I have heard that may soon be done and I just wonder how anyone could do that and why they would want to?
Wow, Jackie, now that is a thought ...I have no clue as to how they would regulate it, but I wonder if that means costing us more money to pay for Internet and then maybe start taxing purchases via Internet? I will keep posted as to the discussion here.
No doubt Theresa that will mean taxes or money in the pockets of someone but my biggest concern is control by a government. I am watching it too.
From the perspective of the United States there is a fair amount of regulation that can be proposed and legislated, and although the internet can trace its roots back to HARP and DARPA, like Topsy it has grown. Nodes are now world wide, and paths across the network are so intertwined and tangled, it is not likely any individual government body will be able to truly contain it in any real form.
The internet is a co-operative across the entire world and while rules and structure are necessary for it to exist, no single entity will really be able to regulate it. It will require agreement across the entire co-operative and that is a ways away.
Ssh, they may hear you. Hackers may get ideas.
It is already regulated and run by companies that demand some people pay extra for their service and cut them off if they refuse.
The goal of 'net neutrality' is not to create regulation, but to stop abuses of that kind and make companies provide the internet at a single fair price that is the same for every customer like we are provided with electricity or cable.
So I think you may be protesting the very thing you agree with?
I guess it is possible except I do not know of one good thing government controlled. They can't pay their own debts or make any wise decisions for any cause so why would we trust them with the internet?
I know government bashing is popular, but keep in mind we choose the government we have, and while it may not work the way we individuals want it to , It does work.
In the early 1950's when I was a kid, there wasn't as single maintained road between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, or between the Canadian border and Mexico. Under Dwight Eisenhower the Government recognized that this country needed an interstate highway system if the country was going to continue to prosper. It may always be under repair and construction, but it is the best vehicle transit system in the world.
I realize Social security has its problems, but I have worked my entire life saving and doing everything right and it was the private sector that failed me. My wife and I live modestly but successfully on our social security.
My wife has had health issues, and if it were not for medicare we would be bankrupt.
I know our government does not always work the way we want but dont discount what does work. Remember we are a quarter of a billion people and for a government to please all of us all the time is not possible, but it does work, and ironically the internet is one of those things that does work.
It's the free market, so if one company charges too much, go elsewhere. This is yet another case of government assuming (thank you Jonathan Gruber!) that we are too stupid to manage our own affairs and decide how we'll spend our money.
Some thoughts about the internet. First for those who reside in the United States, our tax dollars paid for the development of the internet. Initially it was developed to provide communication between universities, government, and the military industrial complex. Who new that people would be so attracted to it.
Net Neutrality is the principle that all data on the Internet be treated equally. All providers should not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. We all paid for the internet to be developed and while we should pay for its upkeep if we use it, we should not be denied access or be hindered from it full use because someone is greedy.
How about if we're all charged by the mbits of up/down load required in a month? Or should I pay for server equipment to be upgraded because you like to stream movies 12 hours per day?
I'm not real comfortable with Uncle Sam suddenly declaring that two very different products (speed of access, for instance) are in fact identical and should be charged the same even though very different and requiring very different technology and investment. Is a Cadillac the same as a Yugo and thus should be legislated to carry the same price tag?
You are comparing the wrong things, Net Neutrality is about not allowing a provider to shut you off or control you access speed for more money. High speed on the internet should be available to all for the same low price. There are cities in the world whose citizens pay a modest fee for access and these cities are all wired with fiber. It is about connectivity and the fact that as fiber finds it's way onto the internet you not be denied access unless your provider gets more money. You paid for the internet with your taxes why should you be denied access so someone can have a greater profit margin. Some providers want to artificially slow down your access and connectivity. High speed connectivity is getting cheaper, They want to raise the price on you. Don't let them do it.
I'm sorry. I use DSL, provided by the phone company. I have fiber here, but taxes did not pay for that fiber. It didn't pay for more or better equipment the phone company put in to handle the higher speeds or additional information transmitted. Taxes didn't even pay for the modem/router I use. The phone company did.
