nwrob #1,

You mean "continues" to!

Hi, I am here from the government and am here to help you.

Yeah, right. The FCC is one step closer to implementing NET NEUTRALITY even though a Federal Court stated they did not have that authority. I would suggest posters goggle NET NEUTRALITY and the CyberSecurity Act of 2009 to see what is really going to happen with the FCC getting involved in the Internet instead of legislation being drafted and passed by Congressional action. And our Congressional Representatives are just going to sit on their hands and do NOTHING.

Next will be a tax on EVERY Email you send or receive and that money will be used to fund the Postal System Retirement Plan package.

The following article covers other government interventions which I find extremely unsettling:

• http://bkl1.wordpress.com/2009/05/

FBI on establishing their "Individual Monitoring", FDA on their "Food Control", EPA on their "Green Trucks", et al. This Administration is directing Czars to take the place of our Congressional procedures. How does that make you feel, Congressional Representative ???????

Standby folks, more government intervention is what we do not need.

Did any of you notice a piece of news, some time ago? There are at least two internets here in the US. One is the one that we are using and have been using. The new one is much, much faster, but it is reserved for the federal government and the academia. I can understand a segregation of communications for some of the government's communications, but except where there is an intercept between those and academia's dealings with them, I see no reason why they should have access to a much superior network.

I'm old fashion. If "it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander". Who is going to police it, to see who is abusing its use? Yeh, we know that works so well!

Don't forget folks, we the taxpayers have and are paying for it.

I wonder how much money passed from hand to hand. Why are people so intent on killing the internet?

it's the repubs at it again. big business will own the internet like they own everything else. they will control the sites that we can visit.

Hannah: It's BOTH parties. Don't make the mistake of thinking one is different from the other, that's just smoke and mirrors to cause the populace to have the belief that there's actually a difference. They're all bought and sold and will prostitute themselves to the highest bidder

This is caused by idiots who feel the government is the "solution to" rather than the "cause of" problems. Government ruins everything it touches.

Ultimately, this will be about control.

If you want to see reason, VOTE LIBERTARIAN

Libertarian, right. Libertarians are people who want to break some law and are looking for a way to get rid of it. They are among the most selfish people on the planet. Anarchy (read libertarianism) destroys civilizations.

And we all know who this is going to hurt the most, don't we kids?! That's right...the online porn business.

Hannah...I am at a loss for words for what you said. I think you mean the Democrats?? The Republicans are the ones that oppose restrictions the FCC wants to impose. The Republicans want to block giving control to the internet providers.

Instead of making it better we will charge more. I thought they where movers and shakers good way to eliminate competition and let the sucking begin.

Hanna, if you actually look into the whole "net neutrality" business, you will find that it is being sponsored and pushed by Progressives / Liberals / Democrats, who are using Orwellian doublespeak. by "net neutrality", what they really mean is that they intend to allow only what THEY approve of on the web. Everything else will be censored.

Yeah, well when is government not screwing us over? These mini-monopolistic companies are enemies to every freedom loving individual. This Net neutrality non-sense and the FCC advocating protectionist policies that let cable tv firms hold on to their monopolies have got to end.

You are eliminating innovation and jobs so a few major corps can make more money.

This isn't regulation this is control. Wonder how much this cost in bribes aka contributions.

This is a mistake.

Kinda like not allowing cars on the highway because semi's aren't reaching their destination on time instead of building more highways.

Gordon90N - "I see no reason why they should have access to a much superior network."

If memory serves that "second internet" is used heavily by scientists, universities (cutting edge remote medical procedures) government laboratories, and agencies the likes of DOD, and CDC. Personally i would rather they not have to compete with youtube, netflix and porn for bandwith.

Just my ten cents, which adjusted for the economy is not worth the electricity to post this.

The day a tax is added is the day I cancel my internet acct. I lived 50 years without it. I am taxed enough already.

Maybe next time the Democrats fight for an issue you people on the right will Listen. One Party fought for net neutrality and they lost that was the Democrats. When this issue came Up the GOP popped up with more and more Bull@!$%#, and You people Listened to them instead of the truth. You bought the bull@!$%# of government control hook, line, and sinker. Never imagining that it wasn't the government but big business looking for new ways to Screw you that was the real threat. Only now are you on the verge of seeing the effects of the side you picked do you seem to understand the importance of Net neutrality.

Hannah-2721721

it's the repubs at it again. big business will own the internet like they own everything else. they will control the sites that we can visit.

Yeah, that's why Republicans are about deregulating industry and the Democrats are about regulating industry (ie: HC reform, Cap & Trade, Net Neutrality). Someone is confused.

Cavalier-416769

Libertarian, right. Libertarians are people who want to break some law and are looking for a way to get rid of it. They are among the most selfish people on the planet. Anarchy (read libertarianism) destroys civilizations.

LOL, now I have heard it all. Which kind of Libertarian are you talking about? There are several but all are significantly different from each other.

• Right Libertarian
• Left Libertarian
• Libertarian Socialist - Anarchist

To claim all Libertarians are the same would be like saying all Democrats are the same. That "blue dog" Democrats are no different the left-wing Democrats.

