What is your opinion on "Net Neutrality"?

[variablebinary]

The FCC is once again considering net neutrality regulations

In a nutshell: Net neutrality means a company like cable ISP's comcast, and Time Warner can not punish you for using services like Hulu and Netflix.

They would have to treat you the same as someone downloading NBC universal content, which is a division of comcast.

Meaning, if you pay for Comcast cable internet, but not cable TV, you can not be discriminated against by Comcast corporate

If comcast is allowed to discriminate against consumers, it could kill off Hulu, Sony network and Netflix, thus forcing people back into the arms of comcast.

What say you?

Full story here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ab0de46-f...#axzz15xuTCoZc

FCC moves to ensure ‘net neutrality’



By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York
Published: November 20 2010 00:49 | Last updated: November 20 2010 00:49
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to announce plans next week for regulations that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or favouring content online.

The so-called “net neutrality” rules could be passed by the commission as early as December 15. The move would fulfil a campaign promise by President Barack Obama and infuriate the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill, which has said it would oppose the plan, but would have little power to stop it.

[Belmont31R]

While I enjoy have unrestricted internet its not the gov's job to tell a service provider what they have to allow.


If you use this precedence on other business activities would you be kosher with that?



Look what its done to health care costs. Instead of getting only the services I want I have to pay hundreds extra for services I dont want because the gov stepped in, and regulated what is allowed to be sold.


I don't want the gov to have the power to go around to various industries mandating what services they have to provide because once you start down that path its almost impossible to reverse. It can, and will get out of hand very quick if nots already.

[variablebinary]

While I enjoy have unrestricted internet its not the gov's job to tell a service provider what they have to allow.


If you use this precedence on other business activities would you be kosher with that?



Look what its done to health care costs. Instead of getting only the services I want I have to pay hundreds extra for services I dont want because the gov stepped in, and regulated what is allowed to be sold.


I don't want the gov to have the power to go around to various industries mandating what services they have to provide because once you start down that path its almost impossible to reverse. It can, and will get out of hand very quick if nots already.

Hmm...

Why would you be expected to pay the same but get inferior service just because you use on demand services and not cable TV.

In the case of cable companies, they have a monopoly, so it isn't like you can choose another cable service either.

[kwelz]

As much as I hate government being involved in anything, if Net Neutrality isn't put in place I feel we will see an end to the open communication we currently have on the Internet.

Communication is not a free market. They are Monopolies, and they act like monopolies. Companies like Ebay and Paypal already ban the sale of firearms items. What is Time Warner or Comcast suddenly decided that they didn't want their customers to access Firearms related sites. Or Political sites for candidates or parties they don't support.

You would have no options but to see only what they want to show you.

[Renegade]

Put the geeks back in charge like it was in the 80s.

[variablebinary]

As much as I hate government being involved in anything, if Net Neutrality is put in place I feel we will see an end to the open communication we currently have on the Internet.

Communication is not a free market. They are Monopolies, and they act like monopolies. Companies like Ebay and Paypal already ban the sale of firearms items. What is Time Warner or Comcast suddenly decided that they didn't want their customers to access Firearms related sites. Or Political sites for candidates or parties they don't support.

You would have no options but to see only what they want to show you.

Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.

What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly

[kwelz]

Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.

What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly

Yep. This exact thing happened a couple weeks ago when some of the networks were having a pissing match with some of the providers. It only effected a few sports games but who says it will end there.

[Belmont31R]

Hmm...

Why would you be expected to pay the same but get inferior service just because you use on demand services and not cable TV.

In the case of cable companies, they have a monopoly, so it isn't like you can choose another cable service either.

I can list off at least 4 companies I can get net and cable through in my area, and there are a few more too if you want to go OTA.


I have a hard time believing they would all jump to restricted services at once, and a company offering unrestricted access would not suddenly get a shit ton of new customers.


Either way its not within the feds realm of powers to regulate what a company can offer as a product.

[kwelz]

I can list off at least 4 companies I can get net and cable through in my area, and there are a few more too if you want to go OTA.


I have a hard time believing they would all jump to restricted services at once, and a company offering unrestricted access would not suddenly get a shit ton of new customers.


Either way its not within the feds realm of powers to regulate what a company can offer as a product.

You are lucky then. In my area you only have two options. And the more expensive, less usable option buys bandwidth from the main provider. So they still control it in the end.


Also in my original post I accidentally typed is instead of isn't and changed what I was trying to say. I support net Neutrality and feel that Conservative organizations need to get their head out of their collective ass and see the broader implications.

[Belmont31R]

Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.

What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly

The only areas with a single land line choices are rural areas.


There is still OTA and sat