http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/ Engadget Comments for FCC outlines new 'third way' internet regulatory plan, will split access from content http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
i prefer Government imposed net neutrality than having a private company screw me over.]]>May 6th 2010 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
On one hand, I love the idea of net neutrality, but on the other, giving the central government even more power over the last quasi-free communication medium left in the world really does scare me. The FCC might be kind ok for now, but what about next year? 5 years from now? The next decade? Things aren't getting any better, and so I'm not feeling optimistic about the role of the FCC, the internet, and the future.]]>May 6th 2010 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I've only started following Net Neutrality since the John Hodgman explanation of it on the Daily Show. Now it appears to boil down to this:
1) If you believe internet providers will take advantage of the LACK of net neutrality, then this is GOOD. Examples I hear about is internet providers throttling down speeds for all internet, but throttle up speeds for certain content (such as, content by other companies who pay the ISP provider for the boost in bandwidth).
2) If you believe competition will hamper or eliminate the ability to do such throttling, then this is BAD.

So it depends, are you a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, or a naive sheeple?]]>May 6th 2010 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/Wtf? Not giving themselves enough power...gee that makes me feel all warm, fuzzy, and nostalgic for mother Russia ]]>May 6th 2010 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Personally I think this would be a great idea and spur a lot of co-op small Ma and Pa ISPs. I would be for that model.]]>May 6th 2010 2:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/you obviously don't suffer under time warner.]]>May 6th 2010 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I don't know where i stated i was a liberal.

also didn't know that if i wasn't a republican i was instantly a democrat.

you see, i tend to avoid being an extremist.]]>May 6th 2010 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
The problem is , isps are a monopoly, you only have a limited selection and if they are decide to screw you over at once, you can't change away to a "better" carrier , because they will all do the same thing (see cell phone companies for example)

The government would not have to control them, if they were not monopolies

Greedy companies need control , when they have as much power as the isps do]]>May 6th 2010 2:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
"@BrianH You sheep. Bet you want them telling you that you can't smoke, salt is bad for you, impose extra taxes on sugared sodas because they are unhealthy, not allow you to fry foods in vegetable oil or lard because it is too fatty and dictate the terms of your healthcare. Oooh wait! It's idiots like YOU that shit like this is happening. I am so tired of reliance upon government.

ROFLMAO.

I'm sorry, but you must be so naive if you think i don't smoke because the government says it's bad, i don't smoke simply because it's unhealthy, and personally, i find it quite disgusting (i can't breathe properly after trying one either).

Salt, salt is good for you in the proper dosage (you need it to live), and again, but guess what, too much will kill you (i mean seriously, it will actually kill you if you take even a handful), so i mean, what's the big deal, salt is bad for you, why are you angry is they say that?

I don't know who is more naive, me for believing my government who is trying to make me live longer by giving me advice like that, or you for listening to private companies who will only profit from you listening to their "studies" (funded by them) telling you that the government is lying.

]]>May 6th 2010 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
i mean, it's just so funny, that you are so quick to criticize the government (made up of republicans, independents and democrats, who, almost all agree on the negative effects of smoking etc) every time they make an effort to do something somewhat decent.

Yet you are so quick to think that private companies (their sole purpose in this world to make a profit from people like you) are telling you the truth and trying to make life so much better for you.

One recent example of how the government can make good choices, and a reason for proper regulation?

the god damn oil spill in the gulf, that could have been prevented if the damn rigs had a remote shut off system, it was actually advised by the government that all oil rigs in the states have those systems.

But guess what, the private companies, who are trying to help you so much, had that advisement tossed out because it was too expensive, and it would be soooo inefficient.

guess how much the system would have costed?

500,000 dollars, and because of greed by private companies, over 3 billion dollars worth of damage has occurred, and it is going to ruin the fishing industry in America for the next 20 years.

500k could have prevented 3 billion dollars in damage and an enviromental and economical crisis..

but no, private companies were too greedy.

sorry, say what you want, but the government needs to be involved in issued like this.

]]>May 6th 2010 2:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
So...uh...the FCC, by NOT putting broadband internet under Title II (which would give the FCC basically unlimited power over them) the FCC is "expanding their power like crazy"?

Interesting.]]>May 6th 2010 3:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I don't want the government involved in our internet access and the content of it.

