High-speed broadband is an indispensable tool even for small businesses these days. Countless areas of the country that lost their livelihoods because jobs were exported will have little chance to recover if they are subject to the whims of the cable and phone companies. The term “public option” has become familiar in another context. Well, it could play the same role in broadband that land grants and other subsidies for the railroads played in the development of the nation in the 19th century. Net neutrality and public utility style regulation are different sides of the same coin.

You think it was free? Are you that gullible? They just included it in the monthly price bud. Never was free because it wasn’t free for the ISP’s. They are not just going to absorb those costs and be nice. Also the reason they canceled Usenet was not due to downloading, but pressure from the RIAA and MPAA, since they hired out a 3rd party for Usenet access and never handled it directly. Losing Usenet access had nothing to do with Net Neutrality. And too subtle? Please get over yourself.

“Then I am told that the sites I go to must pay my ISP for the right to a ‘higher priority’ on the network I pay to use. This what ‘network neutrality’ is really about, money”

I think you are confused my friend. Net Neutrality prevents this kind of network discrimination.

“Then I am told I am to pay 300x more if I go over some randomly picked limit. When the reality is the number is just to fit some sort of increase in profit for this quarter. (the other side of network neutrality coin, and more money”

A cap has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If there were no Net Neutrality, you think there would be no caps? Again, are you that gullible?

The Internet has grown into what it is now because of Net Neutrality.It is only up to here recently that ISP’s have been scheming for ways to make more profit in these hard economic times. They can’t simply keep raising prices because eventually that path will drive subscribers away. Also, they see a threat to their cable tv and on demand services. This is the reason they want caps. They implement caps, they save their cable tv and on demand stuff. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or running out of bandwidth. If they were running out of bandwidth, why offer the premium tiers in the first place and try to get everyone on the lower tiers to conserve bandwidth? Because they make more money off the premium tiers. Their broadband side is making the money while their TV side is losing money. Yes, you are right, it is about the money as I have pointed out.

Need proof?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/projections/report-cable-households-decline-17300

Then I am accused of being a ‘pig’ and using too much bandwidth. Which I know is hogwash as I have measured it.

Then I am told that the sites I go to must pay my ISP for the right to a ‘higher priority’ on the network I pay to use. This what ‘network neutrality’ is really about, money

Then I am told I am to pay 300x more if I go over some randomly picked limit. When the reality is the number is just to fit some sort of increase in profit for this quarter. (the other side of network neutrality coin, and more money)

Then I am told that the little grandma down the street is subsidizing my internet. When in reality she wouldn’t have that service if I hadn’t bought it early on. (a distraction from the real issue)

Then I am told the republicans/democrats are out to get me. When in reality they are too lazy to do the right job, and let others do it for them. (another distraction from the real issue at hand, but an issue in its own right)

Sorry didn’t mean to be so subtle. Your right there is no money grab here at all I should have known better and not try to come up with a way to explain it to people! Wait there I go all being subtle again. If you think network neutrality is about ‘proper network congestion control’ you have been drinking too much propaganda kool aid. It is about money. Otherwise why would they bother? In every instance these guys have been acting like a monopoly. Monopolies are always up for a money grab…

I would be willing to bet cold hard cash they use the words ‘monitization of the network’. They want to charge the end user (you) 3 times for each byte you send and recieve. Once over at the host site. As the end sites will just pass the cost on to you. Once as you go to once to over their network (what you pay now). Then once again when you go over some magic limit (the reason for this site). In the end YOU end up paying 3x for something you are getting for less money right now. And guess what I would be willing to bet even more cold hard cash that there are MBA’s sitting in little meeting rooms trying to come up with even more ways to ‘get more money out of that network’. These two crazy schemes are just the beginning as they have already ‘trimmed the fat’. The fat being those ‘free’ services they used to have to compete with the dialup ISPs that basically do not exist anymore.

Clear now?

Once we pay our monthly bill we should be free to visit any site or use any service we choose to do.

And this all happens because of the big bad Net Neutrality.

And then you go into some diatribe at the end saying it is a money grab but you don’t specify for whom. Then you say it is about taking away services yet don’t elaborate what services are being taken away. And the rest of the paragraph digresses.

Yep, that Net Neutrality is going to be the death of us all.

Everyone got coffee at the shop at the corner it was one of the 2-3 in town. They had a good selection of coffees and many different brews. They refilled your cup when it was empty. You got free doughnut if you bought something while you hung around. You would buy a few other things such as a small breakfast while you were there. All in all it was a good deal for everyone around. People came in all the time

Then one day the owner decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? Well lets get rid of the free doughnut first. No more freebies you want doughnuts you buy them. Also we no longer sell them here as they take too much time and money to mess around with. Well that seemed reasonable to almost everyone as they didn’t really like them anyway. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.

But the owner still decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? ‘I know’ he told himself, ‘I will charge the different companies that make the coffee a premium to have their coffee served here’. The coffee companies are using *MY* store, *MY* pots, *MY* cups *MY* counters, etc…. The customers thought well that is OK it doesn’t change what I get. Then one day it did. The coffee they wanted was not ready. It would be 3 hours before a pot would be ready. But there are the ‘store brands’ which no one really liked but would drink because its a bit more expensive and ready now. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.

But the owner still decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? ‘I know’ he told himself, ‘I will sell my cup by the 1/2 cup but increase the price a little bit’. ‘See those kids in the corner they sit in here all day and drink gallons of the stuff’. They are drinking all of your free coffee (psst and I bet they are republicans too). You can get your coffee cheaper if you only buy a half cup. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.

The moral? Net neutrality is about money. It is about removing services people have enjoyed for years and saying go elsewhere if you want it. It is about charging more and more to people who either already paid for something and are getting less. It is also about charging money to people you wouldn’t even think of sending a bill to. It is about playing one group against the other and get your customers fighting amongst each other. That way they do not notice they are actually being ripped off.

The thing that really pisses me off about Mr. Boehner is that his constituency doesn’t include one large city – it is ALL farm country. There isn’t one large or even medium sized corporation in the counties he represents. Yet he has consistently (this isn’t the first time) voted against his constituents in favor of large Corporations. And wow, did he have the money last election – multiple yard signs at EVERY road intersection, 4′ x 5′ signs every other intersection, numerous high dollar glossy direct mail campaigns, TV, radio, etc., etc. Jesus himself could have run against him and lost.

How do you fight that? My problem is that most of my friends are not computer geeks like me. And when I try to talk to them about net neutrality they look at me like it is a rocket science term. They haven’t got a clue nor do they want to have a clue. And these are college educated middle class individuals. So if I get that reaction from them how far am I going to get with the farmers in this area who don’t use computers?? Mr. Boehner has the money to disinform the hell out of them and he knows it. So a few properly informed individuals writing letters to him is not going to dissuade him in the slightest. It’s going to take much more than that to compete with the corporations lining his pockets.

However, it was nice to see that we at least scared the duopolies enough to bring out the big guns!

I’m debating sending a snail mail letter this time with a few bucks(all that I can afford in this economy since my wife was layed off), just to make a point. No doubt he would probably just pocket the money for an early morning cappucino at a Washington coffee shop and continue on his way to an hour long meeting with Time Warner’s lobbyists and pocketfuls of money. He no longer supports or votes his constituents wishes, only the wishes, err, I mean money, of big business. The state of Kansas would be better off with a monkey as a figurehead and a vote on any decisions needed, at least the monkey being bribed with bananas would be understandable.