Do we, the average consumer, even have a vote in this?

Somewhat.. This issue was quashed a couple years back, 2009 and late 2011 I think, but like everything else they continuously bring it back.

I wrote Murray and Cantwell and fortunately this is one of the few issues where they stand against telecoms.

I've been disappointed by the amount of "conservatives" that absolutely don't get it - "big gubbermint stay outta business" and all that. Completely missing the mark.

Yeah I am totally for Net Neutrality. I don't want Comcast and Time Warner deciding what parts of the internet I am allowed to surf. That's what it boils down to. The ISP's are strongarming the providers (Netflix, Amazon, Google) for cash to "prioritize" their places on the internet, otherwise they will slow down speeds and make it cumbersome for us to use what we've paid for. Normally it would be ok, because competition would find a solution, but most ISP's are monopolies. You don't really have a choice who provides your internet thanks to deals signed many years ago (and with the FCC's blessing). At least the government doesn't really have a horse in this race and they should be able to protect the little guy (consumers) in this big fight.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Careful there. You're sounding a little like John Kerry during the campaign


The answer is simple. If you aren't for net neutrality be prepared dig deeper into your wallet for net use. Those "big money" companies that buy the extra bandwidth will have to recoup it in some fashion. That means they'll be charging more for the goods and services they sell. In otherwords, Netflix will be able to pay more for super fast net access but there won't be any cheap memberships available.

On the other end, your favorite Forum will be delivering yesterday's posts today unless more bandwidth (if available) is purchased. You know that that means. No more free access to your favorites.

Not the Word Association thread . . . !

What cleaver businessperson does not practice price discrimination? Those who want something more will pay more for it.

Why this irrational fear of the big bad corporation? I more fear the faceless regulator---who cannot be ignored or controlled---than some scary ISP. If you don't like your provider, change your provider.

Again, I ask, why are you gun owners so willing to trust DC with new powers? Don't you know of efforts by the FDIC to pressure banks to drop gun retailers as customers, because they are 'high risk businesses'? Topical article today in the WSJ.

The amount of Kool Aid consumed on this issue is surprising, given the nature of the forum.

An inflammatory way to phrase this, no doubt.

I don't know any 2A supporters who are willing to trust DC with new powers... Not a one.

I see a lot of opportunity to influence thought here... I recommend that you don't waste it by trying to indicate folks who think differently than you are drinking Kool Aid.

How many choices of ISP do you have in your town? How many does the average person have in his town? There's no competition available in most areas for internet service, which means if Comcast wants to mess with you, you either take it or go without. There's no trading in a Ford for a Chevy here.

Unless you live way out in the boonies you usually have several choices of ISP provider. Yes, Comcast seems to be just like dog crap, being everywhere, but where I live I can ignore them. I have FIOS service but also have the choice of Satellite or WiFi like Clearwire. If you're like my Son you don't deal with any of the above, just use your 4-G phone for internet access. Want a bigger picture, get a 10" tablet or use bluetooth to send it to your flat-screen.

most people have this issue backwards.

the "new power" you're discussing is the FCC allowing ISPs to break down the internet into a tiered pricing system that treats sites that pay more with higher bandwidth. this goes against the very design intent of the internet.

"net neutrality" is about preventing that rule change from being made by the FCC.

Satellite and 4G are limited in Bandwidth. Nothing like watching a couple Youtube videos and using up your allotted amount for the month. Sure you could buy more, but it would be cost prohibitive to get the same amount provided by a cable or phone provider.

I guess you could argue that you could use the internet connection at Starbucks too, but that really isn't practical either, is it?

If Comcast saw these other ISP's as real competition, why would Netflix and Google even need to worry about pushing for NN?

There are a hell of a lot of people moving thier yaps, and not knowing shit about this issue.

This is not about pricing structure to you. This is about content pricing structures.

Peering provider A classifies website B as unsavory. They rule that content from website B should have to pay a fee to provide its content at the same speed as website c.

The problem is not about your end. The fucking Internet isnt a magical fairy land that magically beams content from A to B.

The internet should be an equal field for everyone that wants to use it. It is a service, it is a basic need, regardless of what you may think. The Internet is something that everyone needs to be productive in this age.

Your grandpappy said the same shit about that magic voice box. And his pappy botched about the beep stick.

Now would someone like to tell me how I am wrong and don't know what I am talking about? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I am getting flashbacks of when I have to explain to people why the second amendment has nothing to do with muskets or hunting. Same blank look.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Your point is well taken; challenge accepted.

Perhaps it would be best to go back to the beginning. Somebody more capable than I could have a poll and ask: "What does Net Neutrality mean to you?" The 4 or 5 answers could range from '...gives FCC power to mandate uniform pricing structure to all web users...' to '....prohibits price discrimination....' or something like that. The OP asked "should we be for or against net neutrality" and then the discussion went deeply into the weeds.

There was an early response quoting Wikipedia's definition of net neutrality. Personally, I found this objectionable, because Wikipedia itself flagged this definition as potentially unreliable. Perhaps somebody else would care to write up some bullet points as to why forum members should be for net neutrality? PMB raises a valid point: There is a grand opportunity here to influence opinions.

Ill give a wordy explanation of what it is in the morning.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk