FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet

[charrob]

what no, search results have nothing to do with how fast a network is. What they can do is limit your connection to certain internet networks, just like how cable companies limit your channel selection unless you pay more. Oh, like watching youtube? Well buy the 10 dollars/month online video plan and get access to YouTube and Hulu without any lag.

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

 

[DamianTV]

Our $9.95 a month fee allows you access to Google, Yahoo, and AOL.
Our $19.95 a month feel allows you access to Youtube, Facebook, and MySpace.
For just $79.95, we will allow you access to all the rest of the sites on the internet.

Fail this form of Net Neutrality has become.

 

[Tod]

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

Yep, or even worse.....essentially corporate censorship of potential competition or sites presenting "unacceptable" viewpoints (according to either gov't or corporate viewpoints)

 

[orenbus]

Agreed, I don't like this.

 

[Tod]

Our $9.95 a month fee allows you access to Google, Yahoo, and AOL.
Our $19.95 a month feel allows you access to Youtube, Facebook, and MySpace.
For just $79.95, we will allow you access to all some of the rest of the sites on the internet. But not some that we or our partners (gov't) disapprove of.

Fail this form of Net Neutrality has become.

FTFY

 

[charrob]

Yep, or even worse.....essentially corporate censorship of potential competition or sites presenting "unacceptable" viewpoints (according to either gov't or corporate viewpoints)

Wow. So why would anyone be against Net Neutrality where all data packets are considered equal?

Isn't this going to harm small businesses and opportunities for the budding of small businesses?

 

[kahless]

This would suck.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Get the fucking government out of it. Fucking statists here.

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Did you listen to Ben Swann and his guest's take on the consequences of this?

http://youtu.be/VGit3RiCWaY?t=29m31s

"People have to understand, this is cronyism at its best" ~ Ben Swann

OMG! Ben Swann (and David Christopher) are statists! They don't want the government-media complex to throttle them. Err, or is it the other way around? They are anti-regulation, but they don't want to give the ISPs the right to throttle them, which is regulation in itself. It's so confusing. What's wrong with Ben Swann, doesn't he know there is no such thing as an oligopoly?

 

[green73]

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

weep?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

Or not see them at all. Just like Comcast and the couple of other TV providers do today.

Glenn Beck has tried as hard as he can to get his Blaze network on TV. It's not an issue of money. The cable companies just refuse. And eventually, they can throttle him right off of the internet too.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

weep?

Might as well give up TV and the internet today (that would show them!). The Ministry of Truth is consolidating.

 

[green73]

Might as well give up TV and the internet today (that would show them!). The Ministry of Truth is consolidating.

Yes, we live in a fascist shit hole. What's your point? Get the gov't out of it and there'd be no problem.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, we live in a fascist shit hole. What's your point? Get the gov't out of it and there'd be no problem.

Government is already in it. Partnered with big media. This is all just a dog and pony show now as the grip tightens.

One thing would truly make them question their actions is if people really do stop using it, and they can't track everyone anymore.

 

[charrob]

Or not see them at all. Just like Comcast and the couple of other TV providers do today.

Glenn Beck has tried as hard as he can to get his Blaze network on TV. It's not an issue of money. The cable companies just refuse. And eventually, they can throttle him right off of the internet too.

That is frightening. It destroys opportunities and visibility for small businesses, it restricts the world of ideas; like the newspeak dictionary, eliminated words are forgotten and with them the thoughts and meanings and ideas behind those words are gone.

It's like a presidential debate between the two corporate parties on war: one lesser evil says: "we need sanctions!" and the greater evil says: "we need war!" So the people listening don't even realize that nonintervention is a choice because it is never mentioned.

Net neutrality means all data packets are considered equal. The ISP's cannot discriminate. That's the way it is now. So again I ask: what is wrong with net neutrality? What is wrong with the requirement that all data packets are considered equal?

 

[jclay2]

So can anyone tell me why ISP are not charging consumers based on the amount of data they use? Netflix isn't the driver of the traffic, the consumers are. It just seems so backwards to charge the companies as opposed the consumers trying to access the site. My plan would involve a fixed charge for infrastructure and then a variable charge depending how much you download.

 

[Matt Collins]

Net Neutrality violates the First and Fifth Amendments:
http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-violates-first-fifth-amendments

 

[nayjevin]

Who came up with the phrase Net Neutrality? Cause if it's the same folks responsible for Patriot Act...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So can anyone tell me why ISP are not charging consumers based on the amount of data they use? Netflix isn't the driver of the traffic, the consumers are. It just seems so backwards to charge the companies as opposed the consumers trying to access the site. My plan would involve a fixed charge for infrastructure and then a variable charge depending how much you download.

Because that would actually be fair, would introduce true market discipline, and wouldn't allow them to control it in the future. And as stated earlier in the thread they can charge more with the unlimited option, as the majority of people will pay far more than their actual usage.

 

[PRB]

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

if this guy doesn't get his way, he can call his enemies "government"