Preserving Net Neutrality with a Space-Based Internet

Well, with net neutrality we will all have the comfort of downloading and watching spike dance on his hind legs and barking at lightning download speeds while you are waiting for the doctor to conference call with a specialist as your wife curls up into a fetal position in pain.

My argument against the dark side of net neutrality is there are services that really do deserve priority over Facebook posts. Whether it is the information super highway or just US I95, I am happy to pull over so that the ambulance can get by.

On further research, there already are provisions for 'some' data to be treated as 'real-time, mission-critical' privilaged, and hospital-to-hospital communications are on that list. So you can relax, your wife's pain is safe from dog videos.

If the government forces the ISPs to provide blazing fast speeds for everyone, the internet will become a jammed up mess...like everything else the government touches.

Some people only use the computer for email, and pay as low as $15 a month.

I mostly surf and have Netflix, so the mid tier plan works fine.

Then there are the gamers that want incredble amounts of speed so they can kill each other in real time.

There's nothing wrong with paying for bandwidth, and the internet is not a utility.

The problem is not so much ISP speeds, but 84% of internet traffic is on-line video and probably 80% of that is simply trash (in my opinion of art and news).

There is no way that forcing ISPs to speed up connections is going to result in anything but even more expensive service.

The only thing more obscene than my internet bill is my wireless bill. I see people paying for these two services where their bills are 1/3 of their mortgage and more than a car loan.

The excuse the government is using is that ISPs are supposedly blocking or slowing down particular content...like from competitors. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I have no problem with tiered plans that charge more for more data or faster speeds.

As far as providing everyone with lightening speed...I don't even think it's possible right now.

I pay $40 a month for internet that's good enough for Netflix and streaming video, $7 a month for cellphone w/o data. No cable or satellite. Home phone w/ unlimited US calling is $15 a month. That's everything I pay.

...and yeah, I'd say that the vast majority of internet usage is for trash or entertainment. It certainly doesn't rank with electricity and water.

Needless to say, I always get nervous when government says they want to get involved to make things "fair".

AH, Kramart, what you guys are neglecting to consider is that the Telecoms are ALREADY using their Monoply/Duopoly positions to squeeze consumers, have you looked at your cable bill lately?

AH, you bring up the 'dog videos will slow down the medical conference call' argument, but tell me, HOW will that happen? Is the internet a 'series of tubes' that can become 'clogged' if too much data is sent through it? No, it's a 'network,' if one trunk is at capacity from Dog videos or Justin Beiber fangirls, the phone call will simply take an alternate route, a long, indirect way that will cause a delay of -gasp- a whole 700 miliseconds! It took longer for the Specialist to go 'Hmmmmm' as he was thinking over the information the doctor gave him.

Kramat, if the Telecoms are able to 'prioritize' net traffic based on content, how long will it take before some political party will pay to 'slow down' his opponent's websites to 300 baud (the speed of the first commercial modems, compared to the modern internet, it's "Not technically blocking, but so close to zero speed it is for all intents and purposes, blocked"). How long before Climate Change Deniers and Intelligent Design Supporters start offering bribes to keep "that uppity Tyson fellow" from "polluting the minds" of their followers and 'potential followers,' by which they mean 'everyone.'

A tiered internet is a censored internet by another name. Do you really trust these soulless corporations to control what you are allowed to see and hear? Remember Enron? Lehman Brothers? Did they live up to the trust people had given them?

"Is the internet a 'series of tubes' that can become 'clogged' if too much data is sent through it? "

Servers do get busy and sometimes too busy. So, yes, you can have data overload.

Which is why the interNET is designed as a network, instead of a series.

One hub gets busy, fails to acknowledge data received, the hub that sent to it sends to another hub to 'work around' the 'blockage.'

The only way that cat videos could interfere with your wife's medical call is if the Final Hub that your doctor connects to is also the Final Hub for a Cat Video Repository Data Cluster, and that site is being flooded with video requests, to the level of a DDoS attack. Even then, a Skype-based video call would simply suffer occasional moments of 'poor reception,' no worse than a normal phone call with occasional static on the line, or a slight drop in video resolution.

