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”
3
Holy cow! Banner day for progressives! A veto of Keystone XL and a win for Net Neutrality. This is the change I voted for. Congratulations, Mr. President!
179
Good day for progressives, bad day for America. Glad you vote against us. Do you drive a car?
2
Jarrad: the KXL project was never going to bring car gasoline to you. It was going to China.
12
Good day for America, bad day for Jarrad.
9
It's reassuring to see that the seemingly inevitable "capture" of regulators by the regulated might not be totally inevitable. Would that air, air waves, water, the environment, and climate also be acted on effectively as if they were public goods.
12
I see. So the pro-net neutrality group thinks they have the answer to operate the Internet most efficiently. That their proposed solution just happens to be the one that would make their members the most $ is just coincidental, I suppose?
Please, let's not pretend the public is that stupid. I'll admit...I have no idea who the next Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or other big player in the industry will be. But I can almost guarantee that that whoever it is will have a much harder time making it, if they do at all, if they need the funding not just to start up, but also to pay off all the ISPs so that their site will get the same access to Verizon, Comcast, etc. that the current big players do.
Please, let's not pretend the public is that stupid. I'll admit...I have no idea who the next Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or other big player in the industry will be. But I can almost guarantee that that whoever it is will have a much harder time making it, if they do at all, if they need the funding not just to start up, but also to pay off all the ISPs so that their site will get the same access to Verizon, Comcast, etc. that the current big players do.
28
Meant the anti-net neutrality group.
7
I presume you mean the *anti*-net neutrality group in your first paragraph? Because the nightmare scenario your second paragraph describes is exactly what net neutrality will prevent.
2
I think you're describing the anti-net-neutrality side.
2
Tumblr is owned by Yahoo!... not exactly a "small player"
3
both companies are content providers -- time the ISP's decide what they want to be when they grow up -- copper wire or newsboy..........the conversation seems to be blurred -- you have 2 well known utilities, and a bunch of cable companies on one-side.......and then it seems you have everything else
Excellent video to explain Net Neutrality. I run a small internet company, and have heard the term Net Neutrality for some time, without understanding what it actually means. Your two minute video did an excellent job of defining the term, explaining the politics, and making me informed on the topic. Well done NYT!
6
It seems too good to be true..so it probably isn't. When the 1% starts to co-operate..to give a little on their money grubbing ways..I always suspect some sort of bait and switch.
12
"Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association"… is either stunned out of a rational mind, or he's purposefully mendacious. There are those of us who get that the government isn't the *only* threat to a fair playing field on the Internet, and is fact keeping that field level in this case (which is their actual job of course, though one that seems to be rarely done.) To make myself clearer, follow the money. Comcast and the other infrastructure giants stand to make an insane amount of money from separating the haves from the have-nots for a fee. Do they really have any vested interest in fairness. (Hint: no, of course not.)
175
Comcast and Verizon are already monopolies.
1
God. The big guys have lost one. Could this be the beginning of something NEW?
11
Are you serious? Did you see the stock market under this government? with NO help from the repubs? Your guy is in their pockets in so many ways it would take a rat to find the way out of that maze..
2
LOL. A few years ago conservatives were claiming that Obama was going to ruin the economy. What story will conservatives go with tomorrow?
7
The need for a new war?
1
It took the internet lambasting Obama over this issue to get him, reluctantly, to eventually, trepidatiously, come out in favor of net neutrality with a public statement. He had every intention of letting Tom Wheeler destroy net neutrality, while pretending he had no idea about it, until those informed by the internet, and not corporate media, called him out on it and forced him to put on his act like he had been in favor of net neutrality before anyone else was. The fact that the media is trying to spin this into an Obama vs the Republicans story is absolutely misrepresentative of what actually went down.
14
Yesssss!
Hopefully, this is one for the little person.
I suppose I should not, but I continue to be astounded at how one party can be so relentlessly for big corporations and the wealthy and yet, get so many at the very bottom of the economic ladder to vote for them repeatedly and against the voters' own interests.
Genius marketing courtesy of the right wing spin machine (Fox, Limbaugh et al.) I guess.
Hopefully, this is one for the little person.
I suppose I should not, but I continue to be astounded at how one party can be so relentlessly for big corporations and the wealthy and yet, get so many at the very bottom of the economic ladder to vote for them repeatedly and against the voters' own interests.
Genius marketing courtesy of the right wing spin machine (Fox, Limbaugh et al.) I guess.
38
those that stopped looking for work are at record highs, nice going hitting the people who create product, and jobs... Dummies. so many dummies. You NEVER hurt the rich. They will ALWAYS hand that bill down to the middle class in raised rates. But keep dreaming it will make them hurt, as you probably take your funds on the first of the month from the working class.
1
There goes the Internet.
