The internet providers think mostly it's about the government getting control of access and content by regulating it. A foot in the door....

Basically, it keeps the providers from regulating traffic on their infrastructure. That's a good thing.....some (like Comcast) will "throttle" their traffic at will and others (remember the tier 1 wars of a year or 2 ago) will shut down traffic to competitors.

The biggest drawback is it would put a roadblock in front of any kind of "innovation" in terms of packet handling. Any development would have to be done within a "closed" system and then I imagine the government would have to get involved to approve it's public use.

Edit: my personal opinion is that it's not necessary at this point in time. Getting the government involved in anything is asking for problems. While there have been abuses, the public outcry has shown the offenders that people do pay attention to the service they get. Normal business competition will force the providers to maintian traffic or another provider will step in and take their market share.

Thanks for the explanations. Makes sense now. However, I find myself at a loss as to which side to be on. On the one hand I agree that ISP's should not be abusing and taking advantage of this to make more money by forcing people to upgrade in order to enjoy something they believe they can profit from. On the other hand having the Gov't regulate this is not that much different. The Gov't has a very poor track record of doing things the right way and they also tend to stretch their reach way too far once given a taste of control.

So on one side we have those who provide the service who might take advantage of their control to force us to pay more or restrict us at their liesure for profit reasons and on the other hand we have the Gov't who tends to over do that which they tend to want to protect us from but instead it turns into a power grab and an excuse to take away more things from us.

I think I would me more towards no net neutrality since we Internet users are more likely to get ISP providers to do more of what we want (or lose a client) as oppose to the Gov't who does not usually care what we want and will force us to do what they want (since we can't get rid of them, even with votes).

You basically described the Gov't as well. They too look at peoples emails and they too like to dictate what we can say and to who. The truth is there is very little difference between the 2 except the ISP's have something to lose, profits. Gov't on the other hand does not lose profits because we can't drop them for another gov't unless we vote for a new guy every 4 years which in reality does not really make a big difference.

Comparing Insurance companies to ISP's is like comparing them to car insurance companies. It's just not the same. When it comes to ISP, we have choices, we have competition and they have a lot to lose because it's just internet, something we don't necessarily need to survive. Insurance however does not always give you choices, especially when its provided by your company. And medical attention is not something you can say "nah, I don't need it". Auto insurance is only necessary if you have a vehicle. There are plenty of choices and you only use them when you get into an accident.

The problem is we accept this and do nothing about it. Organize a revolt? There are ways to get things done without resorting to extremes as first actions. If you want to sit back and do nothing that's fine, there are plenty of ways to get things done. As for controlling communication, if thinsg get to that point, then we have failed as people and we deserve such a punishment. Either we believe the US stands for freedom and Liberty or we might as well turn into a dictatorshor or communist country and get it over with. This slow and obvious transition of losing everything this country was built on has to end, unless it's what people really want.

You may see it as a dream, I would rather see it as a posibility. Once you accept it's impossible, you have already been defeated. I was raised to look for solutions not accept the inevitable.

That's OK.

Let's keep to facts. Leave off the Democrat/Republican stuff. I can certainly conceive of that situation, as it has happened before.

Actually? Started under Nixon (remember the "Enemies" list?) and evolved to it's current nadir under the prior administration ("if you're not with us, you're against us" = Enemy of the USA/Democracy).

Actually? I've seen the Insurance Co. abuses up close, and when I worked for one Co. was asked to find ways to slip out of non-specific contracts and find ways to abrogate my oath as an MD. I sincerely hope none of the all to frequent denials and abuses happens to you....just because you didn't tell them of the hugely significan case of acne you had 30 years ago and which bears no relation at all to your current problem. [which I sincerely hope you don't have any of].

How in the world could I be expected to list them? You can't be serious. I do not wish to be taxed to pay for illegal anyone, either. I believe anyone here illegally should be sent back...and their offspring as well. Since when are the results of an illegal act rewarded? Seems to me that violates the RICO statute. Too bad the big corporations want their cheap labor, though. It'll therefore never happen.