Now there are a few reasons why the scenario I just spelled out is unlikely.

1) Areas that get picked to put Data Cluster facilities in are, in general, remote locations with cheap land. Medical centers are typically in more crowded/urban areas, because that's where the patients are. So the odds of both being on the same 'last mile' are slim.

2) Data Cluster facilities, due to their high bandwidth usage, generally have one or more hubs located within the building itself, (since the building is already set up for racks and racks of computer equipment, telecom equipment fits in the racks too, and can share the electrical and A/C provided.)

3) Medical centers will typically have connections to two or more hubs, for the same reason they they will typically have two or more diesel generators in the basement: redundancy provides safety and protection in case of utility failure.

Prioritizing data streams is not the same as prioritizing physical traffic lanes. We defer to the ambulance, fire truck, and police car because they NEED to get through fast, and our movement will impede theirs. Data packets, however, have abilities that emergency vehicles lack: They can be cloned, and they can be broken up into smaller pieces. Every frame of that cat video, every second of that medical consultation, is cloned into dozens of identical copies, and scattered out among the network. The data doesn't take 'the fasted route' or 'the shortest route.' No, like the Infinite Improbability Drive from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the data takes EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE AT ONCE, and the pieces that arrive first are considered the 'real' data (with the 2nd and 3rd place finishers looked at to error-check the winner) and the rest simply fade away like a Summer daydream, either arriving at the final destination and deleted, or 'dying of old age' as a hub deletes them for being older than their 'kill by' timestamp.

Remember Servers are not Hubs, Servers are at the ends of the data transfer path, the Hubs make up the road.

I'm also a little disappointed that you chose to argue for the 'series of tubes' analogy, I thought that pop culture reverence was well understood by now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Tyson has already changed his position to pro-GMO's, so don't be too sure of the future…..

I haven't seen any evidence of ISPs prioritizing traffic based on content. However, the ISPs do limit speeds based on the particular plan a person is willing to pay for. What's wrong with that?

If the government forces all ISPs to give everybody access to the fast lane, regardless of internet plan, it won't be the fast lane anymore. It will be a typical gummed up mess that the government is so adept at creating.

"how long will it take before some political party will pay to 'slow down' his opponent's websites"

Exactly my point! If some political party is willing to use the IRS to shut down the speech of private citizens that disagree with them, you can bet that the same corrupt politicians will be willing to bully the ISPs into doing the same...and with government regulation enacted, the ISPs don't dare disobey.

We also know that some political party is perfectly willing to engage in full blown cronyism... rewarding companies and donors that carry the party line, while punishing those that disagree with them.

Why stop at the internet?

Shouldn't everyone that owns a cellphone get unlimited everything, regardless of plan?

"I haven't seen any evidence of ISPs prioritizing traffic based on content. However, the ISPs do limit speeds based on the particular plan a person is willing to pay for. What's wrong with that?"

Net Neutrality is not about you paying for faster speeds and more bandwith in your house than I have in mine, it's about charging the PROVIDERS for the 'privilige' of using the 'full speed' of the internet trunk lines. This stifles competition and creates a Barrier to Entry. Would YouTube or Netflix have been able to get off the ground if they needed to raise $10M in capital before they were allowed to send data out at speeds that would allow live streaming?

"Exactly my point! If some political party is willing to use the IRS to shut down the speech of private citizens that disagree with them, you can bet that the same corrupt politicians will be willing to bully the ISPs into doing the same...and with government regulation enacted, the ISPs don't dare disobey."

But the regulations about forbidding fast-lane/slow-lane, it would be a crime for the ISP to COMPLY with 'government bullying' to shut out a rival's voice.

"We also know that some political party is perfectly willing to engage in full blown cronyism... rewarding companies and donors that carry the party line, while punishing those that disagree with them."

With actual Title II 'common carrier' designation, such cronyism would be impossible, just as it is impossible for Obama or .. whoever's the new Republican leaters in the House and Senate .. to order the phone companies to prevent their political opponents from reaching the voters by phone.

"Shouldn't everyone that owns a cellphone get unlimited everything, regardless of plan?"