Expect less Freedom
Slower service
Higher taxes
Anyone who is for this has NO clue as to what is coming.
Expect less Freedom
Slower service
Higher taxes
Anyone who is for this has NO clue as to what is coming.
10
Reminds me of Obamacare. Anyone who is for it has no idea of the details and even less knowledge of what implementation will look like.
3
The only internet freedom we have now is that we get to do whatever Comcast/TW decide they want to let us do. For almost everyone in the country, Internet is a monopoly. At best, as duopoly. It is certainly not a free market in any sense of the word. And as we have seen for 100 years, regulation is necessary in the face of monopolies to assure the public good.
Fundamentally, it is no different than phone. If I dial a number I expect to be connected to that number, not told, sorry we can't connect you tot hat business. Likewise, when I type in www.netflix.com I expect to be taken there, not to some time warner knock off site. The last thing anyone (except the cable companies) want is for the internet to become like cable TV where your menu of options is controlled by big cable.
Fundamentally, it is no different than phone. If I dial a number I expect to be connected to that number, not told, sorry we can't connect you tot hat business. Likewise, when I type in www.netflix.com I expect to be taken there, not to some time warner knock off site. The last thing anyone (except the cable companies) want is for the internet to become like cable TV where your menu of options is controlled by big cable.
4
Nope. This will take the form of regulation for the monopolies that control our access to the Internet, not regulation of the Internet. What if net neutrality was truly gone and Uverse or Comcast decided to charge for internet fast lanes? What if your favorite website couldn't afford to pay these gatekeepers? That's slower service for you. These new rules will serve to protect the Internet as we have always known it. The real danger of "less freedom" and "slower service" is in allowing Comcast and its ilk to mess with the content of your choice.
You are the clueless one.
Hooray for net neutrality!
You are the clueless one.
Hooray for net neutrality!
8
“Tech companies would be better served to work with Congress on clear rules for the road. . . ” said Senator Thune.
In other words, get in there and out-campaign-contribute Comcast and Verizon.
In other words, get in there and out-campaign-contribute Comcast and Verizon.
11
This is victory for all the "little guys" -- including those of us who are simply consumers of internet content. Something tells me, however, that the Comcasts of the world, aided by some of the barons of the Senate and House, will be back again and again, seeking to reverse net neutrality.
70
This is truly a victory for anyone who uses the internet. A free and open web is vital to the growth of technology here and abroad.
As I watched this issue unfold, I was fearful that once again, the financial power of a few companies would force our lawmakers to yield and the net result would be a giant step backwards.
Bravo to all who worked so hard to make this a reality!
As I watched this issue unfold, I was fearful that once again, the financial power of a few companies would force our lawmakers to yield and the net result would be a giant step backwards.
Bravo to all who worked so hard to make this a reality!
493
"Controlled by the Federal government" never means "free and open". Usually, it means quite the opposite.....
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
- Milton Friedman
"If the Government were placed in charge of the Sahara Desert, they would run out of sand in 5 years"
- Milton Friedman
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
- Milton Friedman
"If the Government were placed in charge of the Sahara Desert, they would run out of sand in 5 years"
- Milton Friedman
2
Once you favorably quote Friedman in an economic argument, you have lost...
I believe our national parks and national highway system remain free and open. Imagine if they were managed by Comcast, Pete.
I believe our national parks and national highway system remain free and open. Imagine if they were managed by Comcast, Pete.
26
Alan, let's not forget to thank President Obama. Unlike the vast majority of politicians he actually understands and uses the Internet, and he strong-armed his cable-industry FCC chair into doing the right thing when it counted.
Obama promised an administration free of lobbyists, and while that was an impossible dream in many ways, this time it worked.
Obama promised an administration free of lobbyists, and while that was an impossible dream in many ways, this time it worked.
16
The sad aspect of this is that the likelihood of net neutrality has truly been in doubt.
Is there nothing left in this country that Republicans do not consider selling to the highest bidder?
Is there nothing left in this country that Republicans do not consider selling to the highest bidder?
263
If this 332-page regulatory monstrosity is so great, why won't the Democrats running the FCC let American citizens even read it before the FCC votes on it? Sounds like a "bait and switch" like Obamacare has been exposed as....
2
nothing, including their mother.
3
Oh yes. Water, and then the air you breath
1
Notice how the cable/broadband representative, Mr. Dietz, says it's complicated, and we're being misled, and it's like a "religion", but he never even tries to explain why letting his bosses charge twice - both the senders and the receivers - would be a good idea for anyone but them.
94
Now if we can convince people not to frame the issue as though it's a question of whether or not ISPs get "the right to charge for the fastest speeds on the web." They already have that right. The right they don't have is to arbitrarily and doubly charge (extort) money for fast speeds on the net. That is the issue of net neutrality.
