Particularly this excerpt.
In 1984, the then-38-year-old Wheeler took over NABU Network, which offered specially designed home computers that could access news, games and other applications through the cable television network. The National Museum of Science and Technology later described the network as the "Internet -- 10 years ahead of its time." A few blocks from NABU's Alexandria, Va., office, 27-year-old Steve Case was working on a similar project that tapped into the telephone network, which Wheeler derided as inferior.
"We used to look down our noses at them because they were so slow," Wheeler recalled in a half- hour-long interview last month.
But it was Case's company, America Online, that became an Internet titan during the dot-com boom. NABU folded in 1985. The difference between the two approaches? Wheeler's company relied on a closed network.
"Steve [Case] could build a national footprint immediately, and we had to go from cable operator to cable operator to ask permission to get on the network," said Wheeler. "That is exactly the situation that entrepreneurs face today. If you can't have open access to the Internet, innovation is thwarted and new services grind to a halt."
The FCC is set to propose its new rules on February 5. A vote by the agency is scheduled for February 26.
It will break the internet. I will say it now. This gives our government more control and allows censorship much like... China, and Europe. Yes Europe censors the internet.
In a similar thread like this one. I explained how broken the new system will be and how actually what is going on now is actually more neutral when every side plays fair. Currently content providers are not the ones playing fair and hiding behind you guys convincing you they are doing nothing wrong.
The problem isn't the internet... It has ALWAYS been the hardware. ISP had a deal where they split the costs both ways and share internet load. What happens when one side doesn't do it. Welcome to the comcast/LevelUp deal. LevelUp was using 80% of the data while only allowing less than 20% onto their network. Comcast didn't like the fact that it wasn't 50/50. At that point I agree with Comcast of the deal is supposed to be even. Just think about it.
Oh I'm all for 50/50, but that isn't happening. Some services get more precedence over others. I know some services like Netflix use a lot more bandwidth than say a Google Search. I get the idea of a service paying a bit more to use more data, just like we as customers pay more to use more on Verizon. I'm not swaying either way on the debate, knowingly anyway. But obviously, charging Netflix more means Netflix customers pay more. So, in the end, I as a Netflix and TWC/Comcast customer wind up paying a double-dip cost.
So it looks like it was about the content which is further from the truth. It is about the unfair distribution of bandwidth and who is going to pay for the costs.
If this goes through in 10 years we'll be talking about how this law is bad. Similarly look how people thought the Patriot Act was a good idea until recently(one of the bills that gave NSA power).
If you feel they are double dipping then you don't believe in 50/50. Pretend we both own a road. And I send 80% of the cars traveling through your road while collecting a toll. You don't collect a toll through 40% of those customers(other providers like TWC and such collect those tolls) all while I keep a vast majority of my tolls and only allow 20% of your tolls through my roads. Now I tell you to build another lane for me to deliver more of my cars through your roads. Is that fair to you? Is that really being neutral? It was NEVER about the content. It was always about the bandwidth. It just so happened that the bandwidth was one sided.
Why do you think Google of all companies backed away from Net Neutrality? They have YouTube and it uses more bandwidth that Netflix. Could is possibly because they are now a ISP and have new information about how the current system content providers cheat the "unwritten" rule?
Pardon, I'm horrible at math, hence why I usually stray from answering billing-related questions on the forums. there is a 100% road. You have 80% traffic with 80% collected on tolls. I get the other 40% but collect only 20%. Or I collect 45% of the 80% traffic. So, you make 100% profit on your traffic and I make 50% profit on mine.
Regardless of my horrible math skills, I see your point about a shared cable leaving an uneven amount of profit for each side despite the ratio of traffic. In other words, I see where traffic should be 50/50. I guess it isn't fair to say, "Use more pay more" either. Consumers who YouTube more than consumers who just browse would never want to pay more to do use more. Companies who need to send more traffic than others don't want to spend more either to do so. Yet consumers don't want to pay more for a service that charges the same rate to all consumers of their service despite how much traffic or data they use.
The proposed regulations would even
give the FCC some control over paid peering agreements between broadband
companies and Internet content providers such as Netflix, the report said. El
agency would scrutinize each such deal over whether it was “just and
reasonable.” Peering is how providers of services like streaming video get
their content to broadband subscribers.
Even so, the new proposal is expected to
exempt broadband providers from many parts of Title II, including control over
how much they charge their subscribers.
A key element of the new rules would
prevent service providers from blocking, slowing or speeding up particular
services in exchange for money. That has been one of the most controversial
practices addressed in public comments on net neutrality. But it's not clear
how the new plan would deal with so-called zero-rated mobile plans that exempt
certain apps or services from subscribers’ data allowances.
Read the above and their seems to be a little something for everyone... good deal, I don't think so.
The World Wide Web was a baby who's father and mother were academia and the military. We do not need a gate-keeper or our goverment in bed with us. I think it would be fair to say we all want an open internet and at a fair across the board cost to everyone. Free market and not goverment intervention will work.