Again, you're mistaking the tiered services offered the CONSUMER (which would still be legal and perfectly acceptable under Net Neutrality) with the concept of speed-throttling/blocking/censoring/shaking down the CONTENT PROVIDERS.

Perhaps a historical example would help. We've seen all this before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Brown_Strowger

"Convinced that it should be subscribers, rather than the operator, who chose who was called - anecdotally, Strowger's undertaking business was losing clients to a competitor whose telephone-operator wife was intercepting and redirecting everyone who called Strowger - he first conceived his invention in 1888, and patented the automatic telephone exchange in 1891. It is reported that he initially constructed a model of his invention from a round collar box and some straight pins."

Net Neutrality isn't about "Everyone having unlimited bandwith in every home, even if they don't pay for it," it's about protecting the consumer from 'man-in-the-middle' attacks and redirections. Say you want to watch the final episode of Breaking Bad because you missed it. You check on Netflix and they don't have it in their library. (Not surprising, Netflix is more for movies than TV shows.) Then you check Hulu, and they've got the entire final season available for free viewing online (With Hulu-inserted commercials in where the commercial breaks were in the original broadcast, but who cares, it's no different from watching it live.) So you click on the link to start playing the final ep, but get redirected to a different page, where Comcast is offering to let you watch the entire final season, comercial-free, for only $19.99 (and in fine print, low-contrast font at the bottom, is the disclaimer that this is a one-time-viewing license, that expires 24 hours after purchase). You click the 'No thanks, I'd prefer to watch it on Hulu with the commercials." button and finally get to the Hulu page playing the ep you wanted to watch..

And it's buffering.....

and buffering .....

and buffering ......

Ah, there it goes, starting with the 'opening commercials,' No big deal, it's just 30 seconds of ads before the show starts..

Except that the commercials are pausing to finish buffering ...

and buffering ...

so it takes two minutes to get through that and get to the show itself. Who cares, it was just commercials getting mangled. Now for the sho-

buffering.....

buffering.....

Ah, it restarted, backed up a few seconds, but no big de-

buffering.......

buffering....... ........ .......

...........

............................

................................................

.............................................................

.............................................................

The only thing that isn't being slow and jerky with rando/slow and je- rky with random rewinds is the banner add on the top of the page:

"You can still buy this episode to watch commercial-free through Comcast, for just $29.99" (Note that it's not just one ep, not the whole season, and the price has gone up.)

--- --- ---

You say you don't trust the politicians that We, the People elect into those positions. I agree, most of them are idiots (you find a good one every decade or so, but they're usually one-termers). However, I trust the Corporations, who have leaders and boards of directors that are completely unelected by We, the People, even less.

Unlike politicians, the corporations will do what the consumers demand or they will go away.

Given the litany of revelations lately, I can't even discuss this without launching into a pure rant.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

Such utter BS.

If government wants to be involved, they can simply require ISPs to fully disclose their policies and fine them for fraud if they lie. Period. The end.

"Unlike politicians, the corporations will do what the consumers demand or they will go away."

The last time I checked, Corporations do not answer to the consumers, but to the stockholders. If the corporation makes a profit, the stockholders receive their dividend and they are happy. If the corporation does not make a profit, the stockholders scream for the President and/or CEO to be fired (with suitable Golden Parachute, as was written into the contract the Board of Directors drafted for the President/CEO, since the CEO of one company is on the Board of Directors of another, and vice versa, they end u forming a 'boys club' and make sure that they'll all get lots of money no matter how the companies themselves are doing).

Corporations like to be as transparent as our government is, meaning 'not at all.'

I'm not trying to push you into continuing, just wanted to clear up that point of 'who do the corporations work for.'

I don't like what's happened with the stock market, (another government tool via QE), but ultimately, (unless they are in bed with government), corporations actually have to sell something that consumers are willing to pay them for. Otherwise they fail.

"Too big to fail" is a misnomer. It should be, "So big that failure is in the cards". No corporation should be rescued with tax dollars by a government that has managed us into a $17 trillion debt.

Government takes money away from people by decree, and their duties are clearly spelled out...at least here in the US...at least they used to be.

