This is the essence, w/o the paranoia just tell me what's wrong with:

[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.

And someone has to monitor that. Like it or not, that falls to the FCC.

Once one ISP charges a sliding rate for service then they all will. I guess then one can be just NOT on the internet anymore.

what's happening now is that the government is attempting to pull us out of a hole that was created by irresponsible capitalism. you know, the market meltdown, the current recession, 10% unemployment, etc. Which I might add is essentially because there was no government oversight. with stiff oversight looming businesses are looking for inventive ways to take what little money we have left by charging you extra to insure non-interrupted internet/download services. Our condition was inherited by the current administration, they did not create it.

Finally! Thank you gmc2. This is what I was saying also, however you summarized it all far better while I allowed myself to be sidetracked.

DrJBHL -

Sounds fair enough, right?  But it all depends on what's 'reasonable' & 'lawful,' doesn't it?

Edit:  Sounds like from #33 that you get it.

I believe The Constitution has that covered, Daiwa. I don't want a political discussion...only preventing some big assed corporation that values money more that individual freedom starts limiting it.

Amen Gmc2!

I used to believe The Constitution had our backs.  Not so certain anymore.

@DrJBHL...... You have a crazy amount of karma man. lol. Just sayin'. Totally off topic. And also, there's just too much political banter here. I rather bitch about the stupid Yankees winning Again.

You all blame capitalism for this mess and i have to disagree... we can agree on some regulation, but we limit it to some.... the free market is not the criminal here.

your right, it wasn't inherited by the Bush administration, you can blame all this of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd... and the beloved Clinton adminstration... click here.  The Bush adminstration made efforts to tighten regulation but the Democratic Congress stopped it click here click here...

but now were getting off track... Net neutrality is not good in the short run, whose to say down the road it maybe necessary, but as for now, leave it alone.

1. I happen to be the temporary holder of the title "Karma Whore" invented by Po' (I think) and inherited by the former KW, Zubaz himself. I've been trying to wheedle SD into a trade off for Pizza and beer but someone pointed out that a *certain* Mod (who shall remain nameless HG_E) is The Pizza Vulture and the pizza would never get here. The beer would disappear at SD (only because Jafo is in Oz).

2. You're absolutely correct. The topic is Net Neutrality which I could not be more in favor of.

3. Start with me about the Yankees? Are you sure you want to do that, pj? Really sure?

@The_Goo: I maintain that like "a stitch in time saves nine" regulation should have been in place and that includes all the aforementioned pols (yeech)(sorry about the obscenity).

I believe (having lived 62 yrs. on this mudball) that corporations operate to maximize profit and centralize power. Regulation will stop them and hold them accountable if enforced. Being an MD I also like Preventive Medicine. It beats being awakened at 2-3 a.m. for something that could have been averted. Therefore, since no one should have an objection to the principles listed by me above, and since they're being enacted, the rest is moot.

I also agree that capitalism is not at fault here. Greed and human nature are. So let's head it off this time before we can't.

Goo, I'm with Doc on this, "irresponsible capitalism (greed)", as I stated, is a problem that impacts all of us. I concur with your time line and diss Greedspawn for advising previous presidents that the markets could regulate themselves.

I agree...in theory markets can regulate themselves. This is predicated upon honesty and transparency along with the competence of the people in that market. In practice, what we have is real people with real motives that need regulation to protect the liberties and savings/investments of the individual.

When the theory and practice are so far removed... worlds apart, regulation is essential... otherwise the gap between the haves and the have nots becomes an insurmountable chasm.  And when the have nots have nothing left to take, the capitalists simply move on and abandon them.

In truth/reality, markets regulating themselves is a fucking joke...

There is a tendency to equate capitalism with greed.  This is untrue, despite Newsweek and Paul Krugman.  Greed exists no matter the economic system.  In a capitalist meritocracy the demarcation between 'enlightened self-interest' and 'greed' is both a value judgement and highly subjective.  Through a few hundred years our society has largely worked out where that demarcation lies and formulated laws & regulations consistent with it.  We are now in the process of deciding whether to transition to a socialist aristocracy, in which greed will be much more arbitrary and oppressive and in which the difference between enlightened self-interest and greed becomes less and less meaningful.

There will always be victims of greed.  I'd rather be a victim of capitalist greed, which has many beneficiaries and few victims, than socialist greed, which has many victims and limited beneficiaries.  I'd have much greater potential to recover from the former than the latter, because I'd still be living in a meritocracy.