Net Neutrality for Dummies

[chanel]

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

Advocates of net neutrality such as Google Inc (GOOG.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and public interest groups say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic according to how much revenue the content generates.

But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services, such as video sharing, requires active management of their networks.

AT&T President of Operations John Stankey said he is anticipating the rule with as much dread as if he were going to the funeral of a dear friend.

Verizon Communications warned of unintended consequences from government rulemaking and added it is seeking "common ground" with others in the industry on policies that would apply to all.

UPDATE 4-U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

Can someone explain this in plain English? Is this something we should be concerned about?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes it is. It bars the Internet providers and cable companies from slowing down your service if it does not generate the revenue that they think it should. Rather than upgrading their service, as Japan and South Korea have, they want to slow your service down and charge you the same.

Just like Health Care in the USA. They wish to be able to charge you more for sub-standard service compared to other nations.

 

[ba1614]

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

Advocates of net neutrality such as Google Inc (GOOG.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and public interest groups say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic according to how much revenue the content generates.

But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services, such as video sharing, requires active management of their networks.

AT&T President of Operations John Stankey said he is anticipating the rule with as much dread as if he were going to the funeral of a dear friend.

Verizon Communications warned of unintended consequences from government rulemaking and added it is seeking "common ground" with others in the industry on policies that would apply to all.

UPDATE 4-U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

Can someone explain this in plain English? Is this something we should be concerned about?

This administration, and the left in general, support an "open internet" system where broadband internet is "free" for everyone. It's all stepping stones to achieve that.
On the surface, it sounds great that everyone have access to broadband, for a plethora of reasons
But what private company can still provide the service, and develop better delivery through investment in R&D? Obviously the answer is none of them. The system will become slow because of being over loaded, and with that will come government funds to support the internet.
Once government funds are involved, the internet is subject to their rules and regulations. I would think one would be awful naive to not think content on the web would then become subject to what the government deems appropriate.

Now comes the usual suspects that will defend everything these guys do, but IT WILL be the end of the internet as we know it, think public television.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, yes it is. It bars the Internet providers and cable companies from slowing down your service if it does not generate the revenue that they think it should. Rather than upgrading their service, as Japan and South Korea have, they want to slow your service down and charge you the same.

Just like Health Care in the USA. They wish to be able to charge you more for sub-standard service compared to other nations.

What it in fact does is prevent service providers from balancing the loads that run across their infrastructure so that they can provide an equitable service to even the smallest user of their services.

It will be fun to watch as the public starts to scream that they cannot get online because the bandwidth that they wish to use is being completely utilized by those entities that run bandwidth intensive applications. At the same time, I am quite certain that Congress and the FCC has already quietly made it clear that these companies will not be permitted to raise rates so that they can upgrade and increase the throughput of their services.

In other words, as the bandwidth increases, the providers of access to the internet will be forced to take less and less profit until such time as the internet bottles up completely.

I guess then what will happen is that government will be forced to step into the breach and take over the infrastructure of the internet. Of course, when that happens, guess what else will be governed?

Bloggers and free speech.

Well played Dems. Yet another way to get a finger in the pie to silence dissenting voices.

 

[Darkwind]

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

Advocates of net neutrality such as Google Inc (GOOG.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and public interest groups say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic according to how much revenue the content generates.

But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services, such as video sharing, requires active management of their networks.

AT&T President of Operations John Stankey said he is anticipating the rule with as much dread as if he were going to the funeral of a dear friend.

Verizon Communications warned of unintended consequences from government rulemaking and added it is seeking "common ground" with others in the industry on policies that would apply to all.

UPDATE 4-U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

Can someone explain this in plain English? Is this something we should be concerned about?

This administration, and the left in general, support an "open internet" system where broadband internet is "free" for everyone. It's all stepping stones to achieve that.
On the surface, it sounds great that everyone have access to broadband, for a plethora of reasons
But what private company can still provide the service, and develop better delivery through investment in R&D? Obviously the answer is none of them. The system will become slow because of being over loaded, and with that will come government funds to support the internet.
Once government funds are involved, the internet is subject to their rules and regulations. I would think one would be awful naive to not think content on the web would then become subject to what the government deems appropriate.

Now comes the usual suspects that will defend everything these guys do, but IT WILL be the end of the internet as we know it, think public television.

Just part and parcel of the move to government inclusion in all of our lives.

Pretty soon, we'll have a government employee in our bathrooms to wipe our asses when we finished our business. The paper will have the Democrat party logo, no doubt.

 

[KittenKoder]

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

Advocates of net neutrality such as Google Inc (GOOG.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and public interest groups say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic according to how much revenue the content generates.

But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services, such as video sharing, requires active management of their networks.

AT&T President of Operations John Stankey said he is anticipating the rule with as much dread as if he were going to the funeral of a dear friend.

Verizon Communications warned of unintended consequences from government rulemaking and added it is seeking "common ground" with others in the industry on policies that would apply to all.

UPDATE 4-U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

Can someone explain this in plain English? Is this something we should be concerned about?

Alright ... since most of the replies have been partisan or anti-corporation crap, here's what it is:

The government is pushing more regulations which will drive small ISP companies out of business so the few bigger ones who can keep up with the Joneses will get closer to becoming a monopoly. Likely those who agreed with this ruling are stock owners in one of the big two or have received some incentive. Though it isn't nice for a company to simply not allow access to sites which are not part of their "inner circle", it is also not productive to force them all to not do this. The problem with this ruling is that it opens the gateway for more control over the internet by the government, not less control for ISPs.

 

[Oddball]

Well, yes it is. It bars the Internet providers and cable companies from slowing down your service if it does not generate the revenue that they think it should. Rather than upgrading their service, as Japan and South Korea have, they want to slow your service down and charge you the same.

Just like Health Care in the USA. They wish to be able to charge you more for sub-standard service compared to other nations.

Just when I think your posts couldn't get any stupider, you yet again lower the bar.

Comcast already lost as couple of lawsuits when they tried to do just that, with customers who were drawing huge amounts of bandwidth. They solved this problem by initiating a tiered rate structure, that charges the bandwidth hogs more than everyday web surfers.

More likely is the scenario that, some time down the road, the feds would attempt to control content that they didn't like, as are the ChiComs.

The Orwellian-ly dubbed "net neutrality" would better be named "net mediocrity".

 

[immto]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...in-story-on-net-neutrality-2.html#post1707881

 

[KittenKoder]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...in-story-on-net-neutrality-2.html#post1707881

TFF!