However, if you wish to discuss in general the attributes of a Libertarian, well here they are. You won't find "selfish" in the description either.

• Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters.
• They advocate a much smaller government that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
• Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Hmmm... sounds reasonable not "selfish".

how about rather than arguing about which turd smelld the nicest, we can all get back to the topic of how "free"dom is dissapearing from america. its called progressivism, they slowly but gradually shove their hand up your butt until they reach your brain, and when they reach it they rip it out before you even notice. they will slowly move into monitoring and regulating the internet until you havent even noticed that you cant find information on the constitution because it was blocked "for your safety". its we the people no matter what anybody says. its in our constitution. if we dissagree with what are hitler idolizing govt wants then we have the right to tell them NO. please hear me out on this one, we cant just stand by and watch our freedoms vaporize before us, we have to stand tall and proud, regardless of party, and support freedom. thank you

The internet... put a fork in it...

FogOfWar #1.15,

As far as I know, there is no reason that there can't be multiple Internets. My problem is that taxpayers footed the bill to create the super-fast Internet & ditto on the original Internet. Yet, with more & more traffic on the original Internet, it's getting slower & slower throughput. Don't think that it will get better on its own.

And if you believe that we can totally trust the government & academia folks to "police" themselves, wake up, you're dreaming!

What in the world do you all think "net neutrality" is, and where do you get your information? Net neutrality is needed precisely to prevent this sort of thing. It has nothing to do with government control or censorship of the Internet. Most above seem to be complaining that the FCC is somehow at fault for communication companies' behavior. If there is a problem with the FCC regarding this issue, it's that they are not regulating the companies enough. I just don't believe how you can whine: "My cable company is going to charge me more money for streaming video. It's the FCC's fault!"

This compromise piece of legislation is EXACTLY what both sides wanted. The Senators writing and emailing those of us in touch, just did their song and dance to "keep it real." This was going to happen no matter what, and I suppose they'll expect us to LIKE IT! Chalk one up for Big Gov'ment fornicating with Big BIZ'NiZ.

To both parties belongs the blame and think they're about as different as co-joined twins sharing the same brain. Utterly ridiculous!

Not to be the party pooper, but relatively speaking, Did you all not see this one coming? You really need to read the NWO charter in the UN dockets. (ps, there is also another place to find this warning of a one world government, and its not liberal, repulican, libertarian, who I might add are all Poli-TICS-ians. Its the book with the worlds largest circulation ever) Id suggest you all read it, but nahh, it's outdated, and doesnt fit in with the PC world.

Everyone is aware any changes made to the internet will not be in the best interest of the consumer.

Does anyone have a solution?

people should have noticed the stupid tv commercials that were going on about "freedom, not regulation".

sponsered by the people that want to charge the hell out of everything you do without worrying about little things like "competition".

they are going to charge you every time you or your kid accesses facebook, youtube, google. whatever. you will pay and you will pay again.

I signed and I hope others will too....

Net Neutrality 101 | Save the Internet

As technology improves and bandwidth is not an issue, with Fiber to the house (as already in Japan & Korea) their argument is totally mute, but it will be too late, they will have their laws passed and laws are impossible to change, Just an excuse for more control

PenguinMan "Just an excuse for more control"

And a way to start charging for the 'regulations'.

The government has long been looking at finding a way to charge for communications, and this is just the first step in that goal.

First - Get control.
Second - Find a way to charge for it.
Third - Censor content for the "Public Good" (Fairness Doctrine, ala Communist China).

All this and they still wont be able to keep secrets in Washington! and there will always be one person that will figure out a way to put a stick in the spokes of those who hide them.

You want to buy into allTHE SPIN.. FEEL FREE, Its all about porn or some flopping pile a crap. I believe they are starting to get the Internet in some parts of Mississippi and may need your guidance.

Do we get a vote on this, petition a ban on political ignorance? FU%K!

Freedom of Information, could be the strongest argument to oppose this.

People pay providers for the service to access the internet, It's that plan and simple. If bandwidth is becoming a problem then providers will have to come up with newer solutions to appease their customers. It's called Capitalism.

Did you vote for "Real Change" if anyone here did well this is just the beginning. This government wants to control everything. Can't they at least leave the internet alone?????? Belive me there is a bigger plan than this, this is just the beginning.

Freedom of Information? Once they sell all you people this cloud computing BS they will own your information. People better wake the hell up and start resisting.

Rixar13

I signed and I hope others will too....

Net Neutrality 101 | Save the Internet

Sure, sign and be naive to the very seeds that will take your Internet freedoms away. By the government getting one hand on the Internet will eventually lead to two hands, propaganda, and increased taxes. Even television doesn't have the controlling measures that "Net Neutrality" brings the Internet.

Look at it this way. It took over 2,000 pages to extend unemployment insurance two times ago. I thought it was to be a simple bill that would not include anything else then what the title of the legislation describes. Unfortunately, because our Congress is unable to keep their bills clean and on subject, I become very weary of ANY legislation that is written including "Net Neutrality".

