Replies

This article does little to enlighten us on the subject.

Net Neutrality essentially tells broadband providers that they must let all traffic cross their network at the same speed without discriminating against any particular content. I don’t think that is the same thing as the government controlling content.

If the Obama administration is planning to regulate the internet in a way that it controls content, that is a different matter and is not net neutrality.

Verizon (for example) had a monopoly on local phone service and vastly overcharged for it. Their cash cow is getting killed by independent VOIP providers. There is nothing that Verizon would like more than to provide faster more reliable VOIP and overcharge for it and throttle other VOIP traffic.

It would be like having a car company privately build all the local roads in your area and allowing only their own cars to use the regular lanes and go up to full speed. Other makes and models would need to drive on the shoulder.

For things like local utilities where it isn’t financially feasible to have multiple companies lay wire (especially in rural areas), government regulation demanding neutrality is important.

If the Obama administration is planned to suppress voices on the internet (which wouldn’t surprise me), this article did little to document that and it is a separate issue from net neutrality.

Their cash cow is getting killed by independent VOIP providers. There is nothing that Verizon would like more than to provide faster more reliable VOIP and overcharge for it and throttle other VOIP traffic.

Are they doing this? Is ANYONE doing this? Why are we 'solving' a problem before it's become a problem?

Let's stop beating around the bush here. What people really want here and why they support this crap is because they want their p2p file sharing to be as fast as possible.

In actuality, what will happen here is the same with all government regulations. Unintended consequences. This time, they will be diminished levels of service for everyone across the board and higher costs for that service.

Why the hell anyone would advocate for this claptrap is beyond me.

There has been a lot of disagreement on this site over net neutrality. The original idea is much as you say and, though a mixed bag, might be more good than bad.

BUT these days there is a lot of mistrust and deservedly so. Any kind of sweeping change proposed by this administration I'm going to be against by default.

Finally, today, we have the actual draft NPRM that is before the commission.