Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

And what is 'Internet Nuetrality'?

I hate being throttled now, can't even imagine paying more for something even slower.  (And I won't.)

I already get my internet from my cable company, and the TV signal is clear, and the internet is fast as shit, so this doesn't affect me. I hope/

No see, that's why Itll affect you. Internet neautrality will basically be obamacare for the inter-webs, whichll make your internet slower and worse in exchange for other people getting it for free!! Yay~

Honestly, I don't get the hatred over obamacare. It seems like you Americans would prefer the timeless adage of "Pay up or die!". 

I prefer the " don't raise my prices for an already expensive service to make others who we already give most of our income to get what we get for free, while making our pricey service worse"

So you'd rather people just die so your prices don't go up? 

... Seems legit.  You totally aren't being a selfish asshole. 

No, I'd rather I dont die. My family>anyone else, ha ha. And tell me when you give 20% of every single paycheck you get from work (albeit the work is just tutoring) to charity, and spend an hour every week helping people who can't afford. 

It works over here. You aren't going to die from rising prices. 

Gonna die from lack of quality. Like what I've actually seen from people who aren't hiding behind a layer of bias, ha ha.

The people around me aren't dropping dead from OHIP...

I'd hope not. But then again, I assume the people around you aren't the only human beings in canada.

If   it has happened, it's incredibly rare. 

hmm actually if you look at the overall stats from social healthcare, you get the same level of service for significantly cheaper if its covered through taxes on a free at the point of service system. You pay less for more, and others who cannot afford it are looked after too, I don't see how you loose out here.

I'm new to the Canadian half and half system but the UK (Used to have, the current gov. are trying to destroy it since they hate people and love big companies who pay them to be CEO's after they leave office). Basically most people I know who can afford it in the US pay a lot for their healthcare, and they get basically what they pay for. To get great service and treatment they pay a large sum every month, then pay deductibles etc. and rates go up if they actually need it, then their coverage doesn't actually cover everything they need and they have to pay the shortfall themselves.

In the UK, the taxes cover all healthcare (Until this gov. ends everything good about the UK at least). Your taxes are not much higher and you pay very little overall to the system, which then treats you for whatever happens, however often it happens, with no extra charge. The care is on average BETTER than the average in the American system as everyone gets treated to the highest standard in the UK where in America you get treated according to your wallet, or left outside to die if you missed your months health insurance payment. The healthcare in the UK is on par with the best treatment in the US (Barring the specialty hospitals in both countries which are recognized as world leaders, talking averages here) but I paid significantly less for it due to the NHS system.

Obviously there are problems in both systems and some hospitals/healthcare workers under perform but that happens in both countries.

Difference between UK and USA is that the  uk has about 358 hospitals, while the US has about 5,798. It's easier to have a better average care with a smaller number.

Albeit, I don't actually know much about the UK system. Only about 'Obamacare,' which is where I base much of my opinions. 

The number isn't really an issue. The number of hospitals is supposedly scaled directly to the number of patients, as the US has a much larger population, it has many more hospitals.

The issue is all just money really. At the moment there are multiple health insurance corporations running in the US, and they bring in over 10 Billion a year in profit, 2008 it was 12.9 Billion. Unless you have a horrific accident necessitating massive medical intervention and life-long ongoing care, less than a year into joining up and have the BEST possible coverage plan AND an airtight contract ensuring they pay for life, you wont really ever actually use up the money you pay them over the course of your life. They are in the business because it is just so dam profitable, they make ridiculous sums of money off 99.9% of their clients.

If ALL the money they were paid went into providing universal healthcare, then every American could very easily be covered for life. Understandably many do not want to pay for others, and that's fine. Reduce every ones payments by 30% and the money paid STILL coveres everyone in the country with spare.