Besides, signing a petition will do nothing. Obama has directed the FCC to tackle "Net Neutrality" directly without the need for Congress to write a bill. Congress has been bypassed. The Amerian people were not represented by vote on this one. Why would Congress be bypassed unless someone is assuming the American people would not go for it? Trickery, that's how Obama governs.

I don't usually get into the partisan BS because it is a bunch of BS but, you Republicans are very confused on this issue. This is not NEW regulations on the internet. This is DEREGULATION of the ISP's. We have had real net neutrality ever since the internet existed and if the court would have held it up against Comcast several months ago, the internet would have remained the same. Now what the FCC is voting on is only keeping HALF of the net neutrality regulations and letting the ISP's do almost whatever they want to do. This deregulation is what is going to destroy the internet as we know it. You think that two Republicans are voting against this to protect the people and that is not why. They are voting against it because they wanted the ISP's to be completely deregulated. This thing they are passing today is going to most certainly lead to the corporations censoring our internet content. You Republicans should be celebrating this. This is what you wanted all along. You were celebrating when that federal court struck down net neutrality in favor of Comcast and now the FCC is basically going along with that. Why aren't you happy? I thought that you wanted the ISP's to be allowed to restrict traffic and charge you extra for everything. Watch this video and understand that we are losing the internet as we know it and it is because they are refusing to enforce the net neutrality regulations that were in place, not because they are implementing new regulations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKzhVr4U84

Keeping the internet out of the government hands is the best way to keep our freedom. Consumerism will keep internet providers in check.

dude, what we have right now is "net neutrality", and I like it the way it is. this new setup is going to create a system where your provider is going to charge for every time you or your kid access facebook or youtube, or google, or"right-wing news.com" What politlcal kool-aid are you drinking?

this new setup is going to allow the existing providers to eliminate competition, and charge whatever they can squeeze out of the public

all of your blind, political , idealogical ranting is not going to change one siingle fact

Debi:

Consumerism can't work when my only choice for high-speed access is my local cable monopoly. Now the door has been opened for them to slow down or charge more for my excellent Netflix streaming video, since it competes with their own poor attempts at video-on-demand. This is exactly what the concept of net neutrality is meant to prevent.

"The government" developed and operates major parts of the Internet now. Saying, "Keep the gov'mint's hands off my innernet!" is like a Medicare recipient saying, "Keep the gov'mint out of my health care!"

CSX321: Government intervention created your cable monopoly to begin with and you see how that's working for you.

Debi:

Agreed. The best solution, however, is not to have multiple companies run wire or fiber to my house. That would be a colossal waste of resources. There are certain things that work best under government control. You don't want to have to shop around for the best deal in sewer service or fire departments. Increasingly, I think network access may be approaching that category of service.

CSX321

Debi:

Agreed. The best solution, however, is not to have multiple companies run wire or fiber to my house. That would be a colossal waste of resources. There are certain things that work best under government control. You don't want to have to shop around for the best deal in sewer service or fire departments. Increasingly, I think network access may be approaching that category of service.

Give me a few examples of "things" that work best under government control. In fact, be specific regarding the Federal Government success stories, not State or local Government horas since that is what the article is about.

Comparing services like sewer service and even fire protecting to the Internet is simply crazy. We require both sewer and fire protection to live healthy and safe lives. We don't need the Internet to live healthy and safe lives.

True "net neutrality" will come from competition within a free market, not through the Federal Government setting partial regulations with loop holes.

Turn on the faucet lately? The fact that you can get clean water on demand is due to federal regulation.

Eaten anything and not gotten sick? We have a remarkably low rate of food problems, thanks to just a small amount of federal inspection.

Know anyone in the military? We trust our lives to the federal government's management of our security.

Driven on an interstate or U.S. highway?

In rural America, where I live, the fact that we even have telephones is due federal government regulation. You say we don't need the Internet to live healthy and safe lives. Not yet. When I was a child my grandparents had no indoor toilet, and they "lived health and safe lives." Yet I bet that you now consider a toilet a requirement for modern life. It won't be long before the Internet is a requirement for modern life.

In any case, why does it matter whether it's federal, state, or local government action? The government we have, at whatever level, is the one we've elected to represent us. It's just...just amazingly blind and "simply crazy" to say that the federal government is of no value. Big things are generally what are best suited to the federal government, and the Internet is a Big Thing.

You keep talking about competition, but you don't address the issue of resources. It's still a terrible idea to have competition for the wires that run to your house. It's the electronic pipe we're talking about in the net neutrality issue. The problem is that the owner of the pipe is also the owner and provider of content, and they would prefer to provide their own content and exclude others. It's completely reasonable for government, at whatever level, to have the power to say that whoever controls that single pipe into my house does not have the power to control what content goes through it. If I buy a car, Ford should not be able to tell me where to drive.

CSX,

While the government is saying that company cannot control what is going through that pipe by electronically inhibiting the signal, they are allowing the company to do it through monetary means.

Everything that comes through your pipe will now be charged. On top of that, competitor's services will now be charged at a premium.

All this does is allow multi-billion dollar companies to increase their profit margins while inhibiting competition. It is about as net-neutral as Google and Verizon working together to corner the internet.

