Enjoy your last month of the good Internet, because the FCC is about to sell out and there's nothing we can do about it. It's pretty obvious at this point that nothing we say or do is going to save net neutrality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/fcc-net-neutrality-feb-vote_n_6408854.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators are expected to vote next month on rules to govern how Internet service providers deal with the flow of content on their high-speed networks.The five-member Federal Communications Commission will consider then a proposal from Chairman Tom Wheeler on so-called net neutrality rules, agency spokeswoman Kim Hart said Friday. She was confirming reports in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal on the planned timing of the vote. Details of the draft proposal weren't disclosed.
President Barack Obama has asked the FCC to put Internet service providers under the same rules as those imposed on telephone companies 80 years ago. The aim is to protect net neutrality, the concept that everyone with an Internet connection should have equal access to all legal content online, including video, music, email, photos, social networks and maps.
The outcome could affect the prices consumers pay for access to entertainment, news and other online content.
The idea was a fundamental tenet of the Internet from its origin. But its fate has been in limbo since January 2014, when a federal appeals court struck down the FCC's guidelines and forced the agency to come up with new rules. The court ruling said the FCC has the authority to regulate service providers' treatment of Internet traffic but that the agency failed to establish that its regulations don't overreach.
Advocates of regulating the service providers like utilities contend that the companies, if left unchecked, will create a two-tier system that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes. In that scenario, only the richest content providers will be able to pay the extra tolls to ensure that their online content is accessible through the fast lanes.
Internet service providers reject such regulation. They assert they would be prevented from recovering some of the costs for connecting to content providers that use large quantities of broadband.

I still don't get what the bill is supposed to do

It splits the Internet in half and makes you pay twice for both sides.

For example you will have to pay a different Internet bill to access sites like Netflix and YouTube.

Quote from: Kupo on January 03, 2015, 05:16:17 AM

It's pretty obvious at this point that nothing we say or do is going to save net neutrality.

You can always move to Europe, where net neutrality is protected by law.

I read somewhere that this bill could also affect Europe somehow, but I don't know how reputable or accurate it was.

The internet is not a perfect ecosystem, but it'll be sad to see it destroyed beyond recognition.

 By the way, what fucking high-speed networks!? The average speed in American is what!? 7-9 mbps!? I'm not rich, nor do we live in a rich area and we are faster than the average American home, sitting at around 15-20 mbps

If they vote to screw up the internet, then I will drive up to D.C and protest if I have the time

Quote from: Kupo on January 03, 2015, 05:16:17 AM

It's pretty obvious at this point that nothing we say or do is going to save net neutrality.

You can always move to Europe, where net neutrality is protected by law.

Just based on either America or Europe, I would rather have one right taken away than many more

Quote from: Haus Immer Gewinnt on January 03, 2015, 04:37:17 PM

Quote from: Flee on January 03, 2015, 06:37:24 AM

Quote from: Kupo on January 03, 2015, 05:16:17 AM

It's pretty obvious at this point that nothing we say or do is going to save net neutrality.

You can always move to Europe, where net neutrality is protected by law.

Just based on either America or Europe, I would rather have one right taken away than many more

Other than there not being a constitutional guarantee to the right to bear arms, which the vast majority of people here wouldn't ever even want, what rights am I lacking?

Well there is Switzerland not being part of the EU and having a decent gun culture, so that would be my only choice to live in a European nation. Other than that, the EU basic goal is to strip power from individual governments and create a strong centralized government where people of various cultures argue because of different ideals. This is why letting individual nations having power is good, as it makes everybody happy

EU regulations have also cost family businesses in the UK billions because of stringent regulations, along with regulations on energy and cars making it difficult for families to travel and to have well, energy

The European Arrest Warrant is pretty much destructive on a person's privacy as it allows one country to kidnap the citizens of others

Why does everybody automatically assume net neutrality is good?

Is nobody going to question why big companies like Google support net neutrality?

I don't know, why? Public brownie points? It's not like the business is going to go anywhere because of whatever rule changes occur.

I feel bad for you Americans. Maybe one day you'll get net neutrality back.

Why does everybody automatically assume net neutrality is good?

Is nobody going to question why big companies like Google support net neutrality?

Having net neutrality is certainly better than NOT having net neutrality.

*sigh* Just another reason to never vote Republican

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-line-up-against-fcc-over-net-neutrality-2015-01-04

So you pay for the Internet based on much data you use? What's so bad about that?

It's more about "data discrimination".  For instance, if you're streaming Netflix you might get better download speed than say, browsing Facebook or Reddit.  The fear is that ISPs will begin charging you for what websites you use (ex. charge you for a "social media package" so that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. don't run at a snail's pace).

My problem with net neutrality is that it doesn't allow ISPs and companies to get into agreements that are beneficial to the consumer, like how Netflix made a deal with Time Warner to give its customers better stream quality (the average video quality went from 480p to 720p where I live).  The only way they were able to do that was to prioritize Netflix's traffic (put it on a "fast lane") so that it isn't competing with other traffic on the downstream.