Thats what true universal healthcare is trying to say (Obama care is something else) Remove the profit grabbing side of it and make everyone who can pay, pay. Then they all pay a lot less than they were and there is still some left over to support those who can't. It should be a win win situation as everyone pays less and everyone gets healthcare but it does not fit into the big corporation and profit grabbing mentality so I doubt it will ever be introduced in America. It's also why the conservatives are destroying it in the UK, they honestly seem to believe that if they and their friends in the top 5% income bracket get richer and richer by taking things away from everyone else that everyone will somehow be happy, or they just don't care.

Well yeah, but when you consider that generally the better hospitals are in better locations. UK, being smaller and having less hospitals, make each one better, since you don't have tons of large areas where only the poor live. 

I'd have to research what you're saying. Could be entirely true (which means I'll have to rethink a bunch of things as usual, ha ha), but I dunno. If it was that simple, it wouldn't be that controversial in the US. 

Nah it's really not that simple at all, I was obviously bias in the direction I wanted to be lol. Most of my points are true but I deliver them with bias.

It would be a horrific system to implement in a country the size of the US (Geographically as well as population.) if everyone lived in populated cities or within easy drives it might be possible but the population base is just too spread out so you need more hospitals per person relative to the UK where no matter where you live, your pretty dam close to a city. That means more money and higher taxes relative to the UK system.

Social healthcare is kind of like socialism. It is in theory the best way to do things, but barely ever works out. It was established in the UK in the post war era and was able to get formed then while the country was living off solidarity and little money. in the US you would have to overhaul the entire idea of capitalism, change the law regarding corporations (They are actually legally bound to pursue profits over all else) and the governmental system which is HIGHLY influenced by corporations, money and national debt.

The main sticking point is taxes, taxes across the board would rise to allow the government to pay for the healthcare which the majority of the US population would clearly see as the government taking from them to pay for the poor etc. for I would guess a majority, overall bills would in fact go down once they were not paying insurance etc. saving them money but the sentiment would take decades to fade. It'll prob never happen again in the Western world as the idea is too anti-capitalism. The people who have made enough power and money to implement it are people who believe in capitalism and thus will never really support it.

"It'll prob never happen again in the Western world". 

*cough* Standing right here. *cough*

Yup you are, and I think I remember correctly in Canada like me right now where they half a kind of half way there system in place already but no chance of going fully social system sadly. America's Obama care is like a bastardized part way version which sadly causes as many problems as it fixes and make the anti-social sentiment worse. The UK's NHS is being torn apart by the government as fast as they can do it.

None of them will ever become a completely social healthcare system (NHS has fallen short of the title now as well thanks to the stupid Tories) 

so yup, never gonna be seen again in the western world.

I see you like to quote Ted Cruz.

Nah, unfortunately my opinions are far more prevalent that Id like to believe them to be. I like how you use the oatmeal, though. By far the greatest proof of absolutely nothing, ha ha.

Argue  the facts, not the source. The Internet is a utility, and needs to be treated as such. Companies can't charge for electricity or water whatever they want, because it's regulated. 

What separates the Internet? It's the collective sum of human knowledge, and used for everything nowadays. 

Yup, my "I hate gays" mother, and my "transsexuals are just making it up" father, my communist neo-feminist history teacher, my catholic English teacher, my socialist science teacher, my anti-Israel rabbi, my feminist friends, my "judaism is barbaric" friends, my "you're a fascist" friends, my "gay marriage is evil" teachers, my "Athiests are all evil" friends, etc, all led me to my opinions. I really appreciate your breakdown of my life, especially with no knowledge of it at all. ^_^ it again proves your ability to attack with no proof.

And no offense, but I've read the oatmeal, and already argued against it with plenty of people. No need to argue it with a moron who attacks me with no proof. ^_^

... It's actually very unlikely you came to that conclusion on your own, in my experience. 

Unfortunately, you picked to pull that idiotic line with someone who grew up in a place where I actually had to research everytjing on my own to figure out what I think is the truth. Everyone is affected by others opinions, but thankfully, God decided to introduce me to as many pulls and tugs that I could stand so that I could come to realizations on my own. 