I don't see how this will be good for the US to manipulate the nation's internet in the short or long term]]>May 6th 2010 3:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
So if you're a Republican or a Democrat you're an extremist? Lolwut?]]>May 6th 2010 3:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I prefer a free market solution and let people choose what is best through a free market; instead of a government telling you what is best and ultimately ruining it in the long run. Once you lose the control, good luck getting it back.

Free markets give you control, where no one company or government can screw you over. In a free market, if a company starts to screw you over; somewhere there will be a person who will see this problem, and provide a product for a profit that is the solution you want. The the company that screwed you over will either adapt or go away.

Do you really want a government to control what you use for information? If you're displeased, there is nowhere else to go, you're stuck, and you're not getting your control back.]]>May 6th 2010 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 3:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/Let me first point out as others have, that ISP's have monopolies in certain areas, so the free market/competition idea of letting consumers choose doesn't really work. Because when you think about it, what choice do they have? No internet, or ISP taking them for whatever they can. If they choose no internet, then they immediately take 10 steps back and can't compete with other areas. Think about businesses first of all. If they choose the overpriced low value ISP offering, then they'll most likely have to give up other things to afford it that they shouldn't have to. Either way its a terrible burden. The competition argument doesn't work without first taking some of the power away from these companies. In effect, the amount of power the top companies own keep all other competition away. Think about this, if the goal of a business is profit, then they will do anything to get rid of competition because that lowers profit.

I'm going to pick the government over the business in most situations. Not all across the board on every decision and not everytime will the government do the right thing or have the right intentions, but atleast I know the idea of the government and the goal has better intentions than the idea/goals of a for-profit business. Thats a better starting ground for me. But ofcourse someone will take just bits and pieces out of this and call me socialist even though they don't know what that means and they just heard it on Glenn Beck's show. Oh and I'm not saying I'm not socialist, or that I am, my thoughts/ideas/actions arent chosen based on definition of a word. I'll do what I think is right regardless if its defined by society as communist socialist capitalist whatever it doesn't matter.]]>May 6th 2010 3:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Yeah! That darn government! What did they ever do for us regarding the internet! They should just stay ou.......oooohhhh, riiiight. DARPAnet.

Seriously. These blanket statements need to stop here and now. Stop it with these "TEH GOVERNMENT IS TAKIN MAH INTERNETS!" arguments and start being reasonable. Currently, there is no way to sue Comcast if they start throttling your internet connection on certain websites, including bittorrent. These 6 steps are the perfect amount of regulation, not too much, not too little.

Basically, the government is not trying to "take control" of the internet. They're literally saying "We're creating a new classification for the internet because it's so different." They're telling companies that they had better keep it fair, open, and neutral, otherwise they will come after them. The consumer wins. I don't know why you're defending Comcast. If they could, they would sell you an internet product designed to fail. And it would be legal. Tell me that's not screwy. (Sound familiar? Sub-prime mortgages anyone? Banking regulation?)]]>May 6th 2010 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Comcast holds a large share of internet users in your area and you have very few or no other options. Comcast decides they want to sell more On Demand movies with their new service. They then disable netflix.com and redirect you to their home page. Maybe they even just throttle down all netflix traffic to 10kbps so it nudges you towards their service.

Does that sound good to you? This is exactly the reason that Net Neutrality is important. It shouldn't be up to the ISP what traffic you can get. It should be unregulated. The FCC doesn't tell you what phone numbers you can call, does it? Think about it, what incentive does the FCC have to start running rampant with internet regulation? They haven't even made an effort to regulate at all until Comcast started throttling BitTorrent traffic.]]>May 6th 2010 4:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I live here, and I quite like it.. All that "socialism is the devil work" and "they want to take my internet away" crap is just some uninformed fear promoted by some crazy extremists you have there in which, and I really can't understand why, some big chunks of the general public believe as if they are the bearers of the holy truth..

The thing is, if you stop to think what you'd like to have in order for you to make the maximum amount of money, which can only be achieved by screwing your clients, you'd come to the conclusion that a unregulated market is what benefits most the companies..

It isn't because a market, say the broadband market, is regulated that the market rules don't apply anymore.. In the end, you can still choose which company you want to buy your services from, and I'm sure you'll continue to chose the one who provides the best service..

What I believe some of you can't understand is that political views across the pond from you are amazingly different from yours. Those democrats you call socialist over there would be called moderate right-wingers here, while your republicans, whom, you might have guessed, I strongly despise, would be called right-wing extremists.