Endo:

Yes, I understand it. I'm trying to get the others to understand it.

I thought a lot on my drive home about Dude's position. As near as I can tell, he thinks government is inept and is opposed to government involvement in things, but simultaneously he is perfectly fine with trusting to this inept government important things that are "required for our health and safety," such as the military, sewer service, and fire protection. It seems...odd.

Unregulated capitalism is as unworkable as communism, and for much the same reasons: human failings such as greed. A perfectly free market for something like Internet access is guaranteed by its nature to result in minimal service at maximal cost. Think about it. A perfectly free market would drive profit to a maximum, which means that ultimately companies would charge the most they could get away with for the least product or service they could get away with. What history has proven works best is a regulated market.

All the net neutrality issue boils down to is that we need government action to guarantee that every byte is treated the same, and billed the same, as every other byte. Left on their own, the providers of the pipes will not do this, as we have already had cases of it happening.

dude, show ME how the current existing "net neutrality" has "destroyed capitalism".

you can't, and the current internet IS "NET NEUTRAL" .

you are so stuck in blind ideological demagoguery that you can't even acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

danwill

dude, show ME how the current existing "net neutrality" has "destroyed capitalism".

you can't, and the current internet IS "NET NEUTRAL" .

you are so stuck in blind ideological demagoguery that you can't even acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

Of course I can't. I agree with you we don't need more government interference. I never argued for it. So save your attack on me since it is not warranted.

CSX321

Turn on the faucet lately? The fact that you can get clean water on demand is due to federal regulation. Know anyone in the military? We trust our lives to the federal government's management of our security.

Driven on an interstate or U.S. highway?

In rural America, where I live, the fact that we even have telephones is due federal government regulation. You say we don't need the Internet to live healthy and safe lives. Not yet. When I was a child my grandparents had no indoor toilet, and they "lived health and safe lives." Yet I bet that you now consider a toilet a requirement for modern life. It won't be long before the Internet is a requirement for modern life.

In any case, why does it matter whether it's federal, state, or local government action? The government we have, at whatever level, is the one we've elected to represent us. It's just...just amazingly blind and "simply crazy" to say that the federal government is of no value. Big things are generally what are best suited to the federal government, and the Internet is a Big Thing.

You keep talking about competition, but you don't address the issue of resources. It's still a terrible idea to have competition for the wires that run to your house. It's the electronic pipe we're talking about in the net neutrality issue. The problem is that the owner of the pipe is also the owner and provider of content, and they would prefer to provide their own content and exclude others. It's completely reasonable for government, at whatever level, to have the power to say that whoever controls that single pipe into my house does not have the power to control what content goes through it. If I buy a car, Ford should not be able to tell me where to drive.

I agree with much of what you said, however, what I was trying to get you to recognize is regulation at the Federal level is bad for America. regulation at the State level is good because the ones regulating are local elected officials voted into office by local votes. For example, State Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) set their own regulations and enforce them. Sure, they need to meet Federal regulations at minimum, but many States like California far exceeds federal regulations which is good for the environment. You see, every State has its own unique set of environmental challenges and know best how to address them.

I still disagree with your associating the Internet as being as important as drinking water, sanitation, or even food safety. Without these we would die. You won't die if you no longer have an Internet connection. You posted: "Increasingly, I think network access may be approaching that category of service." I would be interested to know how an Internet connection will keep you healthy and safe.

If the Federal government wants to regulate the Internet, then let them regulate the building of the Internet, not the operation of the Internet. I want the Internet to remain free for all to use.

CSX: The internet has been "free" for many years. What is changing it now? Do you think the internet providers just now came up with this idea to charge per byte? They would have always preferred charging, but they needed government intervention.

Fortunately for me, internet is not a necessity, only a convenience.

What you people seem to be missing is the fact that it wasn't the government that Jumped up one day and demanded to regulate Internet traffic

The reason people started calling for net neutrality was because corporations started to ask if they could charge more based on use and force more corporate control over the Internet. Yes in the last few years it's become a more acknowledged problem, but this has been an issue for quite a while. If the government did nothing the corporations would of years ago changed things to use based billing and internet content control.

Sadly it looks like the constant stalling on this issue has once again allow the Lobbiest to wear down the regulators to do almost exactly what they want.

Debi-1314897 What changed is AT&T, Comcast, and the like started to look for ways to make more money, force people to use less Internet so they wouldn't have to upgrade there systems, and how they could force people to there site which would allow them to make more from ads.

When people learned of this they started to call for net neutrality. This was all but ignored for years(except by lobbiest). Only in the last few years that the listed corporations are preparing to enact said plans is any action on this issue being taken.

This regulation will not make different bytes treated the same. Lets say some cable company offers a video on demand service (like netflix). They can then make this service exempt from bandwidth charges while charging for the bytes netflix uses.

Now, what would you pay for? $20/mo for cable VoD or $20 for Netflix + bandwidth charges (prices are made up, but do you see my point)?