And using that line to discredit people just proves your own ineptitde. consider this a lesson against assuming such things. 

... You're playing the God card? Prove to me that God actually introduced you to anything.

I'm not, actually. I'm just saying that I've been brought up in multiple locations with tons of different opinions, all of whom I respect immensly, and ended up with my own opinion. I used the term God, since that's the universal tug that maybe moved me everywhere, ha ha. 

Fairly certain this is a case of strawmanning, which is pretty awesome. Don't see it pften. ^_^

No, it really isn't. I was merely saying, you said "God' which has no place in a debate. 

"Since that's the universal tug that maybe moved me everywhere."
Maybe Buffy the Rhino has led me everywhere. You don't see me using that line in a debate

Although you're being an idiot about it, Buffy the Rhino would work. Saying 'God' doesn't ruin the debate, especially when used just to exemplify the different situations brought on by life ;P

If he had to do so much research, why does he/you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of Net Neutrality? 

2 things.

1. You avoided to answer my post.

2. I don't think you know much about it, since you're basing it all on the oatmeal XD

I am not basing it on the Oatmeal,  Tanstaafl. His views coincide with mine. 

Which means something very bad, ha ha. 

Why does me having the same views on something mean "Very bad, ha ha."? 

Research information about the oatmeal, ha ha.

Will do. 

I think your line of thinking springs from ignorance. 

"Net Neutrality" =/= "Free Internet". 

Booyah! Ignorance card! I heart this. It's amaizing. Obviously I'm just ignorant and can't figure out the truth, as you so brilliantly pointed out. 

Untrue. It simply means you've been misled, or have a misunderstanding of the topic at hand. 

^_^ or you have, but that's impossible, right?

I fail to understand that criticism. It appears to be attacking me on the basis that... I disagree with you? I'm passionate on the issue? If I've offended, I'm sorry. 

Not really, but imagine it as you wish. ^_^

Please enlighten me as to the true meaning of your post, then. 

^_^

Right... blissful emoticon is obviously what you meant. 

True dat. It's a figure of speech, ha ha.

I'm sure. 

^_^ strawmanning at its best, ha ha.

I find your "strawmanning at its best, ha ha" line to be... strangely ironic. 

Here's mine...  Me > everyone else > my family.

That suck. :( 

If they'd wanted it to be any different, they would've at least tried.  Oh well, can't cry over spilt milk.  *sniffles*

It's just unfortunate. Can't imagine being at odds with my family. Unfortunate that's what happened with you. Alas, parents are still people, and most people are assholes. :(

You said it!
Everyone is but me.  haha.

Edit:  I don't mean to come across as flippant, but I'm trying to leave it buried in the past (except for the occasional joke or to encouragement someone who really needs it).  :P

And what about the single moms out there with kids to raise and bills to pay? You might not want to give up more than you already have, but some of the people who need that healthcare don't have any more to give.

A lot of those people are lazy assholes who put themselves in that position. Why should people care?

And a lot of people are narcissistic and put others in that position.

Is it selfish to not want your tax-money to be used for some horny teen's contraceptives?

It's better than letting them ruin all their future opportunities because they didn't have the cash to spend on a rubber.

So what you're saying is, that condoms should be free instead?

Yeah. If condoms were free, more people would practice safe sex, and the amount of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases would drop. 

If condoms were illegal, everyone would be using them regardless of expense.

But why should I pay for them for an optional thing? If they want to risk their future for a few minutes of fun, it's not my fault, ha ha. 

I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, I just think a few more bucks out of your paycheck to help somebody out is worth it. 

Should we pay for their dates, too?

 - Self gratification is not only safer, but it's also free.

Some people don't mind coughing up some nickels and dimes to help out the greater good. If you don't feel like helping out the people less fortunate, great. Do you. 

True dat. But we're not talking about charity (which a person can give depending on how much s/he wants to give), but taxes, which are forced. 

