The FCC has already taken action, in 2004, by formulating a set of principles based on Net Neutrality, and later by making those principles part of their policy statement in 2005.

They've even levied fines against carriers who do not adhere to these principles.

Thus, there is already government regulation, of sorts, and an additional Congressional Law would be redundant and ultimately harmful, as it would no doubt provide no governance, or means of enforcement, funding for oversite/enforcement, and so on.

Net neutrality is a silly notion if it's easy to set up your own network and connect yours to others'. If that's the case, then competition will take care of problems and distribute access efficiently and fairly. By 'easy', I mean if there are loose local regulations regarding burying of fiber, and freer regulation of the wireless spectrum. Ideally, network access would be paid by the byte, and you wouldn't choose _one_ ISP; packets would go over whichever network is cheaper and everything would be billed automatically.

However, if the governments put restrictions and fees and local permits in the way, then the only solution is regulation, with laws requiring network neutrality. It's one set of regulations trying to counterbalance another set of regulations, which is pretty silly, but common.

The conclusion? Imagining things is fun.

And overregulation by the government is the only thing that can really get out of hand. If the free-market way of doing things gets out of hand, the government can pass laws putting some controls on things (or use existing laws). If government regulation gets out of hand, it's harder to fix.

I just watched that video, wow I had no idea this was going on.

In my opinion people should be allowed to view what they want.

Its a basic thing in my view, if they start banning one thing then it will go on and on till your freedom on the net is restricted.

Dont think the goverment will sign anything against this though, but people should not go with the providers who do it.

I voted for the wrong thing lol :rolleyes:

Then again I just heard of it today, so thats just a first opinion of the situation.

But who is the "they" under question? The ISPs?

Say that you were an ultra-conservative fundamentalist, who wanted to provide an internet access service that, somehow, prevented access to all pornography-related sites. Use any other example you like: you're marketing to a certain group who want to surf the 'net without seeing "whatever".

That's a valid business model. You should have the right to start that business. A Congressional "Net Neutrality" law would violate your right to operate that business.

In any discussion of "rights", it's very important to consider all angles. Frequently, someone's "right" infringes on someone else's.

And since when was "internet access" a right or a freedom? I know I pay for mine, and I get what I pay for. If I didn't, I'd seek out another vendor.

Guess your right. Ignore me.

that's not the response I wanted to generate... no discussion takes place if we ignore each other. If I genuinely persuaded you to my point of view, well... good. If I didn't, feel free to keep posting!

Yes, I thought you made a good point, and it made sence.

I think the people will have the ultimate choice, if one isp doesnt provide they will change.

Wort thing to ever happen to the net!!!!!!!

What? The principles of Net Neutrality? Or a Congressional Law fumbling around with our ISPs?

Wish I'd read this and the wiki before I went off in the other 'save the internet' thread.

I have a dim view of 'free market economics'. I don't trust it, really. In theory, competition is healthy. In theory, companies will work to improve their services or lower costs to remain competitive.

In reality, the companies look at each other, and make a deal. They agree to coexist or merge, creating a situation where improvements and lower costs are not driving factors, and where any new competitors can be easily crushed or acquired.

After that, there is very little that the free market can do.
Greed seems to be much more compelling than morality.

Also, consider the effects of advertising. if you have a large company with an artificially high price for its services, it will have better advertisments and be able to operate (briefly) at cut-throat competitive rates (aka, first 3 months free!) to keep the majority of internet users (the uninformed) from looking elsewhere.

Not conducive to business.

Yes, I know. I'm exceedingly cynical and jumping straight to worst-case scenario.

But I seriously have a hard time believing that businesses in command of something as powerful as the internet would make themselves completely honest and fair if they were given the powers to discriminate based on payment.

And I still have no clue how this'd work when foreign ISPs come into play.
Will the nice, high-speed network be world-wide? Or, will you still run into problems if there's heavy activity in the UK, South Korea, or Japan?
Isn't this really just saying "Only America-America connections will benefit from legislating discriminatory networks, despite the 'World' in 'WWW'"?

It's not the worst thing that could happen to the internet, but it's a bad idea. The current system appears to be fine. If the american telecomms are in trouble, they won't disappear. If they go belly up, the users won't be able to connect, so free-market thinking suggests that the pricing and services will change to cope with the problems through technology and business rather than using law as a weapon against the American consumers.