Personally,

I Like the current set up. I get unlimitted internet to do what I want. Nothing I do gets throttled in any way (atleast not in a way that alters my usage). Video games require huge bandwidths, yet these are currently not throttled. The only thing that does get hampered is P2P services and torrents, neither of which I use. I see nothing wrong with companies cutting bandwidth to practices that infringe on copywrited material.

I also couldn't care less if cable company partners get preferencial treatment in bandwidth as my internet is fast enough that the difference is on the order of a fraction of a second.

The government should be hindering corporate greed, not finding new ways to allow corporations to exploit people.

True network neutrality is absolutely imperative to continuing innovation on the internet.

Things like "paid prioritization" MUST be outlawed. If Big Company A decides to buy a bias in routing priority, then Big Company B must do the same to stay competitive. Both companies A and B are now paying more for no improvement (because they're still on the same level); while Small Companies C and D, who can't afford Prioritization, get squeezed out of business. Upstarts E and F will never have a chance.

Blocking or slowing your competitors... it goes without saying that this should be VERY illegal.

And the proposal you mentioned (which was not Google/Verizon, btw) will hopefully grab the public's attention and make them realize just what these companies will do if allowed. They are practically trying to Take Away The Internet and all the freedoms that make it what it is.

how is this different from monopolization?

Whatever the problem, real or imagined, government will make it worse. Forget this nonsense about about bringing the government in to protect us form "paid prioritization". Whatever government does, it will make you wish for the days when your biggest problem was "paid prioritization".

Whatever your problems are now, Government will make them worse and give you bigger problems to deal with.

It was only a matter of time before the net went the way of the land line.

So much for that whole "free market" thing the big money keeps talking about, huh? It's all good when we're talking about government deregulation where they want it. But when it comes to monopolies strangling nascent competition, they call the government in to legislate that unacceptable threat into oblivion.

The free market was killed by conglomerates and monopolies, not by the government. The government was only the tool.

All this talk about gov't being the problem..what part of DEREGULATION don't you understand? Letting the companies free to charge is the problem, gov't regulation is the solution. You can't complain about big gov't and about losing net neutrality at the same time. Do you get that conservatives??

this will only result in the elimination of competition, which is what the republicans were crying for for years a handful of huge ISPs in charge of everything and zero competition to challenge them.

jem , the government already HAS been protecting us from "paid prioritization" , this is goiing to become nothing but the total loss of your ability to freely look about on the internet. you will only be able to go to the sites that you pay for, and never anything else.

tell me how this is a "good thing"?

lining the pockets of multimillionaire CEOs?

the sheep and the wolves win again, the people lose

how is this different from monopolization?

Simple answer: It isn't.

took the words right ouy of my mouth!

This is going to hurt a lot of small businesses that they were counting on to jump-start the economy.

Isn't that the point? I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that it was EVER an issue for and about consumers and small business. It's was, is and will be an issue about how close to actual fornication Big Gov & Big Biz can get! Utterly ridiculous!

Big Business has steadly, consistently and dedicatedly worked these past 3 decades to eliminating small business and consumer choice.

3 decades ago, most towns had centers with vibrant town centers. Cities had both big and small businesses.

First, the malls with their "anchor" stores, put the mom and pop shops in the towns out of business with the big chain stores in the mall. Instead of going downtown to shop, we all "went to the mall" because they lured us with the "lower prices" that disappeared when mom & pop went out of business. That includes clothing, shoes, furniture, tools, appliances, etc.

Once the malls took over, the big businesses in them began bringing in "made in anywhere BUT the USA" goods, putting out of business our clothing, shoe, furniture and tools manufacturing as "goods" from overseas filled the malls and manufacturing jobs went offshore ... followed by cars and appliances and electronics ... to now, the only "productes" really being made in mass production in the USA are our children. Even alot of our food ... we grow crops, sell them to other countries at subsidized rates or give them to "needy" countries and then turn around and BUY their crops to help "spur" their economies. Rice, corn, wheat ... you name it. We export below market costs and import at inflated cost.

Now, they attack the internet to squeeze what little is left in consumers' pockets for higher fees while devising a means to "behind the scenes" control what information consumers can access to censor things like wikinews and other "distressing" news they do NOT want to average citizen to be exposed to.

This does NOT represent the America I was born into and love. We are losing the freedoms and rights that are our heritage so facists can get richer while economically enslaving people so they MUST work 2 jobs and 60 to 80 hrs/wk while still struggling to get by.

America was built upon community, small business and "invented and made in USA".

We kicked out the Big Business interests that took the wealth of the colonies out of America and government that didnt represent the best interests of the citizens with the American Revolution.

Apparently "they" slipped back in while we were NOT paying attention.

The Offce of Advocacy defines a small business as an independent business having fewer than 500 employees

In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The latest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and non-employers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.

so all this about the big evil demonic "big" business taking over the world is just that...but it goes real nice with people who make more than 20k being evil and greedy...of course most of these evil demonic people making 20k own the small businesses that you claim are being taken over by the "big" business but we don't want to talk about that

Did you read the article? It states in there that this is opposed by the two Republican members. It is being passed by the Democratic members.

