The internet providers think mostly it's about the government getting control of access and content by regulating it. A foot in the door....

Basically, it keeps the providers from regulating traffic on their infrastructure. That's a good thing.....some (like Comcast) will "throttle" their traffic at will and others (remember the tier 1 wars of a year or 2 ago) will shut down traffic to competitors.

The biggest drawback is it would put a roadblock in front of any kind of "innovation" in terms of packet handling. Any development would have to be done within a "closed" system and then I imagine the government would have to get involved to approve it's public use.

Edit: my personal opinion is that it's not necessary at this point in time. Getting the government involved in anything is asking for problems. While there have been abuses, the public outcry has shown the offenders that people do pay attention to the service they get. Normal business competition will force the providers to maintian traffic or another provider will step in and take their market share.

Net neutrality -- the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers.

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

At the base of the opposing view is the desire to gain financially or establish a monopoly. Say you wish to connect up to me, and the two of us have two different, competing ISP's. Yours could charge you a fee, and me and my ISP could do the same (worst case) sort of like cell phones. They could also charge extra fees for using whatever web app/cloud computing and forbid you to use this app or another without buying a "higher" user level.

Also, one ISP could create "web scarcity" by saying higher level users were demanding more bandwidth and you couldn't hook up to me because "the lines are busy".

Imagine if you had to pay different prices for gas/oil depending on the brand of car you drove and which station you stopped at to refuel. The abuse would be impossible to regulate and enforce.

This could even get to the legal level of "Restraint of Free Trade" and "Restraint of Free Speech".

The Chairman of the FCC has come down very firmly on the side of web neutrality, and that protection is critical, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the explanations. Makes sense now. However, I find myself at a loss as to which side to be on. On the one hand I agree that ISP's should not be abusing and taking advantage of this to make more money by forcing people to upgrade in order to enjoy something they believe they can profit from. On the other hand having the Gov't regulate this is not that much different. The Gov't has a very poor track record of doing things the right way and they also tend to stretch their reach way too far once given a taste of control.

So on one side we have those who provide the service who might take advantage of their control to force us to pay more or restrict us at their liesure for profit reasons and on the other hand we have the Gov't who tends to over do that which they tend to want to protect us from but instead it turns into a power grab and an excuse to take away more things from us.

I think I would me more towards no net neutrality since we Internet users are more likely to get ISP providers to do more of what we want (or lose a client) as oppose to the Gov't who does not usually care what we want and will force us to do what they want (since we can't get rid of them, even with votes).

And limit what you can say and do. Would you agree to have someone going through your emails, etc.? Who owns your machine? You? The ISP? Who are they to dictate what you can say and to whom?

Sure. You can influence the Insurance Companies the same way. That's why you're afraid to get ill, and why you can influence what they pay for and to whom. Are you kidding? And about the Government? The only people who influence them are the same ones who own The "Federal" Reserve. You want to limit or influence what the government does? Then make all contributions into one pooled account, and from that, fund the candidates. No private and no corporate contributions. No side deals. No smoky rooms. Full and total transparency [wish someone would start with my computer].

In truth? They'd do anything they want and you would be left in a vacuum. Are you going to organize a revolt against any of the economic tyrants which rule our everyday lives? I think not. And, once they control the communications, how could you? By carrier pigeon?

In reality, you'd better demand net neutrality and the dream that you have any voice or power over them, won't ever demand actual action.

You basically described the Gov't as well. They too look at peoples emails and they too like to dictate what we can say and to who. The truth is there is very little difference between the 2 except the ISP's have something to lose, profits. Gov't on the other hand does not lose profits because we can't drop them for another gov't unless we vote for a new guy every 4 years which in reality does not really make a big difference.

Comparing Insurance companies to ISP's is like comparing them to car insurance companies. It's just not the same. When it comes to ISP, we have choices, we have competition and they have a lot to lose because it's just internet, something we don't necessarily need to survive. Insurance however does not always give you choices, especially when its provided by your company. And medical attention is not something you can say "nah, I don't need it". Auto insurance is only necessary if you have a vehicle. There are plenty of choices and you only use them when you get into an accident.

The problem is we accept this and do nothing about it. Organize a revolt? There are ways to get things done without resorting to extremes as first actions. If you want to sit back and do nothing that's fine, there are plenty of ways to get things done. As for controlling communication, if thinsg get to that point, then we have failed as people and we deserve such a punishment. Either we believe the US stands for freedom and Liberty or we might as well turn into a dictatorshor or communist country and get it over with. This slow and obvious transition of losing everything this country was built on has to end, unless it's what people really want.

You may see it as a dream, I would rather see it as a posibility. Once you accept it's impossible, you have already been defeated. I was raised to look for solutions not accept the inevitable.

Sorry Doc but I completely disagree......I understand as a Democrat you can't concieve of anyone who doesn't understand how right you are......seems that having differing opinions nowadays is "undemocratic and unamerican"

I have excellent health insurance as do all my employees.....the only reason I'm afraid to get sick is I prefer to be healthy. The 15% of the population without health insurance is not a good enough reason for me to turn my plan or my employees plans over to the government. I sure as hell don't want to be taxed to pay for free health care for illegal aliens. What's wrong with going back to the days when people actually paid for the services they recieved? Could you please point me to a list of the thousands upon thousands of people dying from lack of medical care in this country........

If I end up with a "cadillac tax" then I'll eliminate all employee health benefits and they will have to get by with the government's basic health care plans. I'd advise you to visit any governement run institution in this country.......see how well they do handling money and emergency issues. I prefer tort reform and insurance oversight like we have in Florida.

Wouldn't they be the same government you wish to put in charge of people's health care.......and regulate the internet.