I think the real problem here is that we live in a culture that values money over our fellow man and puts more emphasis on people's incomes than their character, but if that was my only response to that statement, I'd feel like I was copping out, so I'll move on.

I don't see the issue. We pay taxes for the greater good, do we not? We pay taxes for roads, schools, transportation, even law enforcement. Why doesn't contraception qualify as one of these things? Kids aren't ready for that kind of responsibility, so they either abort it and deal with whatever issues may arise from that, give it up for adoption and further burden an already overloaded system, or raise the child themselves and throw away so many opportunities. Even then, a lot of girls end up having to do it while single. 

Even though these things were all of their own doing, don't you think that we, as a society, should do whatever we can to keep this issues from arising? If something as simple as a 2% tax hike or whatever amount it was can stop somebody from ruining their own life, and the life of an unborn child, don't you think we should do that? 

Edit: Hell, I'd be down for mandatory teen abortions. Don't think it'd get through Congress, though.

No see, I pay taxes (well okay, not I but my family but you know what I mean) for public transportation since I use it. I pay taxes for public school since I could use (I don't, but that's why I'm in favor of the Voucher system instead of the public school, since it's using tax money for stuff that aren't for me), and I pay for law enforcement to protect me. And people have to pay for that service.

But I don't pay taxes for the greater good. I give charity for the greater good. Which is the amount I decide should be the right amount, and to the people I think deserve it. Because it's not for me, it's for someone else. Now, I (again, my fanily) gives a lot of charity to the poor, and I hope others do too. But you shouldn't be forced to give money to the poor. (Albeit I believe there should be some form of government welfare, so this isn't a black and white issue).

To your edit:  I'm for aborting teens.  Where do I sign?

I'd be more willing to help out if they were mandatory.  It's like with the child tax credit, why should I pay for someone else's brat?

(I'd like to post a favorite limerick here, but it's not really suitable for younger viewers.)

Because that brat might not have hot water in his house? Or heat? Or food?

I was just being mean.  I'm actually all for helping out the less fortunate.  After all, what do I need with money, anyway?  I'd just spend it.  I feel that people who hoard anything, even wealth, have a mental deficiency, and should have a standing appointment with a psychiatrist.

My apologies.

... now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go trade my welfare check for drugs! Peace!

xD

Not to worry, it's all in good fun.

I would do the same except mine is under my work boots and someone hid 'em.

Wow, didn't read the site's description right.

Anyway, oh yay, I'm fucked!

Segway to China, or let the preteen kids fap for a few more years before we try again?

Is there a way I can take an action against this?

This may sound evil of me, but I want internet-providers to be able to make some hard-earned money :P
 

They already charge me too much considering that I'm paying for eight times the speed I actually receive.  Of course, it is better than the dialup that I suffered with for over a decade.

Can't you switch to another service?

Some providers have monopolies in certain areas.  Sometimes there aren't any other providers.

Wait, is it Comcast that you have @TheNewIAP

CenturyLink.  But there are very few alternatives here.

I'm getting a really, really good business rate, it's just the principle.  Besides, if I switched there's a $200 cancelation fee.

Then that's just an excuse (no offense intended, if somehow taken.)

Afaik no providers have an exact monopoly on things. You got Verizon, AT&T, no doubt others. Time Warner Cable, Comcast, etc. If you don't like someone's service then you just give your money to someone else (that'll save you money in the long term). As long as there is actual competition (read: without net neutrality) then the cable companies will try to take the lowest money they can that'll make others use them and not others. If any of them get a monopoly and set the monthly to 200$ or something, then all someone needs to do is make a cheap alternative that's only 60$ monthly and they'll win big.

As far as land lines go, CenturyLink does have a monopoly in this area.  They tried to double my monthly rate and I told 'em they could keep it.  They blinked first.  xD

I wish someone would offer them a little competition.  It would be like the gas wars back in the 70's (that was sweet).

