My first comment in this thread answers your question. I'm also not seeing where you derived this response from my comment. I'm just stating facts. This legislation does not restrict individuals in any way, only businesses. I've already stated that I'm aware the potential gateway exists, and I've stated that I was wary of this. 

 

 

Are you arguing that there should be no regulation whatsoever on business? The federal government does have the Constitutional authority to regulate business. I'm not going to make a blanket statement on whether regulation is good or bad, because it depends entirely on the specific regulation. 

 

In terms of a good like the internet, "leaving if they want" isn't as easy as it sounds. All ISPs have an interest in throttling certain sites. So if I were to switch my service from Comcast to Verizon, my experience would largely be the same. While not a public utility (and I don't think it should be), the internet operates exactly like a public good, so I do think this requires some special consideration. 

In this circumstance, I do not believe that the government should intervene. I'm pretty sure the 332 page regulation document has a LOT more than just ISP regulations.

I generally pride myself on siding fairly conservatively in my political beliefs, though on the topic of net neutrality I think a little bit outside of my belief box....

 

Net Neutrality, at least what I've observed of it, is a ways to stop big bushiness from bleeding us (The internet consumer) dry. How might they, well take a look at most cable companies. Most of these companies have packages for certain channels I.E. Hbo, Starz, Porn... But, if you take a look back about forty to fifty years, there were no packages, only unrestricted to a point, cable.... (Or whatever you could pick up on your antennas...) The reason I support net neutrality is to stop big bushiness from doing exactly that to the internet, and with companies out there like comcast it was only a matter of time.

 

And generally speaking here, I would rather let the internet rest in the hands of the government than in the hands of the corporations. I mean just look at how well trusting them has turned out in the past for us... ~Insert sarcasm here... (Them being the corporations.)

I'm pretty sure the 332 page regulation document has a LOT more than just ISP regulations.

This is what I'm saying right here. I will do some more research on this issue because this isn't something that I've ever really cared much about up until this point.

This is what I'm saying right here. I will do some more research on this issue because this isn't something that I've ever really cared much about up until this point.

Good luck. They denied a request to release it to the public. A bit fishy, huh?

Good luck. They denied a request to release it to the public. A bit fishy, huh?

Yeah I've smelled something fish since 2009 lol.

Good luck. They denied a request to release it to the public. A bit fishy, huh?

The two dissenting Republicans have yet to submit information that the Commission requires in order to fully publish the order. Once these two submit the necessary information, the order will come public. Rather ironic that the two people complaining about public access to the order are the ones holding up the process. 

 

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150226/07234230148/fccs-historic-day-voting-yes-net-neutrality-voting-no-protectionist-state-telecom-law.shtml 

Also, it looks like much of the order will be saying various regulations don't apply. According to the FCC, there are over 700 regulations and 27 statutory provisions which it is declining to apply.

The current policy of considering "enhanced services" to not fall within standard common-carrier regulation dates back to the 1970s; it was made on the grounds that enhanced services are competitive. That's the primary justification in existing law for not applying Title II to Internet service: free competition is best, and the market is sufficiently competitive. With other markets, it's fairly uncontroversial that lack of competition justifies regulation to ensure that people have access to communication services; that's why the PSTN is under Title II, and going back that's why railroads were placed under ICC control (businesses depended on them and they tended to abuse their monopoly power, which derived from the cost of laying a network -- same for Western Union, same for Ma Bell, now same for Verizon or Comcast).

In practice, internet service providers do *not* seem to face competition, and so those grounds are suspect. As a matter of public policy, I don't see why ISPs shouldn't be required to act in a nondiscriminatory way, nor why Internet access is any less necessary for people than phone access once was, or than mail access before that.

As of a few hours ago, ISP who provide the backbone of the internet to connect networks to each other, were private companies who did not have to listen to the government. Now, ISPs are considered under Title II of the Act, which means the government can legally regulate them, or tell them what to do in the form of a rules list, instead of the ISPs doing whatever they wish.

That's not really accurate. ISPs remain private companies subject to government regulation; they were private companies subject to regulation before today, they were private companies subject to regulation before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and telecom companies were private companies subject to federal regulation before the Communications Act of 1934. The common-carrier regulation of telecommunications began with the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. The notion that interstate wired telecommunications was *not* going to be subject to common carrier regulation didn't take hold until Computer I in 1970, expanded upon by Computer II in 1976, which *introduced* the idea of enhanced service not subject to common-carrier status. But it's still been subject to regulation, under ancillary authority (which is limited, but still there), as well as the option of Section 706 regulation.

