This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

Then I suppose you'll find the FCC chairman's video hilarious...

Note: yes, this really IS the FCC Chairman.

I really do not understand why are some people literally begging for net neutrality assassination. It is step to higher prices, bad service and factual censorship.

Internet should be as neutral as water pipe or electric line is. ISP have no business in ways you are using electricity, water or data.

Fight against net neutrality is lead by old telecom monsters because they are not able to compete with local companies and community networks in last mile delivery. So they are trying to choke the flow where they still have some control.

We are very lucky that internet was from start geek thing and traditional telecoms were too late to suffocate market from the very beginning - the core of CZ internet was born outside of telecom and/or government. And it is still quite independent, with high reliability and low prices.

In fact it is PR disaster for any ISP to challenge net neutrality.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I’ll answer it for you Trucker. The ISPs purposely divide territory between them so that there is no overlap, meaning no competition. In addition, taxpayers spent over 400 billion to pay for the infrastructure they use to maintain their monopolies. It would be nearly impossible for a start-up to compete.

In fact, since these ISPs are starting to own their own streaming services, they can use the fact they own the pipelines to legally shut off access to or throttle other streaming services unless both the customer and the provider pay a fee. This chastises the competition.

What if electric companies not only charged someone for the electricity they used at a going rate, but shut the electric supply off to various appliances in the house such as washing machines, televisions, or computers unless the customer paid an additional fee per appliance on top of the electric bill and the company that owned the appliance paid a fee as well. Not only that, each company would have to pay a fee to every different electric company to ensure that all customers could use their appliance.

If a new company comes along that invents something like a new kind of coffee maker, for example, they would not be able to afford the fees the multiple electric companies would require to allow customers to use their product and would go out of business before they even got started.

What if the electric company also owned a brand of coffee maker? They could legally shut down electricity access to all other coffee makers.

In addition to this, what if the electric companies offered a shoddy, unreliable “standard” electric package at the normal price and did allow all appliances to connect, but there were periodic outages and sometimes not even enough electricity to run everything in the household.

You would have to pay a subscription fee for every appliance you owned in order to use each and every one.

Some people might not even be able to afford to pay the monthly subscription fee for a computer, television, and fridge on top of their power bill.

Is this beneficial to humanity? Shouldn’t the customer get what he or she paid for (their electricity) without having to pay twice?

To make this scenario more realistic, what if the very taxpayers that are being screwed over are the ones who paid for the power plants those electric companies use to provide power?

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

And let's not forget that the ISPs have already recouped any investment in "infrastructure" many, many times over. The people of the USA initially paid for the original infrastructure anyway.

a reply to: darkbake

My hope is that either there are already sentient AI's lurking on the internet, or that the internet itself is slowly becoming self-aware as it becomes more and more complex.

If either two of those are a reality, perhaps we might see some "strangeness" once the world's leading superpower tries to slap cuffs on the internet. . .

I'm guessing all of the "forcing" and "required" sentiment would completely rule out unification in a boycott or something similar?

I understand that almost the entire network has been in part subsidized by tax payers. I understand that internet is literally a way of life.

What I don't understand is how you choose between incompetent government vs large companies.


"Necessity is the mother of invention."

a reply to: Ameilia

Do you have a source for Obama's Net Neutrality rules being in place before they were put in place by the Obama administration?

Obama did not invent or create net neutrality . net neutrality principles existed in the Internet since its inception.

What started all this was verizon suing to overturn net neutrality principles.


What the GOP did was smear net neutrality by associating it with Obama.

What the obama administration did was reclassify the Internet in order to preserve net neutrality principles after VERIZON sued to kill net neutrality principles .

Obama nor the FCC did that reclassification out of the good of their hearts , they did it because they were lobbied by the Online Oligarch (google,facebook,amazon,netflix)

The Online Oligarch (google,facebook,amazon,netflix) also didn't ask to reclassify out of the good of their hearts , they did it because out of the need to survive. At that time had net neutrality principles had been killed google,facebook,amazon,netflix would have been at the mercy of the ISP.

Now however the Online Oligarch (google,facebook,amazon,netflix) didn't put up much of a fight which indicates there may have been some deals swung around that no longer protects the consumers.

What I don't understand is why Apple, Microsoft, Google ect haven't just dumped more money into lobbying to KEEP Net Neutrality than the people lobbying to remove it?