ISP's make deals to ensure monopolies. That's the comcast and time warner won't create a monopoly, because there wasn't any competition between them. Being a new isp is hard, as cables aren't easy to dig, and the cables there are probably already rented. In like 95 % of areas there are only two ISPs.

Then either pick one you like best or leave to a better area, not make it worse for everybody else :P

Yeah, move out of your hood so you can have better internet :P

Seriously now, I'm sure that Net Neutrality will suck for you Americans, but who is to say that internet providing companies will shut down? If your Jewish wallet wants and can afford faster internet, you can have that while the peasants have their Obama-net.

@Tanstaafl  (no offense intended, if somehow taken.)  xD

I just have to say...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in quite a while.  Today is starting off to be one of the best this year!!!  Obama-net!  Priceless.  I'm gonna start calling it that.  Lol.

I generally try to use the free wifi offered by various local businesses for any large files so that I don't even approach my data limit, but even then I still get throttled.  I'm not big business or wealthy (on a nationwide average) so they can do as they please until enough people get fed up with it.  I wouldn't last a week if I used the same shady business practices.

"hard-earned"

Yes. They earned it through their crap service, and monopolistic practices.

Fact is, they're already making a really good money

For those unwilling or unable to click the linky.

[Dear Senators and Representatives:

There is no doubt that the public wants real Net Neutrality. Right now, the Federal Communications Commission is on the brink of fixing a decade of bad policies and preventing ISPs from discriminating online.

In short: Let the FCC do its job. Right now the agency has no authority over the most important communications medium ever created. By reclassifying Internet-access service under Title II of the Communications Act, the FCC can protect Internet users from online discrimination and blocking. Any other approach will fall short.

Don't put the public in the slow lane. Protect real Net Neutrality now.

Thank you,]

Also a certain Alpha-Centuri quote comes to mind.

I still don't know what the fuck this internet neutrality thing is about. 

Everyone gets internet! = Good!

Even poor people can have internet! = Good!

My internet gets slower! = Bad!

My internet is now more expensive! = Bad!

It's run by the government! = Bad!

The NCS has even easier access to my internet history! =BADBADBADBADBADBADBADBAD!

My problems. > Poor people without internet.

No. The end.

Technically poor people can still get free internet through libraries and various locations. Does the USA have Internet cafes like Chile?

McDonalds offers free wifi and heart disease.

Some East-Coast cities and maybe a few cities on the West, but surprisingly, internet cafes are short in supply.  Closest to an actual chain would be Starbucks.

Oddly enough, I've seen Net Cafes all over Vietnam and other Asian countries.  o.o

I've been all over North America, but can't find a way to escape.

It's called a boat or plane btw. q:

I was about ready to just swim for it!

Shouldn't the internet get less expensive since companies would have to compete with FREE public internet?

Not necessarily. Government-based internet will be slow as sin due to the amount of use and typical-government setbacks.

Either the companies get their act together and force prices way up for super fast internet (unlikely), or they persist being sucky and everybody uses slow internet unless they fork up tons of cash for regular internet.

Well, I think that your Internet will remain as is and simply become cheaper. 

Net Neutrality won't slow down your Internet, ha ha. 

Cable companies won't care to make internet faster if it's easier on them now hahaha.

I haven't read the entire thread but...

A few years back there was a guy trying to push a distributed hosting type system where instead of I think it is 5 big companies in the world co trolling all the .coms and .uk and .ca etc. that if enough people get involved and allow their computers to all be used as the servers then basically they could have the Internet be completely out of all government and corporation controls as they couldn't ever shut down a site or controls it as its designation would be spread across millions of PC across the world instead of controlled by central servers.

The people currently in controle really didn't like the idea obviously

What was the merit in that?  5 big companies get bigger, and one of the first-world's biggest resources becomes monopolized?  xD

The merit was that the monopoly is broken and the 'web' is distributed around the entire world and not controlled by anyone.

FCC vies for Neutrality, today.  So...k whatever.

That means slow internet, right? ... This doesn't affect Australia, right? 