That's not really accurate. ISPs remain private companies subject to government regulation; they were private companies subject to regulation before today, they were private companies subject to regulation before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and telecom companies were private companies subject to federal regulation before the Communications Act of 1934. The common-carrier regulation of telecommunications began with the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. The notion that interstate wired telecommunications was *not* going to be subject to common carrier regulation didn't take hold until Computer I in 1970, expanded upon by Computer II in 1976, which *introduced* the idea of enhanced service not subject to common-carrier status. But it's still been subject to regulation, under ancillary authority (which is limited, but still there), as well as the option of Section 706 regulation.

 

That's true.

 

Obviously they're still a privately owned companies with a board, CEO, shareholders, ect, they're just subject to more regulation when it comes to their pricing we assume.

 

There's no way to avoid government regulation in everything nowadays, and obviously the telecom industry is no exception. 

 

We don't know for sure until the FCC releases the new rules it has power to do now, but we can assume it's most powerful measures are regulations on the pricing of certain fast lanes of certain customers. 

That's true.

Obviously they're still a privately owned companies with a board, CEO, shareholders, ect, they're just subject to more regulation when it comes to their pricing we assume.

There's no way to avoid government regulation in everything nowadays, and obviously the telecom industry is no exception.

We don't know for sure until the FCC releases the new rules it has power to do now, but we can assume it's most powerful measures are regulations on the pricing of certain fast lanes of certain customers.

Hopefully this doesn't fuck shit up too much, the government is known for doing this. The Internet seems just fine to me, I don't want anything to come into play and change my internet experience.

Edited February 27, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

That's true.

Obviously they're still a privately owned companies with a board, CEO, shareholders, ect, they're just subject to more regulation when it comes to their pricing we assume.

There's no way to avoid government regulation in everything nowadays, and obviously the telecom industry is no exception.

We don't know for sure until the FCC releases the new rules it has power to do now, but we can assume it's most powerful measures are regulations on the pricing of certain fast lanes of certain customers.

I thought these regulations would prohibit the creation of fast lanes?

MODERATOR NOTICE
The point of this thread is to debate one specific topic: "net neutrality" and what these rules mean for ISPs and the Internet as a whole, and whether you agree or disagree with that.  This topic is NOT here for debating general liberalism vs conservatism vs communism, nor does it exist to bash one side or the other.

 

I've cleaned the thread up and removed all off topic discussions.  If you want to debate about how good or bad the president is or how many "commies" are in Congress, don't do it in this thread.

I thought these regulations would prohibit the creation of fast lanes?

 

Yes, these are what these regulations are supposed to do. But here's my opinion.

 

What's wrong with fast lanes? The internet doesn't work as an equal entity. For example, at my house I have 125Mb/s DL, and 15Mb/s UL. Why is Comcast treating my download speeds with such high priority and not my upload speeds? An equal internet would be 120Mb/s DL and UL. But I completely am fine with this setup design on Comcast's behalf. The reason this setup design is implemented by ISPs is obvious when you know that the average customer, if not the overwhelming majority, is much more of a consumer of bandwidth (Facebook, Steam Games, Watching videos, viewing pictures, articles, ect) than a contributor. (This is known as the Internet's 1% Rule). Here, the internet is modified in an "unequal way" to better serve the customers as a whole. I understand the treatment of equal data packets is a different argument, so let me address that. 

 

The internet doesn't work equally with the infrastructure we have in our country, which is primarily copper cable. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to give Netflix and let's say, LCPDFR the same bandwidth speeds dedicated only to them in fast lanes. Big corporations could simply buy all the available bandwidth on the internet, whether or not they use it and leave none to the consumer. Netflix clearly needs a much higher bandwidth allocation for their systems as they are handling so much more customers, and so much more data than a primarily forum based site with relatively small sized gaming modifications, the packets of data which don't crucially need to be delivered in A) A particular order and B) Near immediately. In this sense, I see it as OK to give fast lane priority to them, as it will better serve the the customers of the both Netflix and Comcast. They use the bandwidth, it makes sense to make a small exception to the system in their case. 

 

Even if LCPDFR and Netlix has the same server speeds, which I doubt it does, it makes sense that if Netflix uses so much more bandwidth, is much more popular, and pays more, that they should get priority from the ISPs. These two sites are competing for limited resources in a private business while the ISPs struggle to upgrade their infrastructure with the times. People say that freedom of speech is threatened when one's connection is prioritized over another, but when dealing with the internet this is a rather inapplicable argument. Content still will be arrived a few seconds delayed at the most, with the same integrity and quality as distributed. ISPs guarantee speeds, and customers will get it. Especially with large corporations that use so much data, it's not unreasonable to ask them to pay more for all the bandwidth they use, as they can afford it.