What you are suggesting is that because that company took very old technology (internet) and improved on it at their cost (fiber, equipment, etc.) they should not charge more than if they only supplied 10 year old equipment and copper lines.
I disagree. Government does not belong in the business of setting prices outside of monopolies, which internet access is not. There are least 5 alternatives I could use for access and competition is strong. On top of that the product that I chose is a far different product than it was with copper lines and outdated equipment yet you are saying the government should roll back prices to that the old equipment and lines could provide.
Now if you can prove collusion between competing companies, illegal price setting to circumvent competition, I'd jump all over it. But you can't, so sit back and pay for what you wish to use. Understand that the US economy does not operate on socialism or communistic principles but on free enterprise. You don't like the prices, shop elsewhere or build your own access point.
Well said. The more government interferes with the free market in order to 'help', the more we end up paying.
Just look at Obamacare.
I have to agree; even if I can't say why I just don't trust government in everything and that is just where they want to be.
Yes, just look at how well Obamacare is running so smoothly ... NOT!!!! Scary stuff there.
You are misrepresenting what I said.
By the way, fiber installation is subsidized by the government, and all that copper that was laid was also subsidized by the government.
I have no argument about companies making a profit and recapturing their capital investment. What I do have a problem with are providers dialing someone's speed back artificially or denying access to content available on the internet, to just increase profit. If they own the content and the servers they may charge whatever they want and the market will decide its value, but if someone else has the same content and provides it for less, then users should have access to it. If you are an internet provider, then you should have to provide to the entire internet. If you are providing access to a limited intranet of your own ownership then you should advertise it as such.
There are already rules and regulations in place for the operation of providers on the internet, and to be a provider you must agree to abide by these rules and regulations.
Some broad providers have already demonstrated a willingness to block content and degrade network performance in order to keep competitive providers from doing business on the internet, Net Neutrality prevents that. If you want a true free market, then you should support Net Neutrality.
Even the real founders and developers of the internet support Net Neutrality.
"but if someone else has the same content and provides it for less, then users should have access to it"
Let's re-phrase that just a bit. Whatever the lowest cost seller charges shall be the mandated charge for everyone in the country.
And there goes any competition - the basis for our economy. Regardless of company costs, they can't charge more that what someone else across the country in far different circumstances charges. Whatever is paid by the customer in NYC, with thousands of customers per mile, is what the customer in Hells Canyon with no phone, no power and the only access by riverboat, shall pay.
No thank you. And as far as blocking some sites; if you don't want to be blocked, find a provider that won't block you. If you want higher speed, find someone that will sell it to you. It's a free country and you can do that, just as they can set their rates and decide what they will sell without Uncle Sam telling them what they can charge or what they can offer to sell.
The whole crux of this is that internet access is not a monopoly. It is available to everyone (via satellite if nothing else) and from multiple sellers everywhere. It..does..not..need..price..controls. Price controls are reserved, and rightly so, for monopolies such as power companies.
I do have to agree with that. Sometimes what seems like is too good to be true; really is. We just find out too late.
Clearly you do not understand Net Neutrality, which is fine, those of us who do will see to it you don't get taken advantage of.
You're right. When people wish to purchase a specific product and the government says "No, you can't do that - you will instead purchase this more expensive one because we know better than you do what you want and need" I don't understand. The bottom line is that it's just another invasion of privacy and freedom by the nanny state.
And spinning it by calling it "Neutrality" doesn't change anything and only adds to the lies to the people.
This is an excellent article about the net neutrality debate, and if you are truly interested it is worth the read.
Great question, Jackie, and chilling, too. The Obama administration has been talking about it lately, just another plank in the nanny state platform of running our lives. Personally, I'm for small government the way the founding fathers intended. It's supposed to govern by consent of the governed, not rule the governed.
I'm not tech-savvy so can't speculate about the real possibility, but my son is a senior software engineer, so I think I'll pose the question to him.
I like Gene's answer and draw some comfort from it. I do think there needs to be some regulation because the Internet can be the source of terrible evil...just think of the child predators that surf the net trying to lure children into danger. I just don't know how that can be achieved and still protect the rights of law abiding users.
