Regulators OK 'net neutrality' rules for Internet providers
 

The guy is a dingo

PARF only subject.

Needs to be expounded. Definitely.

I shall defer to Stomachmonkeys judgement on this one...

This is horrible for citizens and consumers, good for Comcast and government.

This is the best part. States were paid off by the cable companies to pass restrictive laws that helped them ensure their monopolies. These laws are now being overridden, increasing competition, and restoring the free market to communities that want it.

" Also at stake Thursday was Obama's goal of helping local governments build their own fast, cheap broadband. Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have filed petitions with the agency to help override state laws that restrict them from expanding their broadband service to neighboring towns.

The FCC approved these petitions, setting a precedent for other communities that might want to do the same.

Nineteen states place restrictions on municipal broadband networks, many with laws encouraged by cable and telephone companies. Advocates of those laws say they are designed to protect taxpayers from municipal projects that are expensive, can fail or may be unnecessary."

My only real concern is now the federal government will have the power to regulate the internet. Regulation by the government is rarely a good thing.

Comcast seemed to be the only ISP happy about the outcome. That is enough reason for me to know this won't end well.

This almost certainly allows Comcast and Time Warner to merge, because as a regulated utility, all of those silly anti-competition arguments go out the window (in the minds of the FCC). We all know that government and big companies never collude to hurt consumers.

"Please, Brer FCC, please don't throw me into the briar patch!"
- Comcast

Now all the taxes and fees on the phone bill will be added to internet service. Costs are going up.

Do any of you feel more comfortable about the prospect of corporations like Comcast regulating the internet?

The gov did a fine job with the telegraph over the past 150 years...its a natural evolution right?

No, but I trust the government not to screw it up a lot less. At least with Comcast you can switch to FOIS, U-Verse, Knology/WOW, Dish, ...

With the government it takes a lot more than a phone call.

I haven't read the current law, but I didn't like receiving crappy Netflix streaming until Netflix paid Comcast it's extortion fee. The very DAY that Netflix paid Comcast we went from SD to HD streaming.

What if an anti-Comcast website suddently got 1200BPS bandwidth... while their pro-Comcast websites got 1GBPS? Would that convince you we need net neutrality?

This does nothing to improve the competition problem. If all you can get is Comcast, that's not going to change.

Only thing I see this doing is adding more taxes to your service,

Where I live right now I have 2 choices. FIOS, who I like because the product is excellent, and the local small guy.

Last place I lived it was FIOS, DSL, or the local guy, Cablevision.

Dish based are not an option for internet service as they partner with cable providers to bundle with their service so you only get what's already available.

The local government protected geographic monopolies that cable providers have is part of the problem.

A lot of places you only have one choice.

As much as I hate to defend Comcast that's not really what happened.

Imagine if you own a company.

Company A (Netflix) pays company B to deliver 30 packages to your area. Company B can only deliver so far so they contract with you (Comcast) and pay you to deliver the 30 packages on the final leg.

Another company, company C asks you to deliver 70 packages a day. You don't charge company C because you have 70 packages that you need C to deliver for you.

You and company C figure since you are asking the same of each other why bother charging each other because it's a wash.

So you are delivering 100 packages a day and getting paid for 30 of them.

Company C goes to company A and says "I can deliver your 30 packages cheaper than company B" so company A says "Deal".

Company C tells you, "hey, you know that 70 packages you deliver for me for free, starting tomorrow it's going to be 100 and I want you to deliver them for free as well."

What are you going to say?

1) This wall allow municipalities to offer service where they were not allowed to in the past.

2) According to what I see in the legislation, no new fees are allowed.

3) The government already controls the internet.

4) Carriers will not be allowed to block texts from groups as Verizon did back before the 2010 legislation was passed.

5) Carriers will not be able to throttle or block traffic from destinations as they see fit.

6) The better way to handle this in regards to home internet without regulation is to remove current laws in regards to franchise agreements with cable companies. Wireless carriers should be common carriers subject to Title II.

Just my opinions.

Will I still get p@rnhub and youj!zz?

7) The providers will not be able to block services that compete with their own offerings. IE; google wallet.

Net neutrality is like totally going to make it so cell phone companies can put towers wherever they want! Even if the homeowners complain.

1 no not really. Your gated community will just ban peds or dslam enclosures.

3. The government does not control the internet. Get that out of your head.

4. Some of that blocking was in place for a reason. Nigerian email scammers. Thousands of blocked IPs. For good reason.

6. Let's hope that works.


Regulation of nothing for nothing. What a complete waste of time and effort.

And your source for that statement is what?

Alright. It doesn't matter anyways. It's just politics.

'If you like your p@nhub you can keep your p@rnhub...'