Or, do we not even know yet since no one has read the whole thing since it's being kept private?

I will take

"not even know yet since no one has read the whole thing since it's being kept private"

Sounds innocuous enough. What could be in a name?

What supposedly free Americans really "need" is ever-more government control.


That's reason enough to be very concerned. A new regulation with a catchy name always ends up as a "bait and switch" and equals less liberty.

I'm definitely for net neutrality. obviously there's potential for other stuff to get lumped in, but until something specific comes solid is brought up i'll just stick to net neutrality.

The issue is that the nature of the internet doesn't really allow for a true free market. for a new company to lay the cables has a huge cost (and in and of itself would probably require eminent domain--so, more government). And since communication companies have been allowed to consolidate so much, there's a huge conflict of interest. Take comcast--they are not just providers but also produce a lot of content. They have an incentive to block or slow down competitiors like Netflix, and, I believe already have done some shady deals.

I'm not sure how many people (at least how many people who aren't being paid off by the service providers) are against net neutrality as a concept. So now it's just a matter of how do you enforce it.

I believe in the UK they have laws where the actual cables aren't public owned, but service providers must allow third-party competitors the ability to use them.

The other side of the coin it that co like netfilx use a lot of bandwidth that slows the internet that they get to use at a minimal cost.

But I am not taking sides as there is probably some junk written in that will be a disaster.

yeah, that's a decent point against it, but what really makes the issue is that in a lot of the country the service providers have a monopoly. so, they're not just looking to charge a "fair" price for bandwidth used. And a lot of them are part of larger communications companies that have other interests --are they slowing Netflix down because it uses a lot of bandwidth or because it's a competition to Hulu and the traditional tv channels.

The real problem is that there are huge hurdles to make a true free market solution work. In a lot of areas there are no other options to switch to if your provider decides to limit what you can access on the web.

But that's another possible solution for net neutrality--you have to have it, but you charge customers based on the bandwidth they use. But good luck marketing that.

The greater question is: As Americans, are we happier with our lives now that we have effectively surrendered to ever-more government control?

"US historians Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956). Friedrich and Brzezinski‘s theoretical model, derived from the history of the twentieth century, had six key features."

•An official ideology to which general adherence was demanded, the ideology intended to achieve a ‘perfect final stage of mankind‘.

•A single mass party, hierarchically organised, closely interwoven with the state bureaucracy and typically led by one man.

•Monopolistic control of the armed forces.

•A similar monopoly of the means of effective mass communication.

•A system of terroristic police control.

•Central control and direction of the entire economy.

yep, that's the logical, well-informed other side of the issue

I think everyone here can agree that if the government is involved, then certainly the outcome will be better for everyone...for some excellent recent examples of this, see:

-IRS
-CFPB
-ACA (better known as Obamacare)
-Social Security
-Medicaid
-Dept. of Veteran Affairs
-Dept. of Homeland Security

Honestly, I am unsure how anyone who works with compliance can believe that the government will improve just about any part of our lives without it making it worse in (and usually much worse) other ways.

Govt usually functions as such IMO:
Good intentions --> Semi-reasonable plan to fix problem --> Terrible execution --> Horrible results --> Problem still exists and new problems are added

yeah,agreed. But in this case i'm not sure that the end of net neutrality wouldn't be worse than the standard government corruption/incompetency. there's really not a great solution because it's kind of government vs. a monopoply of a pretty important resource (knowledge/communication).

I can get the internet on my cell phone (no cables attached)This appears to be an issue that may be moot in a few years. Why can't netfilx/google/yahoo just beam it to any house (device) that they wish no wires required.

besides in my area we have verizon fios and cablevison and they both stink.

very very simplified: the technology isn't there yet. Not on a scale to replace cable/fiber internet. It may be someday (and i think i read that Elon Musk is working on it) but, yeah, if that happens it would help with the issue.

Of course then you have the potential issue where whoever sets up the satellites/cellular internet merges with comcast and then we're back where we are now.

"the technology isn't there yet"

ever hear of "Dishnet"

I am not sure about the "deal" as it is hidden from the public. But Netflix just seems to want a free ride on someone else s technology and infrastructure.

Is there no better solution than having govt essentially control access to the internet? But, that is an assumption since not many people have had access to the full document. What happened to everyone being able to see key pieces of legislation prior to voting on it (outside of defense and security of the country type deals)?

Fixed.

The campaign is over.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html

Celebrated technologist Sir Tim Berners-Lee said this ensures modern entrepreneurs the same opportunity he had when he created the World Wide Web 26 years ago.

I thought someone else invented it????

I think a simple question to ask is has anyone looked at countries where the government controls access to the internet? Not much of a stretch to imagine what happens to sites that are in disagreement with status quo.

North Korea and Iran both regulate the internet.

One thing I do not understand is why people are so adamant that the internet is a basic human right and required for all people just to survive. The internet is just a few years old and the human race survived easily with out it.

And looking at the amount of illness, stress, evil and crime the net has gifted us we might be better off having the companies price it out of our reach. (which of course they will never do as they are companies with share holders driven by profit)

I'll bet your great grandpappy said the same thing about the automobile.

and the patent office almost was closed in the early 1900s because "there just ain't much left to invent"

I dont know that i'd call it a basic human right, and obviously we could survive without it, but i think it helps everyone if it's open and accessible and not stifled (by companies or the government). Dont think of the internet by itself--it's merely the best, most revolutionary way to provide communication and knowledge. And i dont think hindering information, or letting it be controlled by only the most powerful has ever ended up being beneficial in the long run.

I dont think we're that far apart here. Neither side seems to want the internet to be limited. We just disagree on who's more likely to do that-- the government or a monopoly.

I dont want the government to censor the internet anymore than you do. And if there's something hidden that gives them that ability i'll be right there rallying against it with you. But I also dont trust the providers to not do the same and I dont know if there is a really best of both worlds option. But i'm open to suggestions--Hopefully Ed is right and the technology will improve to make this a moot issue.

And as for Netflix just wanting a free ride--you're probably right. I"m sure they're mostly if not entirely in it looking out for themselves and not some noble greater good. But the providers aren't just arguing that they should be able to charge based on bandwidth. They're also trying to preserve their ability to charge individual websites to be given a "fast lane" and slow down those unable or unwilling to pay.