Net Neutrality under attack by AT&T

If they wanted to charge strictly for bandwidth usage, that would be one thing. What we're talking about here is charging for specific content. For instance, maybe Comcast, who owns NBC, likes Hulu, since it's partially owned by NBC. So they decide that their customers can stream Hulu for free, but must pay extra to stream Netflix. Or, worse yet, they slow down Netflix traffic so you can only see it in SD, or just block it altogether. That isn't a resources issue, it's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag company issue. And that would be fine, if everyone had multiple choices for physical broadband connections. But most people have two, at the most. Many only have one. So when that one, or those two, ISPs decide to operate this way (and not just with streaming video), the vast majority of the country winds up getting screwed.

 

I'm already paying to use those resources. Why should I be charged more than I currently am for the same product? Why should the cable company be able to charge me more based on whose product I'm using over the world wide web? They are a portal to the net not the owners of the internet. They should not be able to charge me more for using the services of others.

 

laws bought and paid for by the rich ISP's, the same ones that are paying to kill Net Neutrality

 

do you support a millage tax for our roads too?

 

Every corporation and union, at GM, Toyota, McDonalds, Microsoft, wherever, wants to suck more money up. That's their job.

The only way that affects us negatively is if the government grants a monopoly to a company or subsidizes it with our tax dollars. No?

 

Its called a gas tax and registration fees. The concept is that the more you drive (use the roads), the more gas you buy, and the more tax you pay - the tax is roughly proportional to each persons use of the roads. The same for vehicle registration fees, the heavier the vehicle or the more axles, the more it wears the road, and the higher the registration fee.

 

Just another way for progressive to attack and close down small businesses. Progressives love and pandering to global corporations for donations at the cost of the middle class. This war on the middle class and small businesses the progressive are waging is non stop.
More taxes the progressive corps can afford to pay while small businesses can't in a mileage tax. Beside more records of your exact locations.
Soon we will see an Obamanet tax. Another attempt by progressives to end small businesses

 

We will see more than just an obamanet tax. Imagine the web site for a Tea Party candidate mysteriously going down or running so slow its worthless, or the credit card portal for contributions not working. Picture everyone on the donor list getting their internet throttled back, or dropping out intermittently, or their email account canceled. Or the districts of "progressive" politicians getting their internet speed throttled up or prioritized while conservative districts get throttled down or poorly prioritized.

Imagine what a political party that has absolutely no qualms about breaking the law could do if they controlled the internet.

 

Republicans are progressives now? They are the ones that are pandering currently to the big corporations as far as net neutrality goes.

 

I think it's funny people are begging for the Feds to regulate the Internet over a situation that hasn't actually happened. Why do we need government intervention to keep something the way it already is?

 

This has nothing about "defending billion dollar corporations trying to suck more money out of everyone." Pricing and resource allocation is not (or should not be) part of the debate. An ISP does not need to be looking at the content of connections for shaping traffic and allocating resources. They can see who is consuming the most resources without opening packets.

Net neutrality is for making sure that an ISP does not discriminate based on the content of the connections. It is to keep actions such as Verizon preventing religious groups from sending pro-life texts. It is to keep the ISPs from extorting additional fees from those who produce a successful web business.

What you describe is allowable in the status quo. For example, Comcast and MSNBC are owned by the same company. Comcast can choose to give priority over content from MSNBC and to throttle all content coming from Fox and other conservative sites (or demand a fee to allow access). The reason it has not been a problem before now is because there are a number of agreements between ISPs. Some ISPs, like AT&T, want out of those agreements and to extort additional fees on those who produced a successful web business.

 

It isn't any difference when you are a mega corporation with numerous bought and paid for politicians in both parties on speed dial. They don't care what the consumers wants/needs are, since it is all about what they deserve.

 

I do not pay a monthly fee to use the roads, if internet was free except for a use tax that would be different, I do not want to be tax based on internet use

I like our current system and support net neutrality to keep it that way

 

If you live in a neighborhood near where they just put in a golf course, would it be OK for the water company to triple your rates so the golf course can pay less?

 

Don't forget, they can add the need to get a license with yearly fees and approvals just to put a website on the internet as well as regulation of content. AND the need to allow others to post to said website (media matters & think progress comes to mind) with opposing viewpoints. It's just a very bad idea.