Republican wet dream? Where do you live, Mars? This is about controlling the internet and generating taxes. You don't honestly think these companies are going to get away with not paying tax on this? This is also about reviving the anti first amendment bill known as the Fairness Doctrine. No, this isn't the Republicans doing, this is pure Democrat, Socialist and Progressive action or have you forgotten they hold all three houses until January? You should pull your olfactory organ out of Obama's alimentary canal, then you would realize this is his dream child.

Dan, if you think that the base of the Republican Party is against it, your dreaming. The stated policy of the Republican Party is that government should stay out of the marketplace as much as possible. Never mind that that philosophy, at least when it came to the housing market, is why we have the economic mess we're in.

Businessmen will always do whatever they can to increase the bottom line. That's why they're in business, that's the mandate from the shareholders. I don't blame them, but some sort of regulating body has to look out for the consumer and by extension, society itself.

When a company becomes a behemoth, competition and it's correcting pressure on price and service, does't have a whole lot of effect. Any competitors that come along that are percieved as a threat are simply neutralized by being outspent into bankruptcy. If the competitor happens to be another behemoth, then the pricing and services will be very similar. After all, the bottom line is all that matters to the guy's making generational money at the main office.

You are an idiot! This is Obama's baby all the way. The administration controls the FCC just like every other governmental agency. Aneesh Chopra, the chief technology officer in the administration, called the plan an "important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation" in a White House blog earlier this month.

A Republican wet-dream.

i think you need to re-read the article especially the part where it said the dems are voting for this while the repubs are voting against it

If you are worried about your rights, vote LIBERTARIAN

And they support choice for pregnant women, right? no interference with our rights?

Libertarians don't want any controls. That is exactly what the providers what. No controls, then they can then restrict access or charge extra fees as much the market will bare.

Too bad the libertarian party is more concerned with legalization of pot moreso than promoting libertarian ideals.

i think you actually need to read the article sorry bud

Wasn't a choice made when sex was initiated?

"choice" making two choices the second one is to shuck off responsibilty and accountability of the first one and kill an unborn baby.

Now back to the article and a comment for it:

I'm leaning towards seeing how it all plays out before adding my name to the class action lawsuits that may very well be forthcoming.

1.) If internet connection speeds improve for the many, by penalizing a few bandwith hogs, the efficiency and benefits for the whole might make the subject moot.

2.) Oversight If, the first is true then care will be needed that the beneficiary providers don't get greedy and upset the equilibrium. There are no better people suited for oversight than the the highly skilled and knowledgeable user population that use the net itself.

3.) If by law additional money generated by the changes is forced to be re-invested back into infrastructues, quality, speed, coverage then efficiency and benefits would grow exponentially.

4.) If the nightmare scenarios commented on come to pass then class action lawsuits is where we must go.

5.) Less porn on the internet is good for families, children, Parents. Those that want porn can go back to brick and mortar, same with movies. In reality the users of the net could make a few consessions in exchange for assurances on more important stuff.

More important stuff like what?

Most of the internet is porn, movies, and video games.

I guess we can always spend more of our time with celebrity gossip.

With more companies installing fiber-optics (which blows traditional broadband and coax cable out of the water), the FCC's argument should be considered moot; fiber optics provide not only the additional bandwidth needed for the high demands on the internet, they also allow light-speed transmissions that no coaxial cable was ever capable of handling.

This whole business about the internet being unable to handle the demands of the average user is baloney. Fiber-optic cables use light pulses - not electricity - to transmit the signal. As such, the signal is transmitted at the speed of light, and is almost (key word for the sticklers here: almost) immune to signal interference in ways that traditional broadband cables never were. (Traditional cable doesn't have the same level of resistance to noise and static)

What this means is far fewer retransmit requests (the signal gets through correctly the first time more often) which by itself will reduce the network congestion. That in turn reduces packet collisions (which, again, reduces the number of retransmit requests). I could go on and on about the benefits of fiber-optics, but the point is, the FCC, Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, and Google are feeding us a load of garbage about the internet being overloaded. It's not, it can handle what we're doing just fine, the ISP's are just being greedy and power-hungry. That's all.

Comcast is not a Dolan own property. Comcast Cable was originally formed as American Cable Systems in 1963 and was founded by Ralph J. Roberts, Daniel Aaron, and Julian A. Brodsky based on a recommendation from Pete Musser, who brought the deal to Ralph Roberts to buy his first cable system in Tupelo, Mississippi. The company was incorporated in Pennsylvania in 1969, under the new name Comcast Corporation.

The Dolans(Charles, James et al; father and sons) are from Long Island, NY and operate Cablevision.

We already have a limit on how much education our children can receive. Public schools are very limited and controlled by the government. If you want better service then you are required to pay more for private schools or at least a tutor. Our government can only continue this way if we let them. But honestly, who is going to cancel their internet access because of more charges. Look at what people pay just for cable. I think the masses will do what they are told because they don't care. We, the people, allow our government to control our lives without true representation. We have the ability to publish upcoming laws to the public and be able to vote based on this information. We don't need a few people that we didn't vote for to decide what is best for us. Why does our current system of representation still act like we are too ignorant to understand and they must create the laws and regulations, then decide for us? Because the majority of the US is ignorant and does not understand the laws that are created since they went to public schools.