So, there you go, I just transformed a comment about net neutrality in a lengthy political rant which I'm sure no one will read entirely, but I truly hope I calmed at least one of your troubled minds with this rant.]]>May 6th 2010 10:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://j.mp/googlee-isp]]>May 6th 2010 11:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 11th 2010 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
So am I paying for other people's landlines too?]]>May 6th 2010 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY]]>May 6th 2010 3:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
All you have to do is examine the internet in countries where the government controls or regulates the access, infrastructure, or even websites. I'm going to agree with Darkseider- when it comes to the government, less is more.

As for the "irresponsible companies seeking to maximize profit" argument, yes, companies do sometimes behave irresponsibly, and bad things happen as a result. However, when companies act irresponsibly it usually comes back to bite them, and HARD. What happens when the government acts irresponsibly? Oh, that's right, nothing. That's the difference. People who work for the government usually don't have nearly the incentive to do things right that the people employed in the private sector do. I recently had a government employee tell me to take Unemployment Insurance money, because "...if you don't, someone else will, so you might as well take all you can!" Yes, this is the kind of person responsible for shelling out your hard-earned tax dollars. I was pissed. ]]>May 6th 2010 3:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
"All you have to do is examine the internet in countries where the government controls or regulates the access, infrastructure, or even websites. I'm going to agree with Darkseider- when it comes to the government, less is more."

Countries like....Japan? Or South Korea? Or Switzerland? The ones who have tremendously fast internet services?

"As for the "irresponsible companies seeking to maximize profit" argument, yes, companies do sometimes behave irresponsibly, and bad things happen as a result. However, when companies act irresponsibly it usually comes back to bite them, and HARD. What happens when the government acts irresponsibly? Oh, that's right, nothing. That's the difference."

Incorrect. When people in government do something wrong, they get voted out. When people in corporations do something wrong, even if their company goes underwater, what happens? They get a bonus! No matter what!

"People who work for the government usually don't have nearly the incentive to do things right that the people employed in the private sector do."

Yeah they do. To stay in office.

"I recently had a government employee tell me to take Unemployment Insurance money, because "...if you don't, someone else will, so you might as well take all you can!" Yes, this is the kind of person responsible for shelling out your hard-earned tax dollars. I was pissed."

...Okay, so you had a bad interaction with an unscrupulous government EMPLOYEE (not an elected official) and you're generalizing that to everyone in the government? The plural of anecdote is not data. Also, people are greedy, nothing new here.]]>May 6th 2010 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
"One of the many taxes/fees on your phone bill is to pay to STRING UP folks who can't afford or aren't willing to pay for a phone."

We're not giving them free internet service. We're giving them easy access to the internet should they or anybody else ever want access. It's like making public roads. Heaven forbid.]]>May 6th 2010 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Aren't willing? You mean like a disable veteran who lost both legs and an arm and is on disability because their life is in a wheelchair and they can't work, but would still like to surf porn with one hand and a box of tissues?

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with a Universal service fee going to help veterans or others who can't afford it through no fault of their own.

And I would further say that by your argument, a grandmother on a pension that can barely avoid her monthly pills to STAY THE FUCK ALIVE. So she doesn't "deserve" the internet?


Yeah, fuck those unwilling bastards.]]>May 6th 2010 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Until you can tell me what part of the access, infrastructure, or content the governments in Japan, South Korea, or Switzerland control, I cannot assess how well they are doing. "Tremendously fast internet services" rely on a multiplicity of factors, including geography, hardware, etc, which the government may or may not have anything to do with. Unless you can provide the specific data, you cannot say, "Look! Here's a place where government regulated internet works great!" Of course, the same thing applies to non-government regulated internet as well- it's a very complex scene. The reason I don't believe that the government will run the internet well is because the government has a history of fraud, waste, red tape, and less incentive to do things right than private corporations do.

As for things coming back to bite companies, um, can you say "Toyota?" Don't you think things turned out badly for them because they acted irresponsibly? Do you really think that things are going to be peachy-keen for BP over this gulf oil spill? No, people will demand blood, and they will get it. Companies do skimp, cheat, lie, and everything else, but when they get caught, people get fired, stocks plummet, fines get levied, and some people even go to jail (Madoff, Enron, etc.) I am also in favor of even tougher punishments for people who do these things. Your "CEOs get bonuses!" line is a populist red herring. Even if they do, so what. CEO bonuses hardly contribute or detract from the economy much. If I was a stockholder for a company that wasn't doing well, I wouldn't want the CEO to get a big fat bonus, but I'm not the one making that decision. The most I can do is put my money somewhere else where people are behaving more responsibly.