This really shows the inability to accept that others may believe something different......In WHOSE reality...why YOURS of course because YOU'RE right and anyone who believes different is wrong.

Isn't that EXACTLY what we were promised by the current administration.......everything posted online and on CSPAN......right

That's OK.

Let's keep to facts. Leave off the Democrat/Republican stuff. I can certainly conceive of that situation, as it has happened before.

Actually? Started under Nixon (remember the "Enemies" list?) and evolved to it's current nadir under the prior administration ("if you're not with us, you're against us" = Enemy of the USA/Democracy).

Actually? I've seen the Insurance Co. abuses up close, and when I worked for one Co. was asked to find ways to slip out of non-specific contracts and find ways to abrogate my oath as an MD. I sincerely hope none of the all to frequent denials and abuses happens to you....just because you didn't tell them of the hugely significan case of acne you had 30 years ago and which bears no relation at all to your current problem. [which I sincerely hope you don't have any of].

How in the world could I be expected to list them? You can't be serious. I do not wish to be taxed to pay for illegal anyone, either. I believe anyone here illegally should be sent back...and their offspring as well. Since when are the results of an illegal act rewarded? Seems to me that violates the RICO statute. Too bad the big corporations want their cheap labor, though. It'll therefore never happen.

So you'll pay the 'tax' with spiraling insurance costs. Care to give a rough idea of how much they've gone up in the past 5-10 years?

No, they'd be the heads of the major banks (losthorizons.com)...read about the Fed and income tax. You'll profit by it, I promise.

Nope. An individual like Chuck, me or you has no voice in what goes on. I don't want to be forced to pay more to agree with whatever someone else feels is correct. I don't wish to be censored. If you do, that's your personal desire. Please don't project it onto me. And reality is that power breeds abuse and absolute power breeds abuse absolutely.

Our politics are our own. Communications belongs to everyone and if you think that a multi-billion dollar corporation is going to flinch if you take your subscription somewhere else, you're deluded. I don't want them to carve up the public into their personal fiefdoms to charge however they wish simply because they have local monopolies.

I can't understand why you'd allow them to have that kind of power over you. That's what I can't understand.

After reading the following article on gizmodo.com I find myself understanding why net neutrality may be necessary. I still have issues with the Gov't possible abuing this in a way that those they are trying to protect might end up screwed either way.

http://gizmodo.com/5387619/fcc-were-going-to-make-net-neutrality-the-law

We will definitely need something in the middle here.Both sides need to be contorlled not just one or the other.

That is why i usually respond with "in my opinion", "I think" or "I believe". That way I don't come off as if my way is the only way. To each his own. I don't like Gov't interference in everything but I don't like companies who abuse the lack of restrictions either. Someone has to be the good guy here, it sucks when our only options are "Bad" and "Bad".

I have to believe the average American is smart enough to know what transparency means and how this current Administration is anything but transparent. Still, people want to believe this is just training and that sooner or later things will really be as it was promised. Let's hope they are right since right now we have no choice.

Oh yes: In no way do I trust the government either. I trust myself to keep an eye on them and cry foul when they act incorrectly and expect you as a citizen to do the same.

Whether I'm a Democrat or not is immaterial, and only being used to polarize.

What's wrong with these proposed rules?

[from ChuckCS link]

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

 What's wrong with these rules, Lantec?

*edit:

And any administration has been? Really?

and I've paid a neurologist $1300 for an hour consultation.....not really sure where the abuses stop.

let's not take things out of context....this quote was specifically aimed at foriegn powers...

When the speaker of the house calls you unamerican for speaking your mind in a public forum, then there's problems.

When the head of Homeland Security labels returning war Veterans as high risk enemies of the state, then there's problems.

Here again I wholeheartedly disagree. In this republic your vote does count and your dollar is an economic vote.

Aren't they the same group Wesley Snipes was involved with.....worked out well for him....

But you would make them responsible for running the nations health care system.........

The only drawback (as I said earlier) is innovation. If you have an innovative product BUT have to disclose it to the world, how do you protect your intellectual rights. This will have the same effect as DOT standards have had on our road system. We are capable of building roads that will last a thousand years, but since the government has set the standard (very frickin low) that's what gets built and now our infrastructure is piss poor and requires an investment well beyond the trillions health care will cost.

My previous opinion point was that I don't think it's necessary now.........how much harm have you personally suffered from the current state of internet affairs?

That's outrageous! I have never heard of anyone charging such a fee. Glad you had insurance. Wonder what would have happened if you hadn't. Also doesn't speak to all the times a bill wasn't paid because of lack of insurance or some other reason....maybe got tacked onto your bill.

That mentality pervaded that administration. How about wiretapping Marines/soldiers serving in Iraq (a real threat that was) without warrants (even though they could have been obtained easily).?

Are you referring to that S.C. nutjob's outburst during the President's address? Yeah, it was an unamerican thing to do because it was rude and displayed a total lack of self control, and he was basically trolling, and failed.

The returning soldiers were described as being a group that had a higher risk of joining militias...partly because of the damage done to them in that phony war. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the focus points which were lost from sight because of the Iraq diversion.

I don't see the problem in regulations/rules being made and enforced if they conform to legal principles and are equally enforced.

I don't think we should be in the position of having to play 'catch up' for failures in vigilance (9/11, current economic mess): Being pro-active in those situations would have prevented a whole lot of pain... and could here as well.

Think of this as the "fairness doctrine" of the internet.  As with most things, keep government out of it.

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/64283-fcc-begins-net-neutrality-rulemaking-process

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33718

Don't worry Chuck, I'm sure Obama will apoint an Internet Czar if he hasn't done so already.