Not directly.

Ah, I follow. Well, hopefully it won't be terrible... 

... No, it doesn't. 

No, it means the same internet and specifically NOT slower.

Basically a gross over-simplification if this:

The big companies who own the cables and routers etc. and basically 'own' the internet infrastructure that the internet uses said "Hey, we want to divide the internet up into premium users and non-premium users. Basically if people or companies pay us a nice big annual fee, we give their traffic and net usage priority, slowing down anyone who doesn't pay us to always carry their data first. so if your personal internet traffic went through the same router as several large companies that paid the high fees to be 'Premium' then your next would be slowed or put on hold any time they were using the next to ensure they were getting the best possible bandwidth. It wouldn't matter how much you paid your cable company or any thing else, if you also didn't pay the 'premium fee' you net could be reduced to a crawl sporadically or permanently just because you lived in the wrong place. 

The only way then to have your net restored to better bandwidth and the knowledge that if the company near you house was using a lot of net yours wouldn't become un-useable? Pay the extra fees too.

Basically this was a huge money grab to say that they should be in complete control and favor those who pay more, forcing others to then pay more too simply for the same service they receive now.

So the FCC said NO, you can't decide the internet up this way and charge people to ensure their net works.

Honestly the more I looked into it, the more of a joke it was. The best they could come up with was that they 'have' to be able to favor people as everyone being treated the same is bad for innovation. No, they just wanted more money for doing less.

Oh no, companies would be able to charge for their services the way they want!
The horror >_<

At least you know what net neutrality is.  

"The Internet has sort of become important, in case you hadn't noticed."

Yes, because having a bunch of slackers blog about their lives on various websites is super important :P.

And for the important things (like emails or other communication services for business), companies will provide as the market demands them to. If one company only wants you to use gmail then either comply or use a different company. (Not to mention that since they want your money, I don't think they'd do that).

Either way, that doesn't mean that those who provide service shouldn't be able to provide it the way they want. People say, "Oh, we want a free internet" when they're actually just making it stricter for those trying to make a living off of providing it. People are acting like the internet is a right, not a privilege, and that's a silly attitude.

But the purpose of Net Neutrality isn't mean free Internet, it's just a restriction on companies adding in a "Fast Lane" for those who can't  afford to pay premium rates. Furthermore, the Internet is obviously more than "a bunch of slackers blogging about their lives". 

Nowadays, it's used  for research, communication and just about anything you can think about. 

Not to mention that a lot of businesses rely on consumers that could lose their ability to buy online.

It effectively means that cable companies can't give people better internet based on more money, which means they can't be bothered to provide the best service they can. Because they won't be paid based on it anymore. Lets hope this doesn't lead to a monopoly on internet providers even more so than currently.
Plus you didn't even respond to my point. Whatever.

Yeah, the internet is used for tons of things, from shopping to communication to research (sorta) and to blogging. Doesn't mean that the companies shouldn't be able to make money the way they want to haha.

No. It effectively means that Internet companies can't process "premium" data first. 

I'm not even certain you know what that is. I'll go respond to Forge.

Wrong. You can pay more initially for better net.

You always could. You could pay for a fiber optic line to be put in to get faster speeds and better net, many companies already do. You could simply pay a little extra for the better package, that what people already do. 

But again nothing to do with the proposal that was rejected.

Right now you pay more, and you get better net. Your cables handle better bandwidth so your packages reach the routers etc. in bulk and go through then return faster that in you had a smaller line that could only send half as many packets as the bigger lines can.

This was about the companies saying they don't care what you already paid for, you could be on the special $500 a month fiber optic super net package of wonder specifically to get the best net you could. but they would actively block your traffic to handle others unless you then paid them AGAIN.

Hmm, seems like I slightly misunderstood it. And I also can't argue that it wouldn't suck if companies did that-- but that doesn't change that it should be a right of the person giving the service. Wrote more on that below.