I went to private schools but you are an ignorant, pompous ass.

Thank you Hannah. Well put.

Hey Indiana John--couldn't agree more. Time to really throw the rascals out, not by electing sloganeering tea partiers (rebranded republicans) but by creating a new system of gov't that does away with both houses of congress and replaces them with internet voting. Where would the lobbyists go? Power to the people!

Hannah and smoothie,

Why is it easier to call me names than admit the public schools system is flawed. I went to public schools until 9th grade and then had the fortune of going to a private school for 10th and 11th. In those two years, I got a taste of what schools should be about. For one, there were better teachers and staff. My fellow students were more civil and respectful. The private school was better than the public schools. My reference to ignorance was not based on my personal elitism. It is due to the fact that our representatives word laws in such a way that they are intended to be above the majority. That is why we need lawyers to explain the laws to us. In the US, we argue that ignorance of the law is not a defense. Do you know every law and every regulation that affects you personally and do you know the consequences of breaking those laws. The answer is simply no. I know that I am ignorant on many things. I cannot perform brain surgery nor can I build a CPU. I believe that if I wanted to know how to do those things then I would have to go to school. Our legislature could write the bills in language that is as clear and concise yet understood by the majority. We could then take the information and vote to pass a bill. If at least 67% of the voting population says yes, then it passes. If less than 32% says yes then the bill is dead. If 33% to 66% say yes then the bill should be adjusted and put back to another vote at the next session or it is dead. This is my opinion. I feel that the majority of the US population is ignorant by design and I include myself in that group.

right holler instead of a nation of laws we need to become a nation of mob rule

This is the wiki entry for mob rule:

OCHLOCRACY ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like OLIGOCRACY ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption. OCHLOCRACY is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy

The reason I added this is to point out our current system does not work right either. Fear mongering is the easiest method to control others and that is what you just did. I suggested a very crude form of a system that would at least be true to the idea of government by the people. It can be changed to work better. One last point, ignorance does not mean stupid, idiotic or anything else that is inherently insulting

–noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

We need to know what these laws the representatives are passing in our name. I don't have the time to read the massive amounts fluff added to bills nor do most people. We have a right to straight wording and our voices truly being heard instead of lobbiest because lobbiest only speak for the few that want something and have the resources to make it happen.

Government always benefits from gaining more power over us.

Maybe that's why its called a Government, they are the Herder and we are the sheep ... Get the picture ... LOL :-)

Good idea. Next voting cycle for Congress, let's vote in a median age of 34. We need some old farts in there to tell the young wippersnappers how to do things, but we also need a few twentysomethings in there to show the old farts how to use a Cell Phone instead of morse code.

Hey Brad M....don't mess with Morse Code.

That is how I got word that President Kennedy was assassinated when I was on a Navy ship off the coast of Corsica. And we received the message in 5 minutes from the time it was originated in D.C.

They'll find a loophole by making the Content a subsidiary owned by a Parent Corporation that owns another subsidiary known as the Infrastructure.

Byterat-that would never happen. We all know they are going to take advantage of this.

People will be limited to sites that their ISP wants them to use (great advertising)....or they will have to pay (the jerks will get even richer).....and to top it all off, this is going to make the internet less open (I swear they are trying to oppress people).

Big Government growing by leaps and bounds. The Senate passed S 510 'Food Safety Bill" so they can control what we eat now, now the FCC will control what we can do on the internet, and the corporations and George Soros are laughing their tiny heads off. The Nanny State (aka: Big Brother) is alive and well and taking over...everything. I'm feeling like a serf in Tsarist Russia, no wait, more like a proletariat in the USSR. How you like your state run everything, comrade?

we need to vote green party in 2012. throw out dems and repubs. the greens won't owe any lobbyist or party leaders anything, maybe if we can get a 3rd party in charge that will not cave in to corporations and for once follow the will of the people.

If you believe your TV is worth the price it costs, then pay it. If not, don't. It's that simple. That's how economics works. When you put in a price ceiling, things get screwy.

Do I think some cable rates are high? Yes. Comcast costs me a fortune. However, U-Verse is competitively priced. The problem is without widespread rollout, I'm stuck with Comcast at one of my houses with no alternative. However, it's not the government's job to set prices on goods.

That is precisely the problem. THERE IS NO COMPETITION on the "last mile" in most areas of the country. The price for monopoly control is government regulation. Its been that way for energy, land line phone service and water usage for decades. And yes, governments do set price caps on utilities.

The government is not going to screw you. The massive cable companies are going to screw you. The government is complicit in allowing it to happen. It's a simple case of following the money. The cable companies, banks, the medical industry, the insurance industry has it, and contributes to politicians - democrat and republican - in huge amounts. That money is generally the one and only way these corporate slags are able to stay in office and pass laws that are detrimental to consumers and society in general. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform this pattern will continue.

In general, I agree with your thesis that the government ought not set prices. However in your case and for most Americans, The cable companies are a local monopoly. When that's the case, the public has every right to regulate price. Unfortunately, that rarely happens with any real benefit to the consumer.