As for governments, here's the news flash: most government employees aren't voted into their position. Do you think we're going to vote for the people who are going to regulate the internet? No. They will be appointed, hired, etc. If they are horrible, a politician or two may get voted out, but that isn't going to do anything to the government employees. Do you know how hard it usually is to get fired from a government position? Government organizations are considered far more "safe" than private sector jobs, and with good reason. The government organizations can perform poorly, or even have a negative impact, and not much will happen. Sure, a few politicians might get voted out, but is that really going to change how the employees on the ground behave? Look at the U.S. Postal Service. They have been running billions of dollars over budget, but has anything changed? Not really. Postal workers still get far better pay and benefits than people in the private sector do for comparably skilled jobs.

Also, my story wasn't my data, sorry. It was too illustrate a point- the government employee had NO INCENTIVE to behave responsibly with tax payer money, so guess what? She wasn't responsible with the money! In a private company, an employee who threw money everywhere with such reckless abandon would just get fired. I can almost guarantee that the government employee won't.

In the end, I agree with your assessment about people being greed. Yes, some of them are sometimes greedy, selfish, uncaring, and even criminal, and this goes for people employed in both government and the private sector. However, I'd rather have the responsibility in the hands of the people who don't have the ability to arbitrarily change the rules to favor themselves. People with power are hard to trust. People in government have power. I'd rather give them as little power over me as possible. ]]>May 6th 2010 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
"The reason I don't believe that the government will run the internet well is because the government has a history of fraud, waste, red tape, and less incentive to do things right than private corporations do."

Except the government isn't going to be running the internet. It's going to be setting legal precedent so that we, as consumers, can charge and sue companies for improperly delivering a product to us. We want free internet. The government assures that we can punish companies who do not make it free.

So you're fine with private embezzlement, with CEOs who are voted out by oligarchical stock holders, and have a major impact on our economy (has everyone forgotten the banking crisis already?), but you're completely against even the possibility of a government that everyone can vote out having a bit more power? Again, what compels you to be on the side of Comcast?

""CEOs get bonuses!" line is a populist red herring."
...Except they do. Constantly. Even when their company is doing badly.

"employee had NO INCENTIVE to behave responsibly with tax payer money, so guess what? She wasn't responsible with the money!"
...That's a government employee, aka, not a government elected official. The exact same unscrupulousness exists in private companies too. And they have an even less chance of getting voted out.

"However, I'd rather have the responsibility in the hands of the people who don't have the ability to arbitrarily change the rules to favor themselves. People with power are hard to trust. People in government have power. I'd rather give them as little power over me as possible."

...That's true. Very true. But that's naive to think that the corporations don't have the power to change rules arbitrarily, and it's also naive to think that the government can just change things willy nilly. First of all, as long as lobbying exists, there will always be some form of corporate control on everything Washington does. Normally, the idea of being an elected official means that you work for the good of the people, otherwise you would be voted out.However, with lovely lobbying, the elected official only cares about getting that corporate support, who cares if he gets elected out because he's still got his cash! As long as lobbying continues to exist in its current form, this will continue to happen.

However, on the flip side, saying that all government offices are useless and should be stopped because they can define their own rules is silly. The government is not autonomous. They have to go in front of many committees, put this up to many votes, get the public's comments on this, etc. There are so many hoops for this that it boggles the mind. They can't just wake up one day and say "I'm going to change the rules, screw everyone else!"]]>May 6th 2010 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
BTW, if the FCC has it's way, your bill will be $100 a month, you WILL get your high speed, up to your bit limit, which won't be more then 10Gb a month. With an overage cost of $10 per 3Gb after that.

Nothing the FCC can do about that.

If you haven't figured it out yet, they WILL find a way to make the profit the have up till now. Even when the FCC tried to regulate cable TV prices the companies just used the FCC's own rules to continue to make as much profit as they did before, and customers just paid more for more channels they didn't even want.]]>May 6th 2010 7:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I'm sorry, but if your government has less sense to do "the right thing" than companies, it's because you've made it that way. You have control over who is elected to represent you and your interests, and clearly if your statement is true then you have failed in doing so or educating the people around you to do so.

I know that in the United States, you elect people who elect people who elect people who represent you - this means in the the end you have little control over what happens. In parts of Europe, the voters actually directly vote on legislature and elections, etc. This is why I don't live in America. :P Perhaps you should move or elect a party that will change your government for the better - or *gasp* make a party.