I totally agree with the companies providing the service charging etc. and that they should decide what to charge, there are even laws defending that right.

I think it is how it should work and is the basis for the competitive market. So here I agree totally.

I ranted again further down then Seth explained it better lol

Seth has a weird way of being succinct about things haha.

less fun than long winded randomly spiraling rants that never actually convey the proper information in an understandable way though. I'm better at those!

Posted a lot below, you seem under the missconception that this is about 'free internet' it is not. It is about internet free from profiteering and solid control by corpirations. Specifically about companies not being able to charge you twice for the same service.

Forge, come on. "Free internet" = "Internet that isn't domineered by companies' rates".

Not talking about currency currently (though it is involved).

"Not talking about currency currently (though it is involved)."

That is ALL this is about. Look at the proposal. It was nothing to do with "free internet" it was simply to do with the companies, who are already paid to do what they do, wanting paid twice and saying they should be allowed to restrict access to the internet however they want, then force people to pay even more to be un-restricted.

They want paid twice and added extra free just to get what you already get for your monthly fee

You keep misunderstanding me. When I say "Free Internet" it does not mean "Free from charge." I was hoping my context would make that clear, but apparently not. It means, "Free from Companies trying to make more money off it".

AH, I had missunderstood.

I don't mind companies wanting to make money, the rates I pay for crap net are ridiculous cos of where I live. I pay nearly twice as much as I used too for a connection about 1/8th of the speed. But you know what, that what I have to pay here so I do.

I also don't mind advertising, I understand that prices rise and if I want better net I have to pay more.

I just don't want to have to pay more, then pay again, then pay added fees just to get the service I do right now.

No, missing the point. They wanted to charge TWICE for the same service.

I have no idea what the cost of net is near you but using hypothetical numbers shows the point easily enough:

Your family pays $60 for fast, reliable net for your house so you can all stream movies and play games and surf the net at the same time. Several companies pay $160 a month for large bandwidth company internet so their entire company can do net stuff at the same time. You have now paid for your service, perfect right? All the data packets get send to the routers and are handled equally and in order. You send a tiny tiny portion of data compared to the big companies near you but that isn't any issue as your data is handled the same and you all get good service with all data reaching places and returning quickly enough for your entire family to use the net and the companies to all do so too with no visible lag or deficit.

Well not anymore. You see The companies now want paid a second time. They go to the businesses and say look, you are a big business, you trade shares and do Skype calls around the world etc. However now, we have priority customers. This means that if you DON'T pay us this monthly/yearly fee, your data will be blocked and sidelined while your competitors are streamlined. You will see the net you pay for slow down or even get to the point where you can't skype call anymore once all the others pay us. But if you DO pay us you will get even better net and things will go faster for you, you might shave 1/10000 of a second off your stock updates!

So all the companies are forced to pay the fee, however much it is.

You still pay your families $60 per month, same as before, but you don't pay the massive extra fees. Your families data is now ignored and blocked until all the companies data is handled. Your net is now reduced to dial-up speeds for most of the working day and evening. The only way to fix it? pay the fee.

So lets say your family pays the fee too cos you are tired of not being able to stream or play online games. You get your net back, all you had to do was pay your normal monthly bill, pay even more on top to become 'Priority' and guess what, after paying extra, you get exactly the same net and handling as before! you are treated equally again!

If you live in a more rural area like mine where net traffic is already bad and clogs up at peak times this would mean loosing net entirely for hours a day unless you pay twice.

So what? You're missing my point haha. Companies who provide service should be able to provide it the way they want to. Inconvenience is a byproduct of pretty much anything, and companies who want you to pay again won't be subscribed to. Acting like a jerk will mean that a slightly nicer jerk will take your clients and their money with them.

I'm going to change tact cos even I can see my own arguments going round in pointless circles lol

So the first point, you could change providers, actually no. You couldn't avoid the extra fees. It wouldn't matter who you had net with, it is all handled by the same companies infrastructure and they are the ones charging the fees. Switch all you want but you could never avoid the fees.