"The last time I checked, Corporations do not answer to the consumers, but to the stockholders."

First, if they are publicly traded, yes. However, most corporations are small business and the stockholder model is not really the governing agent here.

Regardless, without customers any corporation is valueless, so in the end they must pursue the market as it exists or suffer diminished returns or possibly perish.

"Unlike politicians, the corporations will do what the consumers demand or they will go away."

Which? Corporations, or consumers?

The internet was conceived as a universal pipeline for information. I think that's right, Al Gore would know for sure.

It has morphed into a cash cow for business.

Band width that was once free for all to use has suddenly become available to the highest bidder.

The USA ranks 27th in the world in internet speed and 19th in internet value. Nothinh to brag about.

AH has a valid point about some priorities being established. My opinion is that dollars should not establish those priorities.

Nothing is free Lyn. Ever.

Edit- Given last Tuesday's results, it looks like politicians can go away also.

People are driven by profit, making their lives better, and yes, the satisfaction of helping others...as this site demonstrates.

Eliminate all of that supposed greed, and we are all living in North Korea...and 99% of us will truly be "equal". No thanks.

Opinions and advice are.

And birds are, unless they fly into a wind turbine or that cooker out in the desert west of here.

Nobody here will have even the slightest influence on what happens to the band width in question.

I know. I get the feeling that we influence very little.

One question on Obama's new plan to help us on the internet evils that He will save us from...
If we like our ISP and our current plan, can we keep them?

Here's what bothers me. Providers are making billions and re-investing almost nothing back into the infrastructure.

Thanks Wall Street!

They also spend billions. Revenue and investment appear to be neck and neck.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-11/strict-internet-rules-are-unlikely-to-dry-up-investment

Maybe they can't get the infrastructure materials because the NSA has bought it all up.

There's a reason that Obama is chomping at the bit to get this through, and I'm pretty sure it's not about insuring our freedom.

In the very best case scenario, regulations will raise the cost of doing business and those costs will be passed along to us idiots.

I don't want to contemplate the worst case scenario.

You obviously don't read this crap before you post it.

Instead, the new rules could pretty much maintain the status quo-which has worked out well for companies such as Verizon ($54 billion in profit from 2010 to 2013), AT&T (T) ($50 billion over that period), and Comcast ($24 billion.)

Not since 2002 have investments outpaced revenues.

I read it. So what's wrong with making money? What's the government's cut of those profits?

My internet works fine. Show me the link where Obama makes his case and demonstrates why we need Him to regulate it.

I'm telling you...our government is unconstitutionally collecting and storing our every communication, and hasn't even told us why. They have also illegally tapped into the phones and computers of reporters, and used the IRS to quell speech and silence opponents.

Which ISP has done worse than that, and why would we want full government involvement in the internet?

This is one of those genies that won't go back in the bottle.

How come people can pay to get to the top of a google search? Shouldn't that be stopped also?

ISPs are not going to do anything that drives their customers to the competition. Government does whatever they want. They have no competition, and as we are seeing unfold in the Obamacare story, are completey willing to lie to stupid voters in order to fulfill an agenda.

Just for a little perspective, you, adreasler, and some of the others should think about how you feel about this idea with a republican super majority in place...which could be just a couple of years away.

Does it still feel like it's a good idea?

When things like this come up, in order to be in favor of it, we should be able to tell ourselves that we trust the members of both political parties to do what's right for us.

How often does that happen?

When it comes to trusting ANY politician, the phrase 'I trust him about as far as I could comfortably spit out a live rat' comes to mind. (Thank you, Douglas Adams, for that line.)

However, to provide a sense of scale for my relative trust of politicians and corporations. I would not trust a corporation to even speak to my innocent, naive, teenage daughter, while I would let a politician take that same teenage daughter, and her even more innocent tween sister, up to a secluded cabin in the woods for a three-week holiday, unchaperoned.

Politicians, vile and disgusting things that they are, at leased USED to be people at some point, so there is hope for them to do the right thing now and then, even if for the wrong motivations. Corporations are not, never were, and can never be people, they are merely legal fictions to 'oil the gears' of Business, and nothing more. They may be created with the best of intentions, but soon enough they become little more that greedy profit-machines, consuming everything and everyone they can in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar, and you will never find anyone in a 'position of control,' President, Chief Officer, Board Member, who remembers voting for or authorizing such vile acts, and instead clearly remembers opposing it if they were aware of it at all.

