Is everyone ready for more expensive monthly internet bills and slower Downloads?

• IggyPride00

  

  Now that the cable companies beat back the FCC in court today to have net neutrality thrown out, is everyone ready for the tiered pricing packages and crippling of download speed that is going to be coming our way?
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-04-07-cablecov05_CV_N.htm
  
  What I did find interesting in my readings though was that the government may fight back with a so called nuclear option that is actually far more draconian for cable companies than operating under net neutrality principles would have been had they not gone to court to challenge the legality of it.
  
  The nuclear option essentially this:
  
  Another is to pursue what's known as the "nuclear option," and reclassify broadband Internet as a communication service just like the nation's phone system, bringing it fully under FCC regulation. Would Genachowski go that far, undoing virtually all of the Bush-era FCC's policies? Yes.
  
  http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2010/04/06/in-net-neutrality-ruling-the-bad-guys-win-for-now.aspx
  
  One way or the other this is a fight that ultimately will effect all of us.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Why does the government need to get involved in internet connections?
• jmog

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Why does the government need to get involved in internet connections?

  Same reason they "need" to get involved with health insurance...to take it over.
• Bigdogg

  jmog wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Why does the government need to get involved in internet connections?

  Same reason they "need" to get involved with health insurance...to take it over.

  Take over health care......, LOL The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Try reading some books instead of watching TV
• IggyPride00

  

  jmog wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Why does the government need to get involved in internet connections?

  Same reason they "need" to get involved with health insurance...to take it over.

  Are you advocating that a better idea is for our ISP's be allowed to be like the Chinese government and determine which internet sites we can get access to and have our downloads or access crippled because they don't have business arrangements with certain sits/services.
  
  I would prefer the internet not become a toll road which is exactly what is going to happen if ISP's have their way.
• goosebumps

  

  Forgive me if I'm not understanding you correctly, but in order to not be like the chinese we need to put the internet into the goverments hands????? WTF are you smoking?
  
  The government needs to stay the hell away from private business. Its getting absolutely ridiculous. Car companies, Banks, Healthcare, Internet..... soon the government will be in charge of haircuts and eye glasses. When will people realize that everyday we lose more and more freedom and the government gets bigger and bigger.
• I Wear Pants

  Network Neutrality is a good thing.
  
  Don't let the telecoms tell you otherwise.
• I Wear Pants

  http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/court-rejects-fcc-authority-over-internet
  
  "So while we are big supporters of net neutrality, we are glad that today's ruling has reasserted the important limits on the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet.
  
  The fight now moves back to Congress and the FCC, with numerous net neutrality advocates urging the FCC to "reclassify" Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act—another effort to find FCC authority to regulate ISPs without having to go to Congress. In the meantime, everyone who cares about net neutrality will continue to watch ISPs closely for more evidence of discriminatory practices. "
• I Wear Pants

  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006/net-neutrality-act
  
  Edit: If you can't tell I care a whole lot about the subject (Hell I wrote an 8 page paper on it in high school and the paper only had to be 5 pages long. I normally would have barely had the five pages). I'd suggest joining the EFF as they're a pretty impartial supporter of our rights on the internet.
  http://www.eff.org/about
• goosebumps

  

  Again, letting the government control the internet is a slipperly slope. What makes you think that if the FCC gets control of the internet that it won't be censored?
• I Wear Pants

  goosebumps wrote: Again, letting the government control the internet is a slipperly slope. What makes you think that if the FCC gets control of the internet that it won't be censored?

  Because the FCC basically wants a "no censorship" policy.
  
  Even though a lot of the reasons net neutrality are good for aren't exactly censorship but merely a matter of service quality. Time Warner could make websites using content from providers they don't own/like perform more slowly on their network.
  
  They could make Timewarnercablesucks.com load like molasses or load with errors.
  
  We aren't "putting the internet in government hands" we're saying "treat all the websites and data on the internet the same". The ISPs are still allowed to charge more or less depending on how much bandwidth you use and everything but they can't make competitors sites or sites/data they don't like perform more poorly.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: We aren't "putting the internet in government hands" we're saying "treat all the websites and data on the internet the same". The ISPs are still allowed to charge more or less depending on how much bandwidth you use and everything but they can't make competitors sites or sites/data they don't like perform more poorly.

  
  Not everything is meant to be the same.
  
  "From each internet according to its ability, to each internet according to its need" ahahahahaha!!!
• Gblock

  better the govt than time warner
• jmog

  Bigdogg wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Why does the government need to get involved in internet connections?

