http://mashable.com/2010/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-2/

People were talking about this happening when the FCC announced their decision last month. And here it is!

More government regulation? What could possibly go wrong with that?

More regulations inforcing the non-regulation of internet traffic.

This is one example where government intervention seems to me like only a good thing. Instead of "government regulation" which is a concept that's bound to stir opposition, how about "the government stepping in to protect the rights of its citizens, because someone has to do it"?

Then again, that's where I run into a question of whether internet access is a right or a luxury (here in Finland it's officially the former).

What rights are the ISPs taking from us?

As I understand it Anakin[numbarz] there are two ideas here:

1) ISPs could throttle or block websites that refuse to pay it for letting the website's data go to the ISP's customers.
2) ISPs would offer confusing cheap plans for internet access that would not allow access to the full internet. Similar to #1, but the consumer is charged instead of the ISP for additional access. Instead of just websites protocols (such as bittorrent or gaming) could be blocked as well

Basically Net Neutrality is the idea that we should force ISPs who offer internet access to offer access to the WHOLE internet instead of the pieces they like or the pieces that pay them. Currently there's no laws (or insufficentl laws) AFAIK that prevent them from doing this... hence all the hubbub.

Also, since net neutrality basically = treating all data on equal terms, a lack of it leads to monitoring traffic in order to block data that the ISP dictates needs to be blocked, and monitoring traffic (don the tinfoil, lads) leading to non-anonymous usage monitoring doesn't seem like such a stretch to me.

Part of the problem of a tiered internet that the ISPs want is that it will be horribly abused by the ISPs in order to extort money out of customers. Because the barrier to entry for being an internet provider is incredibly high, it's basically impossible for the free market to work.

That's exactly why the ISPs want it. They want to abuse it horridly so that they'll overcharge the consumer and bring in record profits that the shareholders of the company so demand.

I see a positive and negative side to this.

The positive: I think everyone's on the same page with this. Stop ISPs from throttling bandwidth, etc.

The negative: It's still government regulation. While the public views the move as positive and accepts it, it still sets a precedence for government regulation of the Internet. They might give us more freedom at first, but what's to stop them from taking chunks away over time? Eavesdropping, government charges/taxes on certain websites, license requirement to run a website, etc. Seems like a slippery slope.

No, this sets a precedent of not doing that.

JM, I think he's just saying that putting the FCC in charge of regulation of the internet because it now falls under the "telecommunications" section COULD lead to potential problems in the future. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with this net neutrality thing. Just because they advocate one thing now, does not mean that they couldn't switch their minds in the future given the right policy pressures from those above (for instance, if somehow fundamentalist religious crazies were to gain power. Unlikely, but an example). Are you really going to trust that a Federal Agency will actually stick by one of its policies for the rest of time? Despite my jaded view of government agencies, I still think the internet is just too big a concept that any sort of regulation of it would result in social upheaval, but I can see people's argument that this ruling might not BE the slippery slope, but it does create one by finally placing the internet in the "telecommunications" section of the FCC.

Who would enforce net neutrality, if not the government?

[quote=IRG SithLord]
government charges/taxes on certain websites, license requirement to run a website[/quote]
Those practices would be contrary to net neutrality itself. The FCC would be subjecting itself to its own regulations.

If they're regulating the Internet like the phone system... are there any major problems with the phone system and not being able to call certain people just because they're on another network?

The government, in its simplest form, exists to protect the rights and freedoms of its people. I see this regulation as them saying "Hey! You! Hands off!" to ISPs.

I'm not a huge fan of overprotective government regulation in most areas, and the FCC pisses me off usually, but I'm pretty much for this all the way.

It's only a matter of time before it happens, though. Surely within the reaches of your heart you must know this. Enjoy it while it lasts, kiddies.

If they wanted to get all 1984 on the internet they would do it regardless of what happens today.

I'm not saying this isn't good regulation, but it's still regulation. The FCC is claiming the authority to regulate the internet and people will gladly accept it because net neutrality is a good thing.

I had many sleepless nights over this image.

They have to regulate because they've given the option to ISPs for 5 years to implement a net neutral policy, and they've told the FCC to f*ck off. Props to the FCC to sticking to their guns and not backing down to the ISPs.

The Federal Communications Commission does have the authority over telecommunications such as the internet.

Here let me spell it out for you

[quote=Communications Act of 1934]...regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.[/quote]

They would only have the authority because of the reclassification.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html

Lord kuat that image is infuriating. That they'd even have the nerve. Is that fake or real?

Also I applaud the FCC for this. They're not usually deserving of sub high praise. All the anti government control nuts are being a bit overboard with this.

At the bottom of that image it says "full internet access available upon request."

So.. um.. okay.

For how much, and it also says "Does not include access to illegal materials", which could be anything from all bittorrent period to SA.

Thought I'd post this since a lot of people are giving the FCC love. First one is news link, second one is more of an opinion. Tl;Dr: an example of FCC saying they'll never do something, but then doing it

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-07/film-studios-said-to-be-allowed-to-use-anti-piracy-technology-on-tv-sets.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/07/fcc-hands-hollywood.html

It's a fake image.

For those who are still confused, this video is a pretty good representation of the ideas involved here. Also Hank Green is awesome.

Like I said before, I don't think anyone here is arguing against net-neutrality. I think we are all pretty savvy users who understand the horrible horrible ramifications of the internet being tiered and such. It's just there there is a dangerous consequence of putting internet regulation in the hands of the FCC. It's a trade-off that we'll ultimately have to live by if we want net-neturality, but I think those who are worried are merely just worried about the fact that it POSSIBLY could lead to other regulations. It's pretty much common knowledge now that the MPAA/RIAA/etc control the FCC, and if they already got the FCC to start letting them actually TURN OFF VIDEO INPUTS ON YOUR TV, who knows what could happen in the future.

Content control and "decency standards" are something the FCC has obviously championed on TV, so who is to say that when the internet becomes THE primary viewing method of television shows (which is plausible), that they won't enforce content on that either?

Again, personally, I don't think it will happen. But the FCC has proved me wrong before, and any federal agency with that many ties to the MPAA/RIAA is somewhat disturbing. It seems like it would be much easier to just have the federal government say "You can't do *x*", and then leave it be, rather than place broadband under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

The FCC does not control content on television; it controls (and imposes decency standards on) broadcast content.

This is why your local news channel can't swear, but HBO can. The internet will fall into the same category as cable; the only thing the tv analogy could be applied to is free wifi. And that can be worked around with nothing more complex than a click-through screen before granting internet access.

Ok. How does the fed. government enforce "You can't do *x*" specifically in this case, enforce net-neutrality? Create yet another government agency? Federal Internet Commission? What is to stop the MPAA/RIAA from getting to them? MPAA/RIAA will stop at nothing to make sure they can charge $35/blu-ray and $25/album and have all distributed media fall under their purview. It sounds like you are trying to blame the wrong "entity." It is the MPAA/RIAA that you sound like you want to focus your hate and I can support you on that.

Are there really going to be regulations for internet-access? I guess that it's never going to happen. Whenever the people are suppressed, they rise up and demonstrate, and I expect all hell to break loose when internet regulations are going to be applied.

The average man doesn't give a flying about the internet, it's just the internet right?

I was thinking more of an executive order. I think in this case it would be pretty easy. "ISPs cannot regulate what content they serve their users". Boom. Easier than potentially moving it under the jurisdiction of the FCC because of all the other variables involved. We already have numerous other agencies that can worry about pricing as well.

BTDub Yecti, love that video. Very funny