What happened to America being the most free country on Earth, where the people have the most control over what happens to them? It certainly isn't anymore.

]]>May 6th 2010 7:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
You raise valid points. I would also like to add, these employees are people just like you, or your friends. They have that attitude because that is the attitude of a large population of America. It's a poor attitude to have and the fact that so many people find nothing wrong with it is the real problem. All about me, all about the money, gotta look out for #1. That's all the majority of people care about is themselves, so why would they care about your tax dollars. Where do you think this attitude comes from? Well just look at all these businesses who wouldn't hesitate to shank you if it were legal just to take your wallet, because they only care about themselves. It's the typical attitude of America that's become the problem. All these people complaining about the government spending too much money, some of them have so much debt on their credit cards that they'll end up filing bankruptcy. Preach about the government spending too much money but those same people are doing it on an individual level and it spreads like wildfire. Remember the government isn't some mysterious entity that is just there, its made up of individuals that we all influence. The American Dream is all about making money anymore, helping yourself. That's all it is. If that's all you're doing, that's all anyone else is going to do.]]>May 6th 2010 10:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/Wont these changes somehow allow the gov to have more control over my privacy? They can ask the isps to dish out all the details or else.. I am not being naive as I am sure the gov. agencies can already find out all the details in the name of national security, but this would just take things to the next step.

Previously the CIA/NSA/HomeLand Sec. had to show proof to higher authorities before going through my internet history, now Sen. Tom, Dick and Harry can do the same applying pressure through the FCC?

Its like the US is tip-toeing around harsh internet controls as such as China. I am actually surprised by this move, especially from this kickass liberal gov!]]>May 7th 2010 1:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
I try to be an informed voter. Alas, most people do not make efforts in that direction. Oh well. At least in America we still have our guns to help keep the politicians careful. For those of you who think something like that will never be necessary, I hope to God you are correct. But, reading history has made a realist out of me. ]]>May 7th 2010 6:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
So they want part of it to be Tier II, which is used for telecoms. Even with ALL of Tier II we see how badly telecoms screw us...why would it be any different for the Internet? If anything, ISPs will be able to screw us more, since only a subset of Tier II will supposedly be enforced.

We need net neutrality legislation so that ISPs can be sued BY US for their BS, instead of us being forced to sit around and just hope that the overworked FCC notices our plight and decides to open a lengthy, internal investigation to correct some unfair ISP business practice.]]>May 6th 2010 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
the main problem is that there are many government-sponsored monopolies which allow many carriers to have a monopoly over areas, and never be forced to lower price, innovate, and increase speeds for their customers. It's not necessarily the Federal government who does (often, cities or counties will force a monopoly of say, Verizon phone service and Comcast cable within a certain area, and forcibly exclude everyone else).

If there were a lot more carriers, we'd have more choice, and we wouldn't need to ask the .gov to help us out with this net neutrality nonsense. It wouldn't be an issue because it wouldn't be competitive for one company to try to go for a tiered approach while other companies offered a freer internet. We'd also have far faster internet.]]>May 6th 2010 2:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
There are ZERO, that's NO communities in the ENTIRE USA that have given ANY COMPANY an EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to sell Phone, Internet TV to it's comunitiy.

It really is getting old when idiots keep spouting this "monopoly" crap when you don't have a clue.

Yes, there ARE sparsly populated areas where it's uneconomical to have competition. Guess what? Nobody told you to move to BFE. And the rest of us don't have to pony up to pay for YOUR choice of where YOU live so you can get city like services.

If you want City like competition, move to the city.]]>May 6th 2010 7:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/May 6th 2010 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/
Actually it's not uncommon for cities in the last mile to do sign exclusivity agreements.

Then there are cities who reject offers from ISPs, create their own, and then get sued by Comcast or whoever that they're suddenly competing with.

It's also referred to as a duopoly. You have your monopoly phone provider and your monopoly cable provider. My parents live in the suburbs of Atlanta. Bellsouth (now AT&T) ran fiber to the curb a few years ago. No one (Not Earthlink or Yahoo or SBC or anyone else) can run DSL to my house. AT&T U-Verse is not available in my area. There's choice 1 for internet. Choice 2 is Comcast.

Now when it comes to TV I have Comcast, Dish, or DirectTV. The only reason I have a choice of satellite providers is because you buy the vendors equipment and point it up at the sky. If it went under the street I'm sure I'd only have 1 option.]]>May 6th 2010 10:38PM