*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, July 15th, 2014 9:25am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Or you could just move the tech industry to Canada. No net neutrality issues there.

OK, well, Obviously I support a fair internet.
But if we have to go to another random website, every other month while these Ahats just keep drawing up bills, eventualy one will get through. So we can vote down 600 Bills but if they slip just ONE past us, we're screwed.

Who is working to stop them from being allowed to keep sneak this in? Has ever been a more blatant waste of court resources? They will continue to railroad this through until it slips past.

Personally I'd like to see a Court Justice speak up and strike them down as needing to let this drop. - Ya, as if....

Seems like another non-issue. In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't. Right now, people who don't are subsidizing some of the costs for those who do. I don't really get the "problem," but I haven't put a lot of time looking into it.

In other words, what's the issue with NN? That they won't let you access porn sites or whatever? I think freeing it up for ISP competition would take care of access and cost issues. Like if Verizon was to introduce "static" onto your calls, then AT&T would take a larger chunk from them by not doing so. In a free market, businesses have to compete for your business. In a free market, you cannot really introduce a false scarcity. Only if there is a cartel or monopoly can that happen (which, in this case -- and in every case -- is ultimately the government).

In a competitive environment, no sane provider would want a reputation as a bad provider who intentionally messes with their own quality of service. That makes no sense. The restriction of ISP competition seems to be more of a problem and it is for this reason that the whole NN issue strikes me as another unnecessary freakout.

I would agree with some of your logic if there really was free markets. The Republican party messages that free markets take care of themselves and is best for the people. This is a big lie since they don't exist (or rarely). Democrats also take advantage of this although they don't focus on it as much. Also ending NN would decrease competition as companies with deep pockets can go to the front of the line and force out the small guy.
On a purely bandwidth argument I would mostly agree with you. The more resources you use, the more you should pay. This is already in place or at least for cell phones.
I don't understand your point about the government.

Mostly this, although I also don't think ISPs should charge for download/upload volume or "bandwidth", since it really isn't a limited resource. They already charge you for a given max speed (which often isn't actually delivered). BUT that's another issue. About the whole "free market" angle, think about it like this:

Would a free market have so many industry powerholders embedded into the FCC or as lobbyists? I see lobbying as the antithesis of "free market". Lobbying is a corporation basically giving up on providing a product/service that people actually choose to use because it is legitimately the best choice for them, and just saying "meh, let's rig the game instead of actually trying".

Not to mention that in many places in the US there is NO competition for available ISPs in a given area. You've got option A or, well, no ... that's all there is. And even if you consider the US as a collective entity, the number of "competing" ISPs across the country is pretty small in terms of who actually owns the pipes, and getting smaller all the time with more mega-mergers etc.

This is telecoms double dipping.

People pay for access to the internet, as do content providers. That is already happening right now...right now.

The new proposed laws will allow telecoms to charge for CONTENT over that access.

You may have paid hefty sums of money for a 100mbit upload speed, but that doesnt give you 100mbps transit through their network....or so they say.

Its bullshit, this is their way of saying...ok, youve only paid for the ACCESS segment of the internet, if you want CARRIAGE then you have to pay us again.

Its garbage, these costs have already been factored into your access fees from day zero, and now they just want more...and if you dont pay it, well fuck you.

Free market doesn't come into it. The internet itself is not a free market invention. It is essentially a public service that we allow contractors (the ISPs) to maintain in the same way that building companies maintain roads.

The internet itself (i.e. the physical network and the IP layer) grew out of DARPANet; a US government-funded defence initiative and the world wide web (the HTTP layer, HTML, etc) came from CERN; an EU multi-state research project.

The point is that the infrastructure itself was not created by the cable companies, they merely built on it. And they have no more right to decide to charge for different data than a road maintenance company does to charge different freight companies different rates.

You're mixing up public health care and net neutrality. We're fighting the same battle you are.

Ummm... I'm confused. Does Trancecoach and others like him think that Netflix doesn't pay to access the Internet? That Google, Amazon, Netflix and the like all have a free access pass to the Internet? Or when they say "In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't." are they talking about end users and not the companies paying millions to access the Internet already? Or are they confused on other aspects?

Perhaps some aspects of this video confused them...

Right now if a person pays $45 a month for 15Mps they should expect all that content delivered to them at 15Mps. The way the ISPs want to rig it, is they want to go to Netflix/YouTube/Google/Amazon and other services and make them pay extra to get to that 15Mps. If Netflix doesn't pay then the ISP slows that content down to 10Mps, even though the end user is paying for 15Mps access. They aren't coming to the end user, yet, and having them pay extra for streaming access as shown in this video, though I'm sure they'll triple dip that too eventually. (Another problem I have with the video, beyond suggesting they'll just charge the end user extra, is that Netflix and others are willing partners in this scam, when Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and all the others have been the biggest ones to support Net Neutrality and are fighting against the cable companies, while the video seems to suggest they'll handing the money over willingly.)

And if they mean the end user... then a person not streaming and only needing access to basic text and web stuff can get the basic 3Mbps option for only $30 or 2Mps option for $15. Streaming users do pay extra already. They pay for the extra bandwidth... if all you do is browse Facebook and tweet and the like and are using the 15Mbps or higher plans than you are an idiot. The end users do pay. As do the content companies like Netflix and YouTube/Google, Amazon and the rest...to the tune of millions a year. Yes, the content itself is far more expensive. For Netflix streaming a movie is cheaper than sending the DVD, postage is semi-cheap, but the people cost a lot. Still, they pay to access the Internet just like everyone else. Nobody is getting a free ride. This is just the ISPs trying to double, and potentially triple dip fees, and Net Neutrality seeks to stop them from double and potentially triple dipping. Bad enough we have to put up with banks double dipping ATM fees...

Big companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and the like can potentially pay the fees if they have to. The question then becomes can sites like videosift pay whatever ComcastWarner, Verizon, AT&T want? I know my little blog couldn't pay extra... not that my site's users would need more than the 3Mps plan, if that, to access most of the content... save of course when I embed a YouTube video I made.

TLDR: The end user already pays extra if they stream above and beyond what an end user who doesn't stream pays. Also Netfilx, Amazon, Google and the like all pay millions to access the Internet, they don't get their access for free. What the ISPs want to do is tell Netflix, if they want to reach that customer who's paying $40 for 15Mps access at the full speed that consumer is already paying for, then Netflix has to pay that consumer's ISP in ADDITION to the costs they are already paying. If they don't pay, then the consumer is given that content at a slower speed than what they are paying their ISP to get it at. The ISPs are trying to double dip, and someday may triple dip. Net Neutrality would stop the ISPs from doing that.