  Same reason they "need" to get involved with health insurance...to take it over.

  Take over health care......, LOL The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Try reading some books instead of watching TV

  Try to not take everything the left wing media feeds you as fact.
  
  I'm far more intelligent than you would like to believe, which is actually why I can see where this health care bill will LEAD to.
  
  Obama has been quoted MANY times from his senate days until now to eventually want a government run health insurance, single payer system. He has even been quoated as saying you have to do it in "small steps", like the current health care bill.
  
  So please, you go read, figure this crap out for yourself instead of believing everything the liberal media feeds you.
• jmog

  FYI, I am for net neutrality, just made a comment about why the government needs to get involved with "everything" as it was asked above.
• I Wear Pants

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We aren't "putting the internet in government hands" we're saying "treat all the websites and data on the internet the same". The ISPs are still allowed to charge more or less depending on how much bandwidth you use and everything but they can't make competitors sites or sites/data they don't like perform more poorly.

  
  Not everything is meant to be the same.
  
  "From each internet according to its ability, to each internet according to its need" ahahahahaha!!!

  Are you comparing Network Neutrality (an idea about how we should/shouldn't be managing and distributing packets through a computer network) to Communism via a Karl Marx quote?
  
  Really?
• Sykotyk

  

  Removing Net Neutrality would be akin to the phone company only allowing you to call certain numbers unless you pay more for 'premium' service, or could outright restrict you entirely. Maybe you call someone too often. The phone company feels they're losing money on you even though you have an unlimited plan, suddenly you're capped at 30 minutes a day to the number. Or, you have to wait 2 hours before calling it again.
  
  The issue I have is you're okay with business regulating themselves when history has shown they have no intention of EVER regulating themselves. They only care about profit, and controlling what can best be described as a public utility will result in you being treated as a personal piggy bank for these ISPs.
  
  Sykotyk
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We aren't "putting the internet in government hands" we're saying "treat all the websites and data on the internet the same". The ISPs are still allowed to charge more or less depending on how much bandwidth you use and everything but they can't make competitors sites or sites/data they don't like perform more poorly.

  
  Not everything is meant to be the same.
  
  "From each internet according to its ability, to each internet according to its need" ahahahahaha!!!

  Are you comparing Network Neutrality (an idea about how we should/shouldn't be managing and distributing packets through a computer network) to Communism via a Karl Marx quote?
  
  Really?

  
  Um... I guess you didn't see the "ahahaha" part? (it usually implies a joke)
  
  Really.
  
  I bolded for you.
• Sykotyk

  

  To be fair, I thought it was maniacal laughter and authentic.
  
  I think "/snark" should become more widely used to avoid these issues.
  
  Sykotyk
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I would much rather be able to switch my service to a competing company that doesn't want to censor their users than have the government's hand in the internet. Who knows how many websites they will block people from seeing?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I know many of you blindly trust the government and their intentions, but many people don't, and the founders of this country didn't, for good reason.
• Sykotyk

  

  Corporations are a soulless entity that cares not the will of the people.
  
  Sykotyk
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Sykotyk wrote: Corporations are a soulless entity that cares not the will of the people.
  
  Sykotyk

  
  Could also explain government.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I would much rather be able to switch my service to a competing company that doesn't want to censor their users than have the government's hand in the internet. Who knows how many websites they will block people from seeing?

  This isn't giving the internet to the government. It is making a law that says "you cannot discriminate based on the type or source of the data being transmitted". It isn't censorship, it's saying you can't alter the service being provided based on the content being transferred or who is doing the transferring. Which is how it should be.
  
  If I pay Time Warner for X amount of bandwidth per month at X speeds to host my internet site it is not their place to modify how fast users can access my site based on the content of it. Doesn't matter if my website is Timewarnercablesucks.fucktwc.com, if they didn't want to provide me with the measure of service that I purchased they shouldn't have sold it to me. Just like their customers deserve the right to access that website at the speed they paid for service at.
  
  That's all network neutrality is. It isn't censorship or telling the ISPs how to do business it's just saying that they can't block or slowdown or in someway hinder data/websites they don't approve of.
  
  And the problem is that telecoms have regional monopolies so there isn't real competition in most places.
• queencitybuckeye

  Sykotyk wrote: Corporations are a soulless entity that cares not the will of the people.
  
  Sykotyk

  Not only is it not their function to do so, at times they have a legal obligation not to.