Net Neutrality

[Sully]

What?!?!?! Can someone please explain in layman's terms what the heck this is about?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/20/fcc.net.neutrality/

 

(CNN) -- The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Tuesday on a set of regulations designed to ensure that internet providers grant everyone equal access to the Web.

The "net neutrality" rules, proposed by the Obama administration, would be the government's biggest foray yet into one of the Web's fiercest debates.

In announcing the proposed rules earlier this month, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said they would require high-speed internet providers to treat all types of Web content equally.

The rules would, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others from high-paying clients.

The commission's agenda says the vote will address "basic rules of the road to preserve the open internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition and free expression."

If it passes, as it is expected to do, the plan will go before Congress for final approval. That isn't expected to happen until the new Congress, elected in November, takes office next year.

Internet-freedom advocates have called the rules a step in the right direction but say they don't go far enough.

For example, the proposal doesn't set the same set of rules for mobile communications as it does for Web-based ones. And it wouldn't let the government strictly regulate internet providers in the way some advocates would like.

In fact, the proposal is similar to one put forward earlier this year by Google and Verizon, two of the internet's biggest stakeholders.

Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat and one of Congress' most vocal net-neutrality advocates, calls the issue "the most important free-speech issue of our time." In a column Monday for the Huffington Post, Franken said some of the current proposal's language could actually weaken protections.

"[T]his Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching," he wrote. "If they approve it as is, I'll be outraged. And you should be, too."

Michael Copps, a Democrat and one of the commission's five members, said in a written statement that he won't block the plan after weeks of trying to make it tougher.

"The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted," Copps said. "But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated.

"If vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the commission -- and if upheld by the courts -- it could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open internet."

Technically, Copps said he will vote to concur, which means not endorsing all parts of the plan but letting it move forward and, theoretically, be tweaked later.

Copps' two fellow Democrats also are expected to concur, while its two Republicans likely will vote no.

One of those Republicans, Robert M. McDowell, criticized Genachowski's proposal Sunday in a Wall Street Journal column.

"Nothing is broken that needs fixing ... " he wrote. "Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs and ultimately increasing consumer prices."

[wnaplay1647545503]

Cant make it any easier

 

If you wanted to get info off the web, you wouldnt want to go to a site running at 1/2 the speed because they dont have enough money as another to let me run faster.

[Sully]

So, we want this to pass, right?

[wnaplay1647545503]

I want net neutrality if nothing more than to keep things even for the common man. The down side is do we want the govt regulating what a company does with their equipment, or "pipes" that supply the info? I say its no different than the govt regulating the prices say what a gas company can charge. For the most part we have become dependent on the internet, like it or not. I dont want a company now charging me a fortune to use access the internet because 1. they own the means to which I access it 2. because they know I will be forced to pay like a junky that needs his fix. They get paid a fair amount now, certainly enough to make them vastly rich. There is a point when greed needs capped.

[MiDe84]

I know this is not about home service but still scares me.

 

Link

[unfunnyryan]

I know this is not about home service but still scares me.

 

Link

 

No shit. You should see what its like in less developed european countries where you pay per mb/gb, some even with parking meter like contraptions for internet. It is all about the money. Basically what this rounds down to is websites (say columbus racing) aren't paying time warner or wow or whomever anything to let their content be delivered to their users. Well, CR makes money off ads, and the internet providers think they should get some of that money, so they want to charge an access charge to get to a number of websites. That's one of the underlying things behind all of this bullshit. Money. Greedy corporate fucks.

 

/drunkrant

[Casper]

One of the few instances I agree with government regulation. This is no different than cable or telephone.

[Patterson]

The problem is the govt will try to stop torrenting and other forms of shared media through the internet. Thats what its really about.

[unfunnyryan]

The problem is the govt will try to stop torrenting and other forms of shared media through the internet. Thats what its really about.

 

and the kids, they listen to the rap music, which gives them the brain damage.

[CRed05]

So, we want this to pass, right?

 

Absolutely.

[Tractor]

I'm surprised you guys want your internet limited "like cable". To me that's a terrible thing. this could be a first step to internet "packages" and pay per use sites.

 

Im totally against it as an internet user and as a small business owner. Oh well I'll just pass my costs on to clients.

[jeffro]

one step closer to commumerica

[CRed05]

I'm surprised you guys want your internet limited "like cable". To me that's a terrible thing. this could be a first step to internet "packages" and pay per use sites.

 

Im totally against it as an internet user and as a small business owner. Oh well I'll just pass my costs on to clients.

 

So you are for net neutrality also. In Google's words:

 

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

[CRed05]

one step closer to commumerica

 

No, one step closer to preventing companies like Time Warner and AT&T from telling you which website you can view, and at what speed.

[87GT]

No, one step closer to preventing companies like Time Warner and AT&T from telling you which website you can view, and at what speed.

 

Do not let this happen. They will fucking surcharge you to access redtube and youjizz. Internet is for free porn not an extra $10 a month

[TTQ B4U]

Sounds like a health care bill for the internet One side of me gets it and sees a need, the other sees the potential for costs to rise elsewhere within the system and we'll simply be fucked from a different direction.

[Exodus]

I wonder who the big company's are paying off in congress.

[Exodus]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/21/need-care-net-neutrality/

[CRed05]

I wonder who the big company's are paying off in congress.

 

 

"Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Five of the biggest telecom corporations in the country—Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218 million to Representatives and gave $23.7 million in campaign contributions from 2006–2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

 

"All 74 Congressional Democrats that signed the letter to the FCC have received an average of $50,000 from phone and cable corporations. Representative Gene Green, who pushed through the Democrat's letter, has received $111,199 from lobbying by the telecom industry.

 

The Representatives that spearheaded the Republicans' letter to the FCC, Cliff Stearns and Joe Barton, have already collectively received over $177,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T, and $66,000 from Comcast in the last year alone. The other Republican signatories have similar campaign donation figures."

http://www.nthword.com/issue7/Net_Neutrality_Preserving_Democracy_Abby_Martin.php

[Exodus]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/videos

[wnaplay1647545503]

"Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Five of the biggest telecom corporations in the country—Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218 million to Representatives and gave $23.7 million in campaign contributions from 2006–2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

 

"All 74 Congressional Democrats that signed the letter to the FCC have received an average of $50,000 from phone and cable corporations. Representative Gene Green, who pushed through the Democrat's letter, has received $111,199 from lobbying by the telecom industry.

 

The Representatives that spearheaded the Republicans' letter to the FCC, Cliff Stearns and Joe Barton, have already collectively received over $177,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T, and $66,000 from Comcast in the last year alone. The other Republican signatories have similar campaign donation figures."

http://www.nthword.com/issue7/Net_Neutrality_Preserving_Democracy_Abby_Martin.php

Oh the glory days of when politicians did the bidding of the people. At least they attempted to make it appear that way. Now they work for whoever is willing to contribute the most to them.

[Tractor]

I'll have to look at it when I get time. last time the issue came up under bush it was a very bad thing for end users. maybe its a different bill now.

[Trouble Maker]

So, we want this to pass, right?

 

We want net neutrality.... that bill is NOT net neutrality.

[Trouble Maker]

Sounds like a health care bill for the internet One side of me gets it and sees a need, the other sees the potential for costs to rise elsewhere within the system and we'll simply be fucked from a different direction.

 

Are you that much of a paranoid, 1 dimensional (politically) person who really thinks every government regulation will be a bad thing? We simply want things to stay the way they basically are right now.

[Guest 614Streets]

It means death to pandora and skys the limit for sirius xm