What should have been done is instead of spending trillions of dollars on bank bailouts, auto bailouts and economic stimulus packages, we could have and should have spent about 100 billion wiring every house in the country with fiber optic lines. That could have been built using public stimulus funds and private companies doing the work much like the completion of the interstate highway system (which was the last great thing the government did). That infrastructure then could be used to provide phone, cable and internet by any company that wanted to use it to provide those services.

Once the infrastructure is in place, the government would hopefully get out of the way, and let capitalism work. And that is what the government (we the people) should be doing... insuring that we have the infrastructure, the educational system, etc that makes it possible for our people, our businesses and our society to be successful and the military and police to protect those investments and enforce regulations that promote fairness and a peaceful society.

That used to be who we were, but that's definitely not who we are now.

The United States of America, a subsidiary of Pepsico, a subsidiary of Royal-Dutch Shell, a subsidiary of Comcast, a subsidiary of News Corp.

Oh god that is frightening.

Frightening but also true. The rank and file support the drowning economy that big business has helped develop for all Americans. Soon the poverty gap will be even bigger and once big business starts to lose more and more money from people who can't afford the TV, the computer or the services we will see little change except in our billing rates.

A truly content neutral you get what you pay for Internet is what we need and we need at all corners of the country but that isn't going to happen. Get used to the idea that all of your content is going to be wrapped up in ever increasing rates, monthly fees, and subscriptions and hey by the way all that cloud computing that Microsoft and other companies are pushing as the next big thing will cost you more as you get screwed by your ISP for streaming, uploading, and consuming content from the "cloud".

Soon the poverty gap will be even bigger

Will be? It already is. Other than that, Jimmy Shade, I agree with your statement. And despite being a professional IT technician, I am not at all excited about the whole "cloud computing" bit - at least as far as the private user is concerned.

The cloud pretty much kills privacy. I know what the Police State advocates will say to that: "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide, right?" Well, just because the data I have on my computer is completely legal doesn't mean I shouldn't keep it private.

Republicans ? who is in charge right now, Republicans???????????? Sorry it's the big ear guy in the big white house. Get a clue...

Hey I bet George Soros is making a big buck on this, I wonder if he will give the money to the poor, oh I think not

Silly, this is about control and more control, all in the name of 'helping' the little guy. The media is in Obama's pocket, ditto health care, the american auto industry, food and soon water will be regulated. I'm not making it up about the water. The consumer isn't given the opportunity to exercise the options of say, not buying something or engaging in free market enterprise. Generally competition drives the marketplace. Now with Nanny in charge of us witless idiots (formerly known as citizens of the United States) we have been relegated to serfdom, our only use is to pay taxes into a bancrupt and corrupt system so that we may stand in line to receive whatever the 'benevolent' State deems us worthy of having. Remember those lines in Russia, hoping to buy a pair of shoes or bread and having one pair of state made shoes or empty aisles and no bread. That was for the citizens, the politburo never lacked for anything, they were the ruling elite who decided what was best for the idiot citizens.

this road to serfdom has been planned since Nixon was president. it didn't happen over night. by 2030 we will be serfs if we don't dump both parties. but the u.s. citizens are afraid, afraid to do anything but blame each other. pity it was such a nice country.

What sad is so many of you have bought hook, line, and sinker to this idea that the government is the one gaining control. It's the corporations that are gaining more and more control. The Democrats fought for net neutrality but you on the right screamed and screamed when your GOP leaders told you it was Bad, and only now after you find out that ending net neutrality is worse do you get angry. Sadly once again you can't blame the people who blocked it no you twist it onto another bull@!$%# attack on the Democrats.

There is a documentary that should be mandatory viewing for all. It's called "The Corporation" It's available on HULU, or by free download, at http://www.thecorporation.com

If you want to really understand how bad it is you need to educate yourself and spend 2 1/2 hours watching this interesting and very well done documentary.

Without a strong government that's not constantly influenced by corporations the average person barely has a chance.

Holiday Cheer-

Read the book instead-it goes into much more detail than the documentary.

Here we go again. When are people going to realize that party affiliation has nothing to do with anything, and that it's nothing more than a smokescreen? Democrats screwed up the country, Republicans also screwed up the country. There you go.

It's ordered Smarty. Thx

Why because one party fought for true net neutrality one didn't. The Dems fought and lost to the GOP on this issue. The GOP blocked any bill that would insure Net neutrality.

But the people who voted GOP don't like facts so there going to pretend the GOP never blocked a thing.

I know what you mean neoatg. Back when the real net neutrality was proposed everyone was on here defending Comcast and saying it would have been a bad thing. Now these same people are trying to act like what the FCC is doing now is the same thing Congress was trying to pass back then and it is not. This is allowing the corporations to do whatever they want and no one would listen back then that real net neutrality would have kept the internet the way it is now.

Once again too many people didn't think for themselves and when the GOP started wailing on "government takeout" and "government censorship" the right and many independent fell for it.

Only now after everything is said and done and the best of the worse outcomes is about to pass does the right(for the most part at least gesh some are still talking about government going to take my interweb) Pop Up and demand things remain the same.