[PROCON]

I'm suspicious when I hear about any legislation to "regulate" the internet.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Here come the taxes.

[Luke21]

I’m doubly suspicious of anything reported in cutesy terms by Reuters, Yahoo, or Asspress.

[slumber1]

If I like my internet can I keep my internet?

[Personal Responsibility]

“...the best way to protect an open, unfettered Internet.....We need unambiguous rules of the road that protect Internet users and can help spur job creation and economic growth....”

BS. Internet rules that spur job creation and economic growth? This is the language of the demagogue.

[jsanders2001]

Well they certainly fixed “healthcare” diidn’t they?. Looks like they are going or the jugular:

1) censoring the Internet to prevent critical thinkers from networking
2) taking away guns and ammunition from all citizen’s (we know that’s really the plan)
3) criminalizing dissent or freedom of expression

For tyrants this has been a damn good week. I’m afraid there is only one language tyrants understand and it’s unspoken...

[dragnet2]

I’m so glad the Republicans won big and took charge. They’ll reverse and get rid of all this, secure the borders, and dramatically reduce taxes and the size of controlling government.......

Just as soon as they are done celebrating the recent big win.

[TomGuy]

the best way to protect an open, unfettered Internet

Keep politicians, legislators, Congresscritters away from proposals to protect an open, unfettered Internet.

It works fine without government agencies and personnel sticking their noses in with regulations, etc.

Their 'good intentions' have one purpose: to regulate it, thereby giving them an opening to put more controls on free speech, etc.

[Talisker]

Good thing they’re not letting the First Amendment get in the way. It must be so annoying to the government that people think the protection of free speech involves the protection of free speech.

[Wuli]

“We need unambiguous rules of the road that protect Internet users”

From what?

Oh - “and also ensure that Internet service providers could not charge a premium to prioritize content delivery”. That’s what (they think).

I want “premium service” (more bandwidth and faster speed, AT TIMES), but, AT THOSE TIMES, I’m not - within their proposal - supposed to have pay a premium price for it. Everyone is supposed to be able to pay the same prices all the time, regardless of the variability of their need and the variability in the demands that need places on the systems that provide for it.

The ROI from trying to build-out better Internet possibilities under such net neutrality rules - that’s what they are, means the possible capital investment to do that is slowed, until everyone is willing to pay higher prices or the service providers move off of the present backbone to some unregulated area.

If these net neutrality rules prevail, streaming video is likely to grow more over the wireless networks than the Internet and the capital investments behind the technologies to do that will go there as well.

When one set of capitalist cronies get regulations to feed or protect their business model, innovation and investment for the regulated ares is stymied, until alternatives outside the regulated area are advanced.