I believe someone earlier mentioned Apple Computers for all the good they've done for society and the people. Apple may be all sweetness, light, and iWhatevers, but let us not forget the company who was doing the manufacturing of all the glories Apple was designing, FoxCon. Yes, Apple can say "They were the most competitive bid, we didn't visit the plant, it was just business," but does the Sergeant Schultz Defense ("I know nozink! I know nozink!") really fly? Apple CHOSE to not do plant visits of the best bids, because they didn't want to have to eliminate a potential partner for Human Rights violations. If a corporation wants to claim the High Moral Ground (or any type of Morality, even if it's just "We're not going to be TOTAL *BLEEP*-heads") then they need to make sure the corporations they have working under them adhere to the same standards, or they come off as hypocritical as a Vegan animal-rights activist who drives around in a Prius with Genuine Leather seats.

Codifying Net Neutrality to be what it has been ("Deliver the bits, Stupid.") when the backbone maintainers have been letting slip about what they want to do to change things in the name of profit, changes that will open the door for even more abuses down the road, Codifying Net Neutrality is a vital issue. The wolf is at the door, scratching away and politely asking for some mutton, STAND UP AND FIGHT, SHEEPLE, before the wolf decides to quit being polite and starts demanding that we give ourselves up to it.

Not sure where you picked up your hatred for corporations. Daily Kos?

I don't think corporations or unions should influence politics. But this isn't a chicken and egg argument.

The US government has set up the biggest, most bloated tax and regulatory system on the planet. How do you think these evil corporations get away with the things that you hate?

Politicians serve the corporations, and currently we are seeing corporations being rewarded or punished based on political affiliations and donations.

Do you honestly think net neutrality, along with yet another expensive bureaucracy would change that?

How many political cycles have you lived through?

How many times have you heard politicians say they are going to fix things for the middle class and the 'little" guy?

How many times have you actually experienced the promised "good times", due to what politicians have done?

I love the argument the telecoms are giving: "If you won't let us be the ones to control content on the internet, we'll stop expanding bandwith and extending access to remote ares, despite the fact that you've already given us federal funding to do exactly what we're threatening to withhold."

The telecoms are whining like spoiled children. I'm against using pain as punishment for minors, but I can think of no better analogy. If the telecoms are going to while like little brats, they need to be bent over and spanked like little brats. And the full 'Title II' classification, making the internet a 'common carrier' is just the rump-paddling they need.

I just read another article about net neutrality, and the one example they provided for a company that pays ISPs for faster speeds is Netflix.

I like Netflix and I don't want to have to pay full time for the temporary speed boost I get while watching a TV show or movie. I don't think it's wrong for Netflix to use a portion of my $8 a month to pay my ISP to allow temporary high speeds.

Since it's impossible to maintain these speeds for everyone, all the time, it sounds like net neutrality would result in periods of "buffering" while trying to watch a movie.

That alone is enough for me to say no.

No, YOUR UL/DL speeds are the same, whether or not you're watching Netflix.

What Netflix is paying for is the bandwith so they can serve ALL their customers at once. And this bandwith they're paying for is from their ISP, their 'gateway,' just like you're paying your ISP, your 'gateway' for the speeds you get.

The scenario Net Neutrality is trying to prevent is as follows:

You get your internet service through Comcast, and pay Comcast to be your ISP. Netflix has their Data Center in an area serviced by AOL/Time-Warner, so they pay AOL for seven 'gateway feeds' through seven different 'hub points,' so they can provide all the movies they have to all their customers at once.