 

Ultimately,the concept of fast lanes is not an evil one, as long as the connections to everyone else remain equal and true to what the customer is paying for. It better addresses bandwidth, and speeds in a system where there is a disproportionate amount of content being moved around the internet by customers and businesses.

 

I think that Comcast's decision to purposefully slow down Netflix's internet was a wrong one. But given a generally good track record of ISPs who given handle so much customers, money, and data, I'd much rather have private businesses regulate the market than the US Government.

Yes, these are what these regulations are supposed to do. But here's my opinion.

 

What's wrong with fast lanes? The internet doesn't work as an equal entity. For example, at my house I have 125Mb/s DL, and 15Mb/s UL. Why is Comcast treating my download speeds with such high priority and not my upload speeds? An equal internet would be 120Mb/s DL and UL. But I completely am fine with this setup design on Comcast's behalf. The reason this setup design is implemented by ISPs is obvious when you know that the average customer, if not the overwhelming majority, is much more of a consumer of bandwidth (Facebook, Steam Games, Watching videos, viewing pictures, articles, ect) than a contributor. (This is known as the Internet's 1% Rule). Here, the internet is modified in an "unequal way" to better serve the customers as a whole. I understand the treatment of equal data packets is a different argument, so let me address that. 

 

The internet doesn't work equally with the infrastructure we have in our country, which is primarily copper cable. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to give Netflix and let's say, LCPDFR the same bandwidth speeds dedicated only to them in fast lanes. Big corporations could simply buy all the available bandwidth on the internet, whether or not they use it and leave none to the consumer. Netflix clearly needs a much higher bandwidth allocation for their systems as they are handling so much more customers, and so much more data than a primarily forum based site with relatively small sized gaming modifications, the packets of data which don't crucially need to be delivered in A) A particular order and B) Near immediately. In this sense, I see it as OK to give fast lane priority to them, as it will better serve the the customers of the both Netflix and Comcast. They use the bandwidth, it makes sense to make a small exception to the system in their case. 

 

Even if LCPDFR and Netlix has the same server speeds, which I doubt it does, it makes sense that if Netflix uses so much more bandwidth, is much more popular, and pays more, that they should get priority from the ISPs. These two sites are competing for limited resources in a private business while the ISPs struggle to upgrade their infrastructure with the times. People say that freedom of speech is threatened when one's connection is prioritized over another, but when dealing with the internet this is a rather inapplicable argument. Content still will be arrived a few seconds delayed at the most, with the same integrity and quality as distributed. ISPs guarantee speeds, and customers will get it. Especially with large corporations that use so much data, it's not unreasonable to ask them to pay more for all the bandwidth they use, as they can afford it.

 

Ultimately,the concept of fast lanes is not an evil one, as long as the connections to everyone else remain equal and true to what the customer is paying for. It better addresses bandwidth, and speeds in a system where there is a disproportionate amount of content being moved around the internet by customers and businesses.

 

I think that Comcast's decision to purposefully slow down Netflix's internet was a wrong one. But given a generally good track record of ISPs who given handle so much customers, money, and data, I'd much rather have private businesses regulate the market than the US Government.

Comparing upload and download speeds and speeds between different sites are two different conversations.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with fast lanes, however, the potential for abuse by an ISP is massive. Let's say Comcast looks favorably upon sites A, B, and C. Let's also say Comcast looks unfavorable upon sites X, Y, and Z. How it is it fair to sites X, Y, and Z  if their service is throttled by Comcast while sites A, B, and C get premium bandwidth access? Such behavior is strongly anti-competitive and introduces the problem of ISPs attempting to influence consumer behavior, which I find highly problematic and no different than a government prohibition on visiting a specific site.  

Comparing upload and download speeds and speeds between different sites are two different conversations.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with fast lanes, however, the potential for abuse by an ISP is massive. Let's say Comcast looks favorably upon sites A, B, and C. Let's also say Comcast looks unfavorable upon sites X, Y, and Z. How it is it fair to sites X, Y, and Z  if their service is throttled by Comcast while sites A, B, and C get premium bandwidth access? Such behavior is strongly anti-competitive and introduces the problem of ISPs attempting to influence consumer behavior, which I find highly problematic and no different than a government prohibition on visiting a specific site.  