I mean, I've seen the numbers on how much the big ISPs are donating and giving to the politicans to support this...It's not like these big companies couldn't afford to pay even more to protect Net Neutrality.

I mean, they claim to support it...

Hell, a billionaire alone could basically "buy" Net Neutrality by donating more to the same politicians, and then could make the claim they alone "saved" the internet.

If I had tens of billions of dollars, I'd buy Net Neutrality for everyone. Merry Christmas and all that. I don't understand the insanely wealthy. They never do anything "cool" or "fun" with their money. Well, we do have Elon Musk, but I think he's a time traveler or something and didn't bring enough money back in time with him.

a reply to: Kettu

So what do Apple, M$, Google, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner all have in common. I believe that is where the answer lies.

a reply to: JinMI

What I don't understand is how you choose between incompetent government vs large companies.

Thats the thing there is no difference.

The gov't works for the large companies.

The only reason the gov't is inefficient in certain things and recklessly spends money is because of laws that were drafted by the lobbyist , who just so happens to benefit from that inefficiency and reckless spending.

Due you think Obama,Pelosi and the rest of the clan actually sat down and created Obamacare? Or do you think the lobbyist with their dream team of lawyers were the ones that drafted those regulations and our politicians just robosigned it?

Remember Pelosi wasn't lying when she said you must pass the law to understand it .

a reply to: interupt42

At least with the government, the people can vote and have some kind of say.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I should mention that some companies are trying to use a fleet of low orbiting satellites to provide high-speed internet access, but there is by no means a 100% chance of success and it is still an idea for the future. This model would, however, provide real competition to the current ISPs and their monopolized landlines, although I’m sure the ISPs would find some way to shut it down if they could.

a reply to: interupt42

Thats the thing there is no difference.

I completely get what your saying. Just to be crystal clear, I absolutely despise the cable industry as well.

However, there is a difference. One has the means and abilities to write laws, enforce as well as apply fines. They also have that whole court thing as well.

Kind of the crux, or perhaps even the silver lining that I'm getting at is, with corporations, we still have a choice. We can still turn it off. We can still amass to boycott/protest.

I feel the same way about government controlled anything. Roads are nice, they help. Military is great...could use some funding cuts IMO.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

And let's not forget that the ISPs have already recouped any investment in "infrastructure" many, many times over. The people of the USA initially paid for the original infrastructure anyway.

And still they have bad service. USA is muddy market because of all those "security" restrictions and endless corruption on government/parliament level.

BTW it would be much easier for NSA to snoop on few unlimited lines while unwashed masses have access only to few cashing servers in nearby datahouse.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: interupt42

At least with the government, the people can vote and have some kind of say.

So when did you get to vote on this?

a reply to: Kettu

What I don't understand is why Apple, Microsoft, Google ect haven't just dumped more money into lobbying to KEEP Net Neutrality than the people lobbying to remove it?

because it can also significantly benefit them.

the ISP couldn't pass net neutrality because the tech sector was beating them up and countering their spending.

What appears to have happened with the lack of support from the big Tech companies this time around leads me to think an arrangement between the Tech sector and the ISP has been reached.

In other words a new super Oligarch has been created. The ISP wont block any of the EXISTING big tech players such as Amazon,netflix,facebook,google etc but everyone else is fair game.

This benefits the existing tech Oligarch and the ISP oligarch , only the consumer and innovation will be sacrificed.

a reply to: JinMI

That's why we vote for people to represent us. Apparently people have elected to send folks to DC who are OK appointing FCC people who are in bed with the ISPs.

If the people we elect are corrupt, it's our job to not vote for them and replace them with other people.

a reply to: JinMI

I disagree about having a choice when it comes to ISPs. Much of America is covered by only two or less ISPs. The internet is like another industrial revolution. To turn it off would be like turning off your electricity and expecting to compete on an even playing field with everyone else in the community.

a reply to: Kettu

So now we're to the point of running to the gov't to save us from the big bad corps? Do you see how this circle perpetuates into infinity?

a reply to: interupt42

The internet will find a way. I think a "new" internet, most likely wireless will be created and replace the current existing one we all now are using.

Just like with P2P file sharing programs and protocols, people always innovate when there's a reason to.