Comcast has major trunk lines all over, as does AOL, and Sprint, (the 'internet backbone') and they all send data on each other's trunk lines in a casual 'quid pro quo' agreement (since it's more profitable to cooperate than for each one to expand their own network to cover the entire country in a case of triple-redundancy). Now, the route between Netflix and your house runs across part of the Sprint trunk, so they're 'sharing the load' of sending Netflix to your house without being paid directly by either you or Netflix. Granted, Comcast doesn't get paid when Hulu (based in Sprint's area) sends videos to the guy who lives next door to the Netflix Data center (and get's their internet access from AOL), but Sprint decides that they should get paid for ALL traffic that uses their trunk, 'quid pro quo' be dammed. Sprint then goes to Netflix and offers them 'preferential treatment' on the sprint backbone for a rediculously high fee. Netflix sanely refuses, and Sprint then 'throttles down' the Netflix data to an unbearably slow speed, to the point where users cannot even connect to the Netflix website without the browsers reporting that the connections have timed out.

Another scenario I mentioned earlier is Comcast blocking any Netflix movies that are also offered through Comcast's OnDemand. Comcast is both a Carrier (service provider) and a Source (Content provider) so, without net neutrality, Comcast can unfairly interfere with their competition.

Here's some more info:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2014/11/13/why-comcast-vs-netflix-is-not-about-net-neutrality/

As usual, there is a larger story:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

Now it's looking like you're mad at the wrong corporation, and government is being equally dishonest in order to get it's foot in the internet door.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/netflixs-chief-executive-pushes-net-neutrality-in-europe/?_r=0

Here's another:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality-obsolete

Now it's sounding like Netflix just wants to have their cake and eat it too...and using the government(s) as a willing accomplice.

And you can see in this example what I've been getting at.

In the 'olden days' the 'backbone maintainers' were separate from the 'content providers' or the 'service providers.' everyone had choices, and there was fair, level competition.

Comcast has, through its mergers and acquisitions has expanded to become a 'backbone maintainer' and 'service provider' in one. Even if a 'content provider' chooses a different 'backbone maintainer,' they still have to deal with Comcast. Add in the fact that Comcast is also a 'content provider' and now you have what is known as 'vertical integration.' Comcast provides content, maintains the backbone to deliver the content, and runs the gateway allowing the end users to receive the content. So now Comcast is in direct competition with their customers, the other 'content suppliers,' and has an unfair advantage in that they control the access to the network that all the content providers need to use.

Let's use an analogy to get away from the technical terms. Let's say there are four companies, Able Dairies, Baker Dairies, Charlie Shipping, and David's Grocery Store. Both Able and Baker sell their milk at David's, and both use Charlie for delivering the milk. Everyone is happy and the milk flows like water.

Then Charlie buys Baker, and slowly the shipping costs for Able begin to rise. Able decides to stop shipping through Charlie and signs on with Edgar Shipping. Able and Charlie may be muttering unpleasant things about each other under their breath, but David's still getting the milk at fair prices from both dairies to sell to the customers, so the milk flows like water.

Then Charlie buys David's, and decides to charge Edgar a 'docking fee' to make deliveries, a fee that Charlie does not need to pay (or pays to himself, which is the same thing). Poor able is in a bind, no matter which shipping company he uses, he has to pay more to get his milk to the store, and he has to either pass the cost on to the customers (putting his milk at a disadvantage to Charlie's milk) or run his business at a loss to stay competitive (which will mean the death of the company over time). The price of Baker milk rises at the store, but not as much as the price Able needs to charge to stay solvent. Charlie has forced Able out of business and now has complete control over the price and quality of milk that the customers receive. Prices skyrocket, quality plummets, and the people have nowhere to turn for help, since Charlie's game is now the only game in town.

This is why we have 'common carrier' laws in the US (and equivalent laws in other countries) to prevent companies from creating unfair advantages over their competition. Under 'common carrier' laws, Charlie has to charge a fair rate to carry Able's milk, equal to what it charges Baker (assuming quantities and distances are equal), and David's cannot charge 'docking fees' unfairly, It would need to be an even charge across the board (assuming the costs of doing the receiving paperwork are the same).

So when Charlie buys Baker, he has three options: continue carrying Able's milk at a fair market price (competing with Frank for Able's business), carry Able's milk at the same price Charlie carries Baker's milk at, dropping the carrying price down to 'cost of the gas to move it,' or restructure Charlie's Shipping as a 'private carrier' and let Able and Frank move their milk in peace.