 

They are different topics, but it was just an example to show how unequally the internet is designed to effectively serve the public as best as possible. 

 

And Comcast won't throttle speeds of certain websites to prioritize others. The only instance of where Comcast was caught remotely attempting this practice was when Netflix failed to pay Comcast more money for using so much of their data. Comcast isn't going around to sites that use so little on the grand scale and ask them to pay more or face throttling. 

 

The idea that ISPs will abuse their power is truly speculative, but not far fetched. Although considering it happened one time in really an extreme circumstance (Not too sure about Verizon's History), I'd say this is an industry that doesn't need to be regulated. 

This may or not be a gateway to greater government control over the internet, but can we at least be honest about our criticisms? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government restricting individuals in their use of the internet. If anything, it does the opposite. This is just a restriction on ISP business practices.

 

Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims. 

 

THIS. 

Also, 1.5 years isn't long enough to get another new "liberal" bill passed through a conservative congress.  I don't think that's likely 

Yes, these are what these regulations are supposed to do. But here's my opinion.

 

What's wrong with fast lanes? The internet doesn't work as an equal entity. For example, at my house I have 125Mb/s DL, and 15Mb/s UL. Why is Comcast treating my download speeds with such high priority and not my upload speeds? An equal internet would be 120Mb/s DL and UL. But I completely am fine with this setup design on Comcast's behalf. The reason this setup design is implemented by ISPs is obvious when you know that the average customer, if not the overwhelming majority, is much more of a consumer of bandwidth (Facebook, Steam Games, Watching videos, viewing pictures, articles, ect) than a contributor. (This is known as the Internet's 1% Rule). Here, the internet is modified in an "unequal way" to better serve the customers as a whole. I understand the treatment of equal data packets is a different argument, so let me address that. 

 

The internet doesn't work equally with the infrastructure we have in our country, which is primarily copper cable. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to give Netflix and let's say, LCPDFR the same bandwidth speeds dedicated only to them in fast lanes. Big corporations could simply buy all the available bandwidth on the internet, whether or not they use it and leave none to the consumer. Netflix clearly needs a much higher bandwidth allocation for their systems as they are handling so much more customers, and so much more data than a primarily forum based site with relatively small sized gaming modifications, the packets of data which don't crucially need to be delivered in A) A particular order and B) Near immediately. In this sense, I see it as OK to give fast lane priority to them, as it will better serve the the customers of the both Netflix and Comcast. They use the bandwidth, it makes sense to make a small exception to the system in their case. 

 

Even if LCPDFR and Netlix has the same server speeds, which I doubt it does, it makes sense that if Netflix uses so much more bandwidth, is much more popular, and pays more, that they should get priority from the ISPs. These two sites are competing for limited resources in a private business while the ISPs struggle to upgrade their infrastructure with the times. People say that freedom of speech is threatened when one's connection is prioritized over another, but when dealing with the internet this is a rather inapplicable argument. Content still will be arrived a few seconds delayed at the most, with the same integrity and quality as distributed. ISPs guarantee speeds, and customers will get it. Especially with large corporations that use so much data, it's not unreasonable to ask them to pay more for all the bandwidth they use, as they can afford it.

 

Ultimately,the concept of fast lanes is not an evil one, as long as the connections to everyone else remain equal and true to what the customer is paying for. It better addresses bandwidth, and speeds in a system where there is a disproportionate amount of content being moved around the internet by customers and businesses.

 

I think that Comcast's decision to purposefully slow down Netflix's internet was a wrong one. But given a generally good track record of ISPs who given handle so much customers, money, and data, I'd much rather have private businesses regulate the market than the US Government.

That's not what "fast lanes" is talking about; it has nothing at all to do with the concept. "Fast lanes" involve Comcast charging a third party, which does not subscribe to its ISP service, to get fast transit across Comcast's network to Comcast's subscribers. It means that Comcast prioritizes packets based on their destination outside Comcast's network. Common carrier rules are never designed to prevent someone from offering differing levels of service to their customers at different price points; they're designed to prevent unreasonable distinctions. Distinguishing between download and upload at a given point couldn't possibly be considered unreasonable; installing a limiter on the connection to a specific customer isn't unreasonable (if you pay more, your packets aren't routed at higher priority; it's just that there's a device on the connection to your house that limits the total amount of data that can flow in a given time, which generally makes no distinction between different types of traffic); distinguishing between packets going to non-ISP server A and non-ISP server B is unreasonable. Now, there are questions about interconnection and interconnection rates and CDNs and the like that could go one way or the other, but that's not what people mean when they say "fast lanes."

