Access to your pr0n is safe, for now

[Bison]

My point is that, much like healthcare, the internet is not broken and not need of a major government fixing.  And if the government feels the need to fix it, then the fix should be done in the open.  It wasn't and is not available for public viewing.  Have you read the newly passed regulation?  Or are you allowing your ideals to presume that the regulation is what you think it should be?   If the issue is whether an ISP can give fast track to certain services where by those services and ISP are interlinked through ownership or exclusive contract, then I'd think that there are monopoly rules in place to handle such issue.

I've lived several years in the 21st century without the internet.  I know hard it's hard to believe but true.  There is life in the world where the internet isn't vital.  I'd argue most of it.  Now do I love the internet?  Yes.  Does it make life convenient?  Yes.  Are more basic services being provided through internet based services versus traditional in person services?  Yes.  Does that make the internet a right?  It's a debate to be had to be sure.

There needs to be a very real discussion about rights.  What are truly rights?  What are conveniences, wants, desires, idealistic notions that masquerade as rights?   

Forcing the internet into 1930 telecommunication oversight and regulation is exactly what they are doing. 

[mirth]

We can go round in circles on the issue forever, we'll continue to disagree. I respect your point of view, while disagreeing with it.

The truth is that the FCC's actions last week change nothing about the current delivery of internet services:

http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/

[bayonetbrant]

Not sure why we need to change it.

because right now there is no legal framework in place to go after an ISP that start limiting content from non-favored sources

[LongBlade]

Not sure why we need to change it.

because right now there is no legal framework in place to go after an ISP that start limiting content from non-favored sources

Does there need to be?

In a free market if one company does something stupid other companies can offer better services. Unless there's collusion, but that's already illegal.

[Bison]

We can go round in circles on the issue forever, we'll continue to disagree. I respect your point of view, while disagreeing with it.

The truth is that the FCC's actions last week change nothing about the current delivery of internet services:

http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/

]

Fair enough.

The truth is no one other than the 5 FCC board members who voted on the regulations and the lawyers and special interest who wrote the regulation actually know what the new regulation says.  All other sources are at best second hand information.  It has not been release for public consumption yet.  There in lies the danger. 

[Steelgrave]

Does there need to be?

In a free market if one company does something stupid other companies can offer better services. Unless there's collusion, but that's already illegal.

But there is no true free market among internet/cable providers. They have been allowed to carve the country up into their own fiefdoms. If we could go to a company that offered better choices, would most consumers put up with Comcast's absolutely horrid customer service? Makes me wonder exactly how much money they put into the pockets of eager Congressmen.

It's not a free market when the government has sold out in exchange for wheel barrels of cash, and it's difficult to see cable providers as anything other than monopolies.....unless we prefer the more colorful term "robber barons".

[mirth]

I appreciate the discussion guys. It's been one of the better ones I've had here or elsewhere. Thoughtful and civil. That's rare enough.

[Staggerwing]

Here's my take: substitute telephone for internet and what you get is a situation where you pay to get to talk on the phone as much as you want but your phone company wants to limit who you can talk to and how many minutes you can talk to them by interfering with the connection to the folks you want to talk to most.

Ridiculously naive maybe, but there you have it.

[Bison]

I must live in another country called the United States from you guys, because never once has my access to any site been regulated or controlled. 

On a side note: the telephone connection is not that everyone is entitled to a working phone line to do with as they want.  IIRC all that your current phone line without paid service must enable you to do is dial 911 or emergency services.  So what is the basic requirement for the internet?  Surely not emergency service since that is what telephones are still required to do.

[mirth]

I think that's the point of the FCC decision,  to avoid the interference you describe.

[Bison]

OK.  But what is the internet equivalent of being allowed to dial 911 from any house based hard line?

[mirth]

Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?

[LongBlade]

I appreciate the discussion guys. It's been one of the better ones I've had here or elsewhere. Thoughtful and civil. That's rare enough.

Oh,

[MetalDog]

Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?

I'm fairly sure that cell phones are capable of that, too, even without paid service.  What I am not seeing, unless I missed it (which is possible), is what YOUR base line is for Internet service?  Is it DSL access for all?  Maybe reduced Mbps for all?  Public Internet kiosks, like old phone booths where you dump your change in for x minutes of Internet access?  All homes hardwired with Internet access, just put a deposit down at the local Internet Utility office and we'll turn you on from there?

[mirth]

I'm not actually concerned about the level if service. If I pay for 3 mbps that's what it is. Just don't tell me that one site gets preference over another. Infrastructure should be neutral.