Well Bob I can see concern for children but I don't think it is government's concern for them since they want them brainwashed and free to think and do as they please regardless, no? That may be one of their ploys. I imagine it has much to do with control of us all; or that is my fear. I just can't imagine how they would do it; but am sure they could give it a good try, lol
The internet runs very well and most people are delighted with it, so government is determined to 'fix it' for us by regulating something that is not broke.
These are the same people who set up Obamacare and that famous website that still doesn't work.
The internet just keeps on getting better, more reliable, and faster, due to competition. If we allow government to set one price as psycheskinner correctly points out is their goal, then such competition will be stifled, and the incentive to do better will be gone.
That's close to impossible. Would have to pay more people to monitor that. Wouldn't you think?
If, as some claim, government does such a great job at running things, then why not turn everything over to government?
And if government is so good at such things, how do you explain the VA and the botched Obamacare rollout? For that matter, how do you explain why, if government is so great at managing business, all of the Obamacare promises like cheaper premiums, lower deductibles, keeping our plans, and keeping our doctors turned out to be so utterly false?
Government has a terrible track record, and the internet is not broken, so don't try to tell us it needs to be fixed by the same government that gave us hated Obamacare.
A full 61% of Americans are opposed to government regulation of the internet:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … e_internet
"By the way, fiber installation is subsidized by the government, and all that copper that was laid was also subsidized by the government."
And where did government get that money?
Hi Will, and all
Like I said our taxes paid for the internet. I should note here that Net Neutrality wasn't started by the government, W3 and a number of service providers had noticed that some other providers were blocking access and dialing back on access speed and they felt that something needed to be put in place to protect consumers.
W3 is the organization that regulates the software that the web uses to run. Net Neutrality is not a government conspiracy, but the people that built, develop on and currently regulate the web support it.
Clearly regulations that Congress might put into place will effect only US companies, and those of us who support Net Neutrality are only interested in US consumers being protected. I am aware that a lot of people have very little faith in the US government but in this instance Congress is looking to the people I have mentioned for guidance, and I think that is a good thing.
I am trying to see it the other way after having it explained to me that places like Time Warner will do the same online as they have with their cable; dominated areas and charge you high outrageous prices! It is worth thinking about. It is really hard for many of us now to trust anyone because it seems you can trust no one!
Can you guys check out a nice read on my hub age, It's my first one
by Kelly Kline Burnett 7 years ago
The latest news is some regulator wishes to regulate sugar in the same manner alcohol is regulated.I can understand the cry for greater health but should we first be mandating prescriptions for exercise before we regulate food?Is sugar and butter really bad IF used in moderate quantities? Isn't the...
by Kathryn L Hill 6 years ago
Utopianism is the real crux of the problem: the insistence of attempting to establish that which can never exist. We are a society which is driven by hope. We are fed hope by every commercial, billboard and salesperson! We live for hope, thinking there is a magic fix for every ill. Government can...
by Scott Belford 18 months ago
Here is an interesting conundrum. Keyless cars were introduced in the early 2000 which allow you to push a button to start your car while the key fob remains in your pocket or purse. Since 2006, 28 people of died and 45 others injured from CO poisoning resulting from forgetting to turn...
by Jan Thompson 10 years ago
Private tuition has come in for some scathing attacks from commentators and service users-alike. It would be foolish to dismiss the criticism without further thought, as such arrogance would serve to further harm the industry. News stories such as the following are not rare enough:> The...
by Gary Anderson 8 years ago
You mentioned in our discussion on another site that Alan Greenspan sold out. But really, he sold out by not regulating bubbles. You say he sold out by not having a gold standard. But a gold standard would cause credit to completely dry up. Some credit is necessary. And, BTW, the TULIP bubble was...
by ga anderson 7 years ago
Political pundits are saying the Obama admin is floating the typical "trial balloons", (ie. rumors to pundits to get it in the public conversation/news), of a wealth tax - to see if it would have a chance of acceptance.The "rumors" floating around are talking about a 1%...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|