The comment that "Netflix pays more" makes me wonder how well you understand Internet architecture; the entire point of the whole system is that you don't have to pay someone to get your site access to their customers. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast anything to send data over Comcast's network, because that defeats the purpose of an internet. There is no "bandwidth devoted to XYZ site," unless XYZ site uses that ISP itself. It's exactly symmetric between servers and users; you don't pay LCPDFR's ISP to access LCPDFR, and LCPDFR doesn't pay your ISP to talk to you. The system literally cannot work right otherwise. A network does not have bandwidth devoted to customers, and never has; even with the kind of circuit-switching that the PSTN uses, the only thing that gets bandwidth devoted to it is a particular connection. Packet switching can't have bandwidth devoted to it; that's just not how things work. It can have prioritization, but not devoted bandwidth -- if I buy 20 Ybps (yottabits per second, i.e. ALL TEH INTERTUBEZ), get prioritization over all other packets, and don't send anything, then there is zero change from anyone else's point of view.

That, I think, is at the root of your misconceptions. If I connect to LCPDFR (Netflix gets into more complicated technical matters), I pay my ISP for the bandwidth used; Jay pays their ISP for the bandwidth used; my ISP is responsible for getting that traffic to LCPDFR (which it does by getting it to LCPDFR's ISP), while LCPDFR's ISP is responsible for advertising routes to LCPDFR to the world and giving the world access to the site. I do not pay a penny to LCPDFR's ISP. My ISP might pay for transit if needed or paid peering if needed, and connections between ISPs can get a bit complicated, but here is a decent overview. Any theory based on "Netflix should have to pay Comcast for using Comcast's bandwidth" is fundamentally flawed, because that's just not how the Internet works (again, Netflix is more complicated because in many ways it acts like an ISP itself, but that's also not what "no fast lanes" refers to).

SIR_Sergeant: In fact, common carriers are allowed to make reasonable distinctions: for instance, it might be found reasonable to treat VoIP packets differently from downloads, because lag is a bigger issue for VoIP.

That's not what "fast lanes" is talking about; it has nothing at all to do with the concept. "Fast lanes" involve Comcast charging a third party, which does not subscribe to its ISP service, to get fast transit across Comcast's network to Comcast's subscribers. It means that Comcast prioritizes packets based on their destination outside Comcast's network. Common carrier rules are never designed to prevent someone from offering differing levels of service to their customers at different price points; they're designed to prevent unreasonable distinctions. Distinguishing between download and upload at a given point couldn't possibly be considered unreasonable; installing a limiter on the connection to a specific customer isn't unreasonable (if you pay more, your packets aren't routed at higher priority; it's just that there's a device on the connection to your house that limits the total amount of data that can flow in a given time, which generally makes no distinction between different types of traffic); distinguishing between packets going to non-ISP server A and non-ISP server B is unreasonable. Now, there are questions about interconnection and interconnection rates and CDNs and the like that could go one way or the other, but that's not what people mean when they say "fast lanes."

The comment that "Netflix pays more" makes me wonder how well you understand Internet architecture; the entire point of the whole system is that you don't have to pay someone to get your site access to their customers. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast anything to send data over Comcast's network, because that defeats the purpose of an internet. There is no "bandwidth devoted to XYZ site," unless XYZ site uses that ISP itself. It's exactly symmetric between servers and users; you don't pay LCPDFR's ISP to access LCPDFR, and LCPDFR doesn't pay your ISP to talk to you. The system literally cannot work right otherwise. A network does not have bandwidth devoted to customers, and never has; even with the kind of circuit-switching that the PSTN uses, the only thing that gets bandwidth devoted to it is a particular connection. Packet switching can't have bandwidth devoted to it; that's just not how things work. It can have prioritization, but not devoted bandwidth -- if I buy 20 Ybps (yottabits per second, i.e. ALL TEH INTERTUBEZ), get prioritization over all other packets, and don't send anything, then there is zero change from anyone else's point of view.