 

Don't forget under whose administration this attempt to hijack the internet has been staged.

 

I read the article... seems like the writer doesn't know what net neutrality means... The article talks about usage amounts, not filtering individual traffic. I am a net neutrality supporter, but I have no problem with usage limits. I buy a 30GB plan from ATT. If I go over, I pay more, that is fine. That is completely different than AT&T then going to Netfilx and saying pay me a fee if you want your content available to our customers.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know what Net neutrality is? It is the exact opposite of hijacking the Internet. It is preventing the Internet from being hijacked.

 

Do you know what Net Neutrality is? Seriously? It is the exact opposite of hijacking the Internet. It is preventing the Internet from being hijacked.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no idea what you are talking about... what you describe is what net neutrality prevents.

 

Reading this thread just shows a degree of ignorance that is stunning... So many that have absolutely no idea what net neutrality is, yet are adamant against it because of Obama.. I swear, if Obama supported a law that banned abortions and gay marriage, the right would suddenly love abortions and gay marriage.

 

Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. It will cost you more and limit what your providers can even provide for you. Government control of the net? Really?

 

First, those companies invested money and time into building the internet infrastructure, those cables, transmitters, routers, satellites, and people that maintain and install them are provided by those companies. The internet did not just spring up out of thin air. And the "internet" is not a "right", its a product and a service and subject to all the economic principles of any business. Those companies signed contracts, you signed contracts, and now you and others don't like what you voluntarily agreed to.

Its not extortion, either. That's just hyperbole.

Essentially what you want to do is nationalize the internet.

I have options when Comcast infringes on free speech, particularly political speech. Comcast cannot decide to throttle back on all Tea Party web sites, that would be highly illegal.

I have no options when the govt infringes on free speech, for example by using the IRS to target Tea Party related organizations.

 

You pay the fee every time you buy gas, or register your car/truck, or buy a bus pass, or take a taxi. The cost of every item shipped by truck has the "tax" built in. Its built into the system so its not an obviously apparent tax. But its there, and you pay it.

And why don't you want to pay a fee based on your internet use? Do you pay a flat monthly fee for electricity, or water, or the food you eat, no matter how much (or little) you actually use? Bandwidth is not infinite, it is a zero sum game, the more you use the less there is for someone else.

Bandwidth is a commodity that companies provide - companies that paid to run the cables and towers, put up the satellites, bought the buildings that house the routers, transmitters, servers, power supplies, air conditioner - all of which they bought. They hire and pay the people that maintain the system.

 

And on a separate note, why do you support net neutrality? You - in fact nobody outside a select area of the govt - knows what is in that 300+ page document. A draft was released early last year, but that was a 99 page draft. What is on those extra 200+ pages of the current regulation?

The 2 Republican appointed commission members oppose the current regulation, they say its drastically different from the 99 page draft released last year. They have asked the FCC Chairman to release the current version - he has refused. Why? There was no problem releasing the 99 page version last year, suddenly the final version has to be a secret?

Are we going to have to "pass it to see whats in it"? How has that worked out?

Why do you trust this government (both Republican and Democrat) to regulate the internet? They openly flout the law, they are brazen in their corruption, they clearly represent interests other than "the people", yet you trust them to regulate the most powerful and empowering communication and information highway the world has ever known?

 

Hardly. Release the whole document then......

Wheeler has refused to release the 332-page plan he wants the commission to approve on Thursday, citing FCC tradition as the reason.

Sorry, we have already been down this road with Obama Care. Release the plan or the bill should fail. You might put blind faith in bad Government, I don't.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan

 

I do not support the cable companies slowing my traffic down below speeds I pay for, thus I support net neutrality

- - - Updated - - -

I too would prefer him to release it, just to verify no politician trying to sneak something in that is not net neutrality related

we should all support net neutrality, but if they try to sneak something in, we slap them down and say nope, try again

kinda like when the media companies were trying to get their stuff added to the patriot act so they could bypass the law to go after people downloading media, that took balls to try to pull that stunt

they did not just try this under bush either

"Proving once again that terrorism is often a red herring, the White House is rewriting copyright law so they can tackle streamers as if they were committing treason."

http://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-wants-new-copyright-law-crackdown/


.