11
Not only fast lanes, but connection at all. This is not all about movie speeds. Don't think for a minute that if Amazon offered TW a bazillion bucks to divert all traffic from best buy to amazon that TW wouldn't do it. Or since comcast is part of NBC, divert all traffice bound for espn.com or msnbc.com to nbc.com. They just haven't YET become that devious. They want to be able to control the menu, and extort money from both ends in the process.
4
Well played, everyone.
9
A good day for President Obama. One can only hope he acts upon the principles that got him elected twice with his final years in office.
Most Americans were banking on it to begin with. It's time to see it in action.
Most Americans were banking on it to begin with. It's time to see it in action.
9
Net stop: Cable TV providers. The idea of paying $100/month for 500 junk cable channels instead of a' la carte is so outdated. Meanwhile you watch only 5 or 6 channels out of the 500 you're forced to pay.
Big Cable TV, your time is gonna come...
Big Cable TV, your time is gonna come...
167
Do what we do--cancel your cable and satellite. Get Netflix, HULU and go 50/50 with a family member on HBO. Your monthly bill will be less than $20 a month.
7
Where do I sign up?
1
You still have cable? How anachronistic.
This message brought to you by Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.
This message brought to you by Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.
1
I wonder when Time Warner will jump the internet price to $300.00 per month. Beep, beep.
6
This isn't about taxes or "fast or slow lanes" for digital content. This is for control over the use and distribution of content. Expect web site licenses "to protect the children", as well as bans on the real secure encryption where the user keeps the key, not the authorities. Completely unnecessary of course, but that's where this seems to be going in the quest for total control.
14
I'm really at a loss how doomsayers like you jump from preserving net neutrality to "total control".
5
In just one day: David 2, Goliath 0. There's hope!
44
Now if only we could have more internet and cable television companies to choose from. Get rid of the Comcast and Verizon monopoly. We can have more affordable internet and television if we lobby congress for more options. Honestly all I really need for school is good internet service but if I try to buy internet separate from cable television it costs me more money then buying a bundle that I don't need. So I am stuck paying nearly $80. a month.
91
Agreed Kiran. For what it's worth...I've found most telecoms have a "we'll charge you what we think you're willing to pay" model. Myself and friends have multiple experiences were we called and said "listen...this is ridiculous. I may be able to do $X per month, but at Y (whatever they're charging you) I just can't afford this". More often than not their response will be "we can do that".
This applies triply any time you hit a price change (I ALWAYS called after the "6 month trial" ended when my rate was due to jump up).
This applies triply any time you hit a price change (I ALWAYS called after the "6 month trial" ended when my rate was due to jump up).
2
Another thing that sounds good on paper, but in reality I believe this is a bad move. What nobody can point to is what problem are we solving...because there isn't one, and if there was one, it would be better solved via bipartisan legislation as the entire topic isn't really very partisan. By invoking the same regulatory sledge hammer that was used so successfully to regulate the phone companies (hahaha), we are going to see lots of adverse consequences. Why does the federal government need the authority to set pricing and functionality of ISP's? The FCC now has that power, power it shouldn't have imo. These regs basically guarantee monopoly power for existing ISP's..which will mean some combination of higher prices and less innovation/speed. Be careful what we have asked for, we just got it.
9
The problem we are solving is keeping the ISPs from turning the internet into a clone of the cable TV system...where they control the menu of what is available. Streaming video speed discrimination is just the first step. Next is control of which sites you can connect to , which search engines you can use, what stores you can shop at. For most people, internet is a monopoly. And as we have seen since standard oil, monopolies are unable to serve the public good.
9
We CAN point to a problem we're solving.
Problem 1: Telecoms want the ability to charge websites to be part of a "premier" group that gets preferential treatment. So Amazon pays Comcast $10 Mil a year or something, and in turn Comcast gives Amazon premier status. Amazon then would see higher speeds than other websites. Except Amazon already pays to have their website hosted online, and consumers already pay Comcast for access to the internet. That means larger established companies (your giants today like Amazon, Netflix, etc...) would have advantage over new companies, which hurts competitive advantage and stifles innovation.
Problem 2: there is no device today for saying "You can't do that" to companies like Comcast and Time Warner, as it was ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to stop them.
Solution: Reorganize how internet providers like Comcast are defined and allow the FCC to regulate them similar to how they do other utilities.
Disclaimer: I realize that expanding FCC regulative power opens potential threats down the road, but I would rather start here and improve rather than try and debate (ineffectively) the "Best" solution while Telecom digs in and reorganizes the internet we know today...with the only motivator being their own bottom line.
Problem 1: Telecoms want the ability to charge websites to be part of a "premier" group that gets preferential treatment. So Amazon pays Comcast $10 Mil a year or something, and in turn Comcast gives Amazon premier status. Amazon then would see higher speeds than other websites. Except Amazon already pays to have their website hosted online, and consumers already pay Comcast for access to the internet. That means larger established companies (your giants today like Amazon, Netflix, etc...) would have advantage over new companies, which hurts competitive advantage and stifles innovation.