So you'll pay the 'tax' with spiraling insurance costs. Care to give a rough idea of how much they've gone up in the past 5-10 years?

No, they'd be the heads of the major banks (losthorizons.com)...read about the Fed and income tax. You'll profit by it, I promise.

Nope. An individual like Chuck, me or you has no voice in what goes on. I don't want to be forced to pay more to agree with whatever someone else feels is correct. I don't wish to be censored. If you do, that's your personal desire. Please don't project it onto me. And reality is that power breeds abuse and absolute power breeds abuse absolutely.

Our politics are our own. Communications belongs to everyone and if you think that a multi-billion dollar corporation is going to flinch if you take your subscription somewhere else, you're deluded. I don't want them to carve up the public into their personal fiefdoms to charge however they wish simply because they have local monopolies.

I can't understand why you'd allow them to have that kind of power over you. That's what I can't understand.

That is why i usually respond with "in my opinion", "I think" or "I believe". That way I don't come off as if my way is the only way. To each his own. I don't like Gov't interference in everything but I don't like companies who abuse the lack of restrictions either. Someone has to be the good guy here, it sucks when our only options are "Bad" and "Bad".

Oh yes: In no way do I trust the government either. I trust myself to keep an eye on them and cry foul when they act incorrectly and expect you as a citizen to do the same.

Whether I'm a Democrat or not is immaterial, and only being used to polarize.

What's wrong with these proposed rules?

[from ChuckCS link]

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

 What's wrong with these rules, Lantec?

*edit:

And any administration has been? Really?

Think of this as the "fairness doctrine" of the internet.  As with most things, keep government out of it.

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/64283-fcc-begins-net-neutrality-rulemaking-process

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33718

Don't worry Chuck, I'm sure Obama will apoint an Internet Czar if he hasn't done so already. 

Thanks, Lantec.  I'll check that out.

Neurologist consult fee (global) is about 4-500 for a new consult (depends if emergent or not). The qualification? Can't be a subspecialist w/o subspecialty boards...if competence is a question then go to a teaching medical university.

Link for disgusting phone taps: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/438

There are more. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10063138-38.html 

Great answer. When the tally is finally done with the traumatic brain injuries, ptsd, the maimed and crippled the dead....will you maintain a crime hasn't been committed? What number will trigger that response?

As for the vulnerability of soldiers returning from combat?

http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/psychotherapy_brown_bag_a/2009/06/postcombat-invincibility-the-impact-of-combat-exposure-on-subsequent-risktaking-behaviors.html 

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-HFM-108///MP-HFM-108-02.pdf 

The second's estimates are probably low, as the source needs to be considered.

Pelosi was referring to the paid for (guess who paid) disruptions and violent behavior in those meetings. The FBI should have probed who inspired and financed those disgraces.

As for lies? Try this: From The Center for Public Integrity: http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ 

How many have those lies killed, maimed, orphaned and ruined?

Ummm.....the only violent behavior came from union thugs attacking conservatives.   Guess who paid them?

good thing!

I know in the States many would prefer gov't not to be involved in many areas, but I'm glad the Oz gov't is involved in the nationwide rollout of high speed broadband here in Oz.... not just in providing the infrastucture but also protecting consumers.

Some industry pundits are suggesting the cost to the average user will be $200.00 per month... yet the wholesale price to ISP providers will be in the vicinity of $40 - $50 per month.  The Oz gov't is saying that would be excessive, pure profiteering and greed, so measures are being/will be implemented to prevent the giant telcos and ISP's gouging.

While some market analysts suggest corporate competition will help to regulate/keep prices low, that did not happen when state gov'ts privatised the electricity grid, saying that competition will keep prices low.  Quite the opposite happened, in fact...over the last 4 years electricity prices have risen sharply while in 'private hands', and Australians are paying 75% or more than they were in 2005...

My quarterly bill from Sept 2005: $197.45... My Quarterly bill for Sept 2009: $677.72.... with less actual consumption due to rising costs

Incomes have not kept pace with these massive increases, so yeah, I want government involved in ensuring that our national broadband is affordable to ALL... not just the wealthy.