That, I think, is at the root of your misconceptions. If I connect to LCPDFR (Netflix gets into more complicated technical matters), I pay my ISP for the bandwidth used; Jay pays their ISP for the bandwidth used; my ISP is responsible for getting that traffic to LCPDFR (which it does by getting it to LCPDFR's ISP), while LCPDFR's ISP is responsible for advertising routes to LCPDFR to the world and giving the world access to the site. I do not pay a penny to LCPDFR's ISP. My ISP might pay for transit if needed or paid peering if needed, and connections between ISPs can get a bit complicated, but here is a decent overview. Any theory based on "Netflix should have to pay Comcast for using Comcast's bandwidth" is fundamentally flawed, because that's just not how the Internet works (again, Netflix is more complicated because in many ways it acts like an ISP itself, but that's also not what "no fast lanes" refers to).

SIR_Sergeant: In fact, common carriers are allowed to make reasonable distinctions: for instance, it might be found reasonable to treat VoIP packets differently from downloads, because lag is a bigger issue for VoIP.

 

I was aware of the internet architecture, in the sense that data, in order to get to it's destination the faster way possible, will use Non-ISP routes and may instead use the routes of others, most notably Comcast, Verizon, Cogent, and Level 3. This article did a very good job at explaining a majority of this, perhaps in simpler terms in which I may have missed some details.

(http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/)

 

What I wasn't aware of and didn't realize is that Comcast isn't Netflix's ISP, but rather Cogent. Makes sense, Comcast isn't into the high tech business/industrial grade ISPs.  

 

I was under the initial impression that Netflix of course was paying Comcast as it's own ISP, and Comcast demanded more money from Netflix (and of course throttled their speeds when they declined) when Netflix failed to pay for their increasing usage. 

 

If Comcast was Netflix's ISP, Comcast wouldn't be complaining as they are being paid directly by Netflix. However, Level 3 may be upset that Comcast is directing so much Netflix traffic through their networks to Level 3's Customers (Isn't the best analogy because I believe that Level 3 is primarily a Business/Industrial ISP, whereas Comcast is a Residential/Business ISP). 

 

It is now clear to me that Comcast was upset that Netflix wasn't paying them with what Comcast saw as a rightful charge, as so much of Comcast's infrastructure was strained by a 3rd party, not paying into the system.  

 

With that all said, the validity of the debate still holds true. It is of my opinion, and obviously the ISPs as well, that businesses should have to pay ISPs for usage of their network on a case by case basis. However, I shouldn't have to pay Cogent on top of Comcast (My home ISP) for using such unmeasurable amounts of bandwidth to connect here to the LCPDFR forums. Only in the case of major usage should deals be struck for compensation.

 

I wouldn't say the theory is fundamentally flawed, because this is an exception that has the potential to break the internet in the sense that customers aren't getting content they are paying for. Since this is a private business, I believe that the businesses should sort this out, but it is apparent the internet disagrees with that logic. 

 

EDIT: I just discovered that extremely tiny here link which leads to one of my favorite tech sites, Ars. I will be sure to read that, thanks. 

Edited February 27, 201511 yr by Mr.Quiggles

Since this is a private business, I believe that the businesses should sort this out, but it is apparent the internet disagrees with that logic. 

 

That right there is the problem. I thought this was about how letting the businesses sort it out will only hurt the consumer, so the FCC is stepping in to protect us. I really don't understand how the internet disagrees with that logic. 

That right there is the problem. I thought this was about how letting the businesses sort it out will only hurt the consumer, so the FCC is stepping in to protect us. I really don't understand how the internet disagrees with that logic. 

 

And that's where the politics comes in. 

 

Depending on your political and economic beliefs, and sometimes on a case by case basis (For example I have a different opinion on government regulation in Net Neutrality versus let's say, the Food Industry) people may think Government influence or Capitalism is the better solution. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since your opinion would be that the FCC stepping in a good thing, and you can't see how anyway else would be preferably, I for the sake of Devil's advocacy will argue the other side.

 

The other side would consist of the free market deciding on their own practices, prices, and interactions with one another in competition. Government regulation can both improve or hurt businesses in order to improve the quality of the product for the consumer. Often times, I support government regulation in things that ought to be regulated, especially dealing with public health and personal finances. But in the case of Internet, a private business that nobody has a real right to, I think that in order to keep the internet free and open, government regulation isn't the best decision for the future of the internet. Granted, the FCC is apparently, and I use the word apparently because the new regulations have not been made public, only supposed to have control over the uses of finances between the ISPs, and how that affects the customer. The FCC is not supposed to filter content with the new regulations it passed like how it presently and historically more so done in Radio and TV. 

 

When the people of the country pass something they aren't fully educated about, especially a set of regulations not made public, it can lead to controversy, like what we saw earlier in this thread with Obama being a Communist and Muslim (If you didn't see it, good).