When Charlie buys David's, however, a whole other kettle of fish is opened. Charlie has 'vertically integrated,' Baker-to-Charlie-to-David's. There is no other supermarket in the area to sell milk at, and even if Charlie plays fair, not adding any docking fees to non-Charlie deliveries at David's, the potential, the temptation to 'get a little edge' on the competition will always be there. That's why we have the laws as they are, so Uncle Sam can step in and say, "Charlie, you're doing something that has the potential to hurt not only your competition, but also the economy, and hurting the economy hurts ME. So you've got two choices, you can either sell off sections so you will be playing fair, or I'm going to TELL you what you're going to do, and how much you can charge, so you don't hurt the economy and hurt me."

"Free market" means "fair competition," not "companies are free to do whatever they want without consequences."

Someone here insinuated that I'm just being a mouthpiece for Daily Kos, but you directly referenced Fox News. So I'm pretty sure this is going to degrade (NOT devolve, 'devolve' does not mean 'opposite of evolve,' it means 'to pass down, to inherit,' if a higher court chooses not to judge a case, the ruling devolves to the lower court that passed the case up) into a political shouting match. I think my position is clear, so I'm going to bow out before the name-calling starts.

You're not big on brevity, huh?

I am. No net neutrality needed. Problem solved with existing law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I suppose it's possible that the president hasn't heard of this.

Brevity is for when there is a simple answer.

"Should I stick my finger in the light socket?" "No."

A complex question without a simple answer requires a long, detailed response.

The problem is that the Supreme Court made a ruling that said the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce those laws on the Vertically Integrated ISPs.

That meant that the agency that was supposed to police them no longer had the jurisdiction over them. That, in effect, but them 'beyond the reach of law.'

The 'fight for Net Neutrality' is to reclassify Broadband Service the way it should have been classified in the first place, which will bring it again under the authority of the FCC.

(This is the same Supreme Court that made the decision in Peoples United that Corporate Political Spending was 'free speech,' opening the floodgates for the uber-wealthy to funnel - I think it did reach billions, with a B - billions of dollars in attack ads all over the country in what some would call a successful attempt to 'buy' the government.)

And since you're not letting this drop, and you've previously shown yourself to be a 'party line' Republican (Who else quotes Fox News?), let me share with you something from a fellow Republican's Facebook page:

https://m.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152839355922464

You don't need to read the personal attack posts, just cherry-pick the ones from the self-described Republicans and Conservatives.

( looks at the posts from Republicans )

Oh, I'm sorry, some of the conservatives are resorting to name-calling. but there's still some good rebuttals in there from Republicans that are FOR Net Neutrality.

I know we're not on the best of terms with each other right now, but if you check out those replies, would you let me know if there are any that SUPPORT Cruz's statement, or are they all variations of "You're wrong, Ted."?

What do you mean we're not on the best of terms? Relax...it's just a conversation.

Why are you angry that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people, just like unions?

There's no need to expand FCC powers. Antitrust law is covered by the FTC, and pretty clearly spelled out.

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Advocacy/antitrust/other_resources/FTC_Act.htm

I'm not a party line republican or right winger; more like a free market, small government, fiscally conservative libertarian.

This whole thing makes as much sense as rewriting immigration law that hasn't ever been enforced...then calling it broken, in order to hand out blanket amnesty.

Just to completely confuse things, the internet will likely end up in the hands of the UN anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/us-to-relinquish-remaining-control-over-the-internet/2014/03/14/0c7472d0-abb5-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html

Use your imagination on where this leads.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/technology/195647-dems-demand-government-study-on-internet-hate-speech

You don't like Ted Cruz?

His Dad got to live in socialist utopia. You know... nationalized healthcare, shut down the rich and nationalize the evil corporations, equality for all workers....

When he challenged the leaders of utopia he was imprisoned. He was finally able to escape from utiopia and make it to the US. Fascinating story, and the basis for Ted's position. Hardly worthy of hatred.

The outernet concept sounds good, but maybe a bit lofty.

It requires some level of government to get things launched into space, and government will always be bent on manipulating or controlling information. I wish them luck.