Let's us you power as an example. Your family pays for their electricity right? What if the owners if the electricity lines said that they were introducing a new 'Priority service' to their system. If you pay they an extra $100 per month on top of whatever you pay your electricity company then ensure you get reliable and steady electricity to your house.

"Huh, I already have that" you think, no issues I pay my bills already and they went up 10% this year but that's ok, companies make profit!" Then your electricity starts cutting out and you get blackouts. 

The companies tell you "Sorry but you pay us the same as we are providing you the same service but the people who run the lines are diverting power away from your house cos you didn't also pay them the $100 a month, like three times your energy bill"

Your saying you think this is ok,

utilities and services should be able to be held to ransom while you already pay for them?

First paragraph: Are you sure? Pretty certain there are more than internet service providers, but I can't I know since I don't pay the bills around the house haha.

And yeah, while I wouldn't be happy, I certainly would think it is right for them to do that. If my utilities were held 'ransom' then fine, get everybody in my neighborhood to not pay those jerks and they'll be forced to give us service. It simply is not feasible for a[ny] service provider to take peoples money unreasonably en masse without people boycotting them to some extent. And losing money is not what corporations want to do haha.

An extra 500 is meaningless to quite a few people. 

Yeah no. XD

See, if you were smart you'd argue that richer people wouldn't want to live a week without useable toilets, but that's a different thing, hypothetical if the Utility-providers (whatever they're called) would dare try something like that.

It's about as likely as you getting everyone in your 'hood to boycot the provider. 

I guess my community is safe XD

The idea is that it doesn't have to be everyone-- just a certain amount that makes it that it's better for business for the company to be reliable.

I'm pretty sure that you couldn't get that many people to live with slow Internet, but your guess is as good as mine. 

No it's not, lol. He knows his community since he lives there. You don't. His guess is definitely Better then yours, ha ha.

Actually, I was referring to a population as a whole; not his community. 

My guess is based on history. If Martin Luther King could convince Blacks to walk around with picket-signs, getting shot at with literal water-cannons-- then I'm certain you could get a substantial amount of people to lower their internet standards for a small while.

I dunno if you can say that. The Internet is far less important then desegregating America, ha ha.

Mos def. But the possibility of being killed/wounded by the police is definitely more severe than bad internet, so I feel it evens out. Sorta. XD

In my humble opinion, people inherently selfish and lazy, and if this Internet business isn't harming them, they probably won't do anything about it. 

If they 'didn't do anything about it' and didn't pay the extra fee then it works out. People are lazy except when ti comes to their rights.

During business hours?  Wouldn't that hurt businesses more than consumers?

That would probably make it change even faster. Businesses are a major income source for net providers. If they swap services, net providers would be screwed.

I feel that it will encourage growth more than hinder profits.  It's like back in the '30s and '40s, and again in the '70s and '80s, farmers were throwing away more than half of their crops so they wouldn't have to sell at a lower price, when they could have made more by selling it all for a reduced amount.

I grew up with "party lines."  It was not only frustrating to have to wait for someone to finish talking about "Aunt Martha's meatloaf" and hang up so that I could make a call, but it was inherently dangerous.

Right now the internet is like the phone company.  No matter whether you have Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T, you can call any phone number you want, from any phone.  

The ISPs want to be more like cable companies.  Some channels, like HBO and Showtime, are premium channels, and you have to pay more money to access them.  If you have Wowway, you can't get the NFL Redzone channel, it's simply not available.

If we lose Net Neutrality, your ISP can decide to deny you access to some websites, and they can make you pay extra for others.

That is the best analogy I've heard on this subject.

On a related note:  I have an antenna and don't even want cable or satellite, so that would restrict the type of service that is available.

Yay, we won! Why am I talking?

Yeah, it passed and the Internet is not controls,d by the cable companies, and they had this tumblr campaign where you'd call up your representative, say the script, and it'd like support the neutrality thing, really cool,