[SengirV]

This one has me really torn. net-neutrality IS the way to ensure simplicity for the end user. Too bad it’s in the domain of the FCC.

For those here who just see the FCC and say net-neutrality is bad, I hope you enjoy your multi-tier pricing scheme where you can’t stream netflix video nor expect anything of appreciable size to download uninterrupted without the top-tier package which will cost you 2-3X what you are paying now.

The mind boggles at all the BS Verizon, AT&T, qwest, etc... are going to charge you to do what you already do today for a one simple bill.

[TomGuy]

This one has me really torn.

Same here. I'm not sure who I trust less, the FCC/FED or the cable companies.

I know (even though they deny it) my cable throttles download speeds. If I download a lot by the end of the month, my Internet speed is at a crawl. It is advertised at up to 18 Mbps, but it hardly ever really is anywhere near that.

[kidd]

This is outside of the FCC’s charter. There are no airwaves that need to be regulated.

This is like asking the Highway Patrol to make sure all gas stations have the same price for all brands of gas.

[The Duke]

What’s wrong with multi-tiered pricing? If I want the fancier car I have to pay more money. I’m just not interested in the government forcing anybody to give me “free stuff”.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Here is the simple explanation - if a company can’t charge extra for new technology, they won’t make new technology. If AT&T or Verizon can’t charge extra for 4G, which is an enhanced option, why pay the billions to expand current towers and equipment? This is affirmative action and reparations type thinking rolled into one..... let everyone have the same service, even if they can’t afford it. Idiotic thinking.