http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308313402913926 http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/01/obamas-net-neutrality-attempt-at-internet-regulation-just-crashed/ Net Neutrality is a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist, and even if it did exist, based on the things that I'm supposed to be scared of (charging different rates for different data amounts) I don't think it qualifies as a problem anyway. Many of the problems with the ISPs having the ability to completely throttle specific things down comes from the fact that they are government granted (and "regulated") monopolies, and apparently you think the solution is to add in more government? You also seem quite trusting that once the FCC claims authority to regulate this particular aspect of the internet that it won't expand that authority without even bothering with consulting congress or the people much like the EPA and other federal agencies simply make up laws at will now. In the end, "net neutrality" has nothing to do with throttling or ISPs, it's just another government power grab dressed up in an attractive name. Once they get their claws into it, there will be a million administrative rules over who and what can be throttled and how much, to what extent and who is exempt and what can be charged to who, and like every other government regulatory agency, those decisions will be made based on politics and palm-greasing, and not consumer interest.
NN is a lousy idea because it attempts to too broadly regulate something. The Open Internet order recognized a dozen non-neutral technologies ( http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Downes02152011.pdf) that are already in the internet that help consumers. The problem is that the ruling would mean ONLY those 12 are available, if a company finds a 13th way to optimize the internet....sorry no dice. In theory you don't WANT a neutral internet, I want video data optimized to flow faster than text data for example.
You guys are so uninformed it's absolutely incredible. You have no idea how bad the negative effects of this will be. Please educate yourselves before you ever call this a good idea. You guys sound like government sheep. You have it twisted net neutrality is keeping the government from censoring the internet. Killing net neutrality means they can slow websites they don't want you to see and even outright block them. Stop being naive on the subject and actually educate yourself. Obama has nothing to do with this. Net neutrality is what makes the internet free to use however. It's been around long before Obama. Killing net neutrality kills your freedom to use the internet how you want too. It allows companies to now double dip you and bend you over and rape more money out of you than they already do.
NN is a lousy idea because it attempts to too broadly regulate something. The Open Internet order recognized a dozen non-neutral technologies ( http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Downes02152011.pdf) that are already in the internet that help consumers. The problem is that the ruling would mean ONLY those 12 are available, if a company finds a 13th way to optimize the internet....sorry no dice. In theory you don't WANT a neutral internet, I want video data optimized to flow faster than text data for example.
That's what you aren't understanding. Now they can throttle your internet and outright block sites as Netflix unless you pay extra. They can basically turn the internet into cable TV. Meaning you will be paying more than you already are and will be only visiting websites based on what internet package you choose. If Pewter Report isn't in that package, guess what? No more posting for you. You must not understand technology and what freedoms are being ripped from you. This comment shows how uneducated you are on the subject.
NN is a lousy idea because it attempts to too broadly regulate something. The Open Internet order recognized a dozen non-neutral technologies ( http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Downes02152011.pdf) that are already in the internet that help consumers. The problem is that the ruling would mean ONLY those 12 are available, if a company finds a 13th way to optimize the internet....sorry no dice. In theory you don't WANT a neutral internet, I want video data optimized to flow faster than text data for example.
That's what you aren't understanding. Now they can throttle your internet and outright block sites as Netflix unless you pay extra. They can basically turn the internet into cable TV. Meaning you will be paying more than you already are and will be only visiting websites based on what internet package you choose. If Pewter Report isn't in that package, guess what? No more posting for you. You must not understand technology and what freedoms are being ripped from you. This comment shows how uneducated you are on the subject.
No you don't understand the technology and how the net isn't neutral right now and how, for example, if you watch Netflix or Youtube or Hulu that is good for you. Can you imagine an internet being limited in terms of technology by a law passed in 2013? That shows how uneducated you are on the subject.Yes, in theory they could start charging you for access to "premium" content but the ISP's wont be the ones who do that - to use your cable model - the providers don't charge a crap ton for HBO. The distributors do. The cable company merely passes that charge onto you.The bigger worry, which this law would do nothing to stop, is that Facebook starts charging for access or you tube. In places where you do have access to multiple providers you have an option to walk from one to the other and in places where you dont we have anti-trust laws that could solve any abuses. This law doesn't add anything to your options except to have the evolving technology of the internet limited by what the "best" minds of the government think are acceptable technologies.