straightUp Loc: California

Your wouldn't know it by tuning into the mainstream news, but the FCC yesterday made a giant decision. They agreed to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Federal Communications Act. In other words, Internet access is now a public utility. This regulation is a huge victory for advocates of net neutrality. I expect a lot of people won't understand what this means other than the general understanding that another industry has just been put under government regulation. So before everyone reaches for their partisan pistols, let me just explain why it came to this.

The Internet Service Providers (companies that provide us with access to the Internet, such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast) have been developing methods to tier their services where premium services would be available for higher paying customers. Such service would include faster access. So, what's wrong with that? Well, let me state this a slightly different way. These tiered services were being developed on the basis of slowing down connections for standard customers to make more room for the premium customers on networks that are not otherwise improved.

I don't have a problem with anyone spending money on ways to improve their Internet connections through their own equipment or even by investing in technical research and development of better compression techniques. But I do have a problem when the money is spent on the privilege to cut in line.

This is what net neutrality means... It's another example of the push for equality... It's the demand that Internet Service Providers keep things simple and just focus on providing Internet access to everyone, no special treatment, no judging, no schemes for squeezing money out of people, just simple and honest... Internet access.

It's too bad it has to take the government to step in and insure things like net neutrality, but so far it appears to be the only way a democracy can extend the will of the people on a market that is tilted to the weight of the wealthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

JMHO Loc: Utah

Bullshit! Have you read the changes? One commissioner says it is worse than anyone can imagine, and just for your education...THE CHANGES HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC - NO ONE HAS READ THEM! So, you can read the B.S. from the NYT, and be gullible enough to swallow it, but I'll wait until the REAL documents are released to the public. Anytime the government gets involved, they will no doubt ruin it...just a matter of time. What it REALLY is, is the first step in reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine, where you libtards can not stand to hear the other side. Conservative radio and TV trounce liberal radio and TV, and you libtards just can't stand that...you have to jam your opinion down everyone's throat, whether they want to hear it or not. Censorship is coming, and that is all this is about...just another power grab by Obama, and less freedom for America. Also, higher taxes is another part of this...get ready, your cable bill is going up.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Remember JMHO he thinks he knows what's best for everyone. He'd make a good liberal politician.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

I didn't realize the net wasn't already neutral. I needed my government and mainstream media to convince me of it so new regulations could be implemented.

I've been using the internet for over 2 decades now and saw no indication it was anything but "neutral." But I'll bet I notice plenty of changes now. Saved by the FCC! The same agency that brought me 9 separate taxes on my phone bill that were never debated or approved by our elected representatives.

straightUp Loc: California

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A1.pdf
Read it, dumbass.

And there are no taxes involved. Not EVERYTHING the government does involves taxes... The government says you can't rape and murder your neighbor... there are no taxes affiliated with THAT rule anymore than there is with THIS one. You just have a Pavlov response to the word "regulation".

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

There are over 300 pages involved in this new regulation. I am sure straightupyours read and comprehended them all. I wonder if anything was added that has nothing to do with the net.

straightUp Loc: California

This regulation isn't designed to MAKE the Internet neutral... it's designed to KEEP it neutral in the face of new threats.

I've been logging on to the Internet since 1987. If you have been on the Internet for as long as you say, then you must have noticed changes in performance, like when AOL took over the CompuServ networks and performance dropped dramatically because all AOL did was flood the same old network with new users. (maybe that was before you came along)... The point is that these things happen, but they were usually followed up by improvements in network speeds and available bandwidth that made up for these short-term log-jams. But since the cellular boom, the bandwidth allocated to the Internet is getting filled to capacity. This a new situation that we haven't run into in the last 2 decades and the providers were indeed developing ways to prioritize the crowd based on the money they could pay. Maybe two decades of just being a user isn't enough to understand where things are heading.

JMHO Loc: Utah

I'll stick to my opinion, dumbass. It will be no good...you're blowing smoke just like all ignorant libtards do. And, there will be NEW taxes...remember you heard it here first.

straightUp Loc: California

When you turn into the rabid rantings of frothy-mouthed conservatives the number of pages in EVERY regulation is exaggerated. There are 187 pages in this regulation, half of which are taken up by footnotes. It's not a difficult read. And yes, I HAVE read *MOST* of it.

As far as I can tell, nothing else has been added... This is a regulation formulated and passed by a government agency to prevent internet service providers from blocking access or slowing access to the intenet. It is not a bill or a government conspiracy

:roll:

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You might be right. Heard this morning on Fox and CNN that over 300 pages were involved.

straightUp Loc: California

So first, you say no one read the regulation. Then I show you where it's posted for all to see and then you refuse to read it anyway, choosing instead to stick to your own general opinion about government regulation.

See... this is WHY you're a dumbass.

straightUp Loc: California

So much depends on perspective... The regulation itself is only 187 pages but the authority behind the regulation comes from the Federal Communication Act, which was passed in 1934. A rhetorician might include all the pages in THAT law along with the 187 pages in the regulation itself in his reported "size" of regulation... Just to note a common trick of political bullshit.

straightUp Loc: California

With regard to taxes... I have not seen any direct mention of taxes in the regulation nor do I see any provision that would suggest the need for additional taxes. There *is* however an argument that taxes will be applied to Internet services as a result of classifying it as a public utility regulated under Title II of the Federal Communications Act.

So, I'm not going to say this won't happen and if it does then of course the service providers will make the consumers pay for it, but even so, I think the escalation of cost to the consumer will be lower if such costs are driven by taxes than they would be if the providers were allowed to tier their services.

...that's if you want anything faster than a pigeon.

JMHO Loc: Utah

I'll wait until I get an analysis from some one I trust, instead of your biased left-wing opinion. I'm suspect of the doc you linked to because they're still saying that the FINAL regulations/version have not been released to the public yet. So, I'll wait...dumbass. You can crawl back under your rock now.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

Oh, new threats. I see. Well thank you for the explanation. I hope you are right and this regulation is as innocuous as you say.