Problem 2: there is no device today for saying "You can't do that" to companies like Comcast and Time Warner, as it was ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to stop them.
Solution: Reorganize how internet providers like Comcast are defined and allow the FCC to regulate them similar to how they do other utilities.
Disclaimer: I realize that expanding FCC regulative power opens potential threats down the road, but I would rather start here and improve rather than try and debate (ineffectively) the "Best" solution while Telecom digs in and reorganizes the internet we know today...with the only motivator being their own bottom line.
10
They have to pass it so we know what's in it?
4
Oh please!
11
Nice work everybody! There is indeed power in numbers. We have a lot,t of work to do now for 2016. Keep up the grassroots!
277
You will rue the day that you organized people to put more controls on yourself. Congrats!
4
You are ignorant of what net neutrality is.
4
Can't help but thinking there's an "other foot to fall" here. Could it be because there is nothing the FCC will consider to limit unwarranted and wholesale theft of all personal data transmissions and transactions over the internet by the NSA?
And how has that horrible Constitutional violation of our First and Fourth Amendment fallen off the table?
Where is the discussion in the Senate? What happened to the Intelligence Committee? Don't the outright lies made by Clapper, Brenner, etc., deserve to be addressed with forceful action?
And how has that horrible Constitutional violation of our First and Fourth Amendment fallen off the table?
Where is the discussion in the Senate? What happened to the Intelligence Committee? Don't the outright lies made by Clapper, Brenner, etc., deserve to be addressed with forceful action?
16
Absolutely, Slann. The argument about taxes and costs going up for net neutrality is a red herring. The danger is the government in some way controlling the speed of the internet. This will lead to no good. As if them spying in every other way on you wasn't bad enough, nor our current administrations complete disregard for your individual liberties. If you're for this then your children can thank you when big brother tells them what they can and can't do digitally. Go figure. Freedom of speech is becoming just an illusion. It's free to operate in the confines defined by your elected representatives.
1
I would argue that the regulation of the internet does not provide significant advantage to the US Gov collecting person information and infringing on civil liberties.
Not because spying via internet isn't bad. But because they have 100% capability to spy on us as much as they want behind closed doors. The NSA program that blew up recently happened not because the government had specific power via regulation. It happened because they had the technology and were willing to use it.
Not because spying via internet isn't bad. But because they have 100% capability to spy on us as much as they want behind closed doors. The NSA program that blew up recently happened not because the government had specific power via regulation. It happened because they had the technology and were willing to use it.
5
davea0511, if you think the government needs the FCC to do the Bad Things you describe, you're living in a different (and weirdly happier) world than the rest of us. Net neutrality has zilch to do with any of your worries.
6
Yes!! This has implications not only in the US but globally, for net neutrality, and is very welcome.
55
The FCC is an anachronism, plain and simple. This overly bureaucratic regime is responsible for the censorship of freedom of speech in this country. They were nearly ready to start charging consumers for these "fast" and "slow" lanes until the President, and Democrats, finally having a backbone, said no way.
Am I the only one who enjoys reading headlines such as "As Republicans concede..."?
Am I the only one who enjoys reading headlines such as "As Republicans concede..."?
340
Except that in this case, the FCC is the one protecting net neutrality. It is the internet providers looking to charge for faster lanes.
13
Not really aware which politicians are the biggest supporters behind this change are you?
5
It's about as rediculous an agency as so many federal agencies which are run by a revolving door of cronies coming from & returning to the industry the agency is tasked to regulate.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler was previously a lobbyist for the wireless industry before raising $500,000 for Obama.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler was previously a lobbyist for the wireless industry before raising $500,000 for Obama.
3
The small tech firms engaged grassroots efforts are wonderful ... this is how our country should operate ... this demonstrates the root of our democratic principles ... bravo!
176
Anything that sticks it to Comcast has my vote. Go Net Neutrality!
435
Jk Chicago, you're gonna get a lot of recs. Mine was one of them.
4
Comcast will simply up your bill. Speeds will not improve for anyone as a result of this, the only really winner being the government with more income, and the ability to throttle the speed of any group or area they want so long as they can find some kind of justification. This will lead to nothing good.
4
verizon, at$t are just as bad if not worse, especially greed mongers at verizon.
5
If FCC regulates it like they regulate everything else they have their hands on, expect to see new taxes on "your" internet bill
18
A couple of bucks to enforce net neutrality is better than being gouged for sub par internet service.
126
Yes, this is the Grover Norquist/Republican talking point. Thanks for bringing it up.
49
As opposed to having Comcast or Time Warner grabbing me by the ankles and shaking more money out of me?
75