We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Bob Potter • 5 years ago

NPR is still spelling Ajit Pai's name wrong.

Kevin Oge • 5 years ago

Oh well. All he wanted to do is shut down an open internet and call it freedom of commerce. Some freedom. Net neutrality is key to keeping the net open and accessible to all.

Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

Wrong. Net neutrality has nothing to do with making the internet accessible to all. It has to do with making sure data travels at the same rate. In order to have access to the internet in your home/mobile device you need to pay for the service or go to a library. Nobody has a right to internet service unless they are willing to pay the bill. Progressives want to twist the meaning of net neutrality into something else.

Thomas Thieme • 5 years ago

Republicans (or as they were known in the 1860s, Confederates) would have called the end of slavery the end of plantational commerce, a blow to entrepreneurship.
.

jakepaint • 5 years ago

I'm not a Republican myself, but it's fair to remember that the Republicans were the party who ended slavery. Sure, they seem to have different constituency these days, but let's not forget our past.

leefoll • 5 years ago

Sorry in the past of when you speak , the republicans were liberal. I am not sure of the transformation time. But please look it up. The republicans of today would fully endorse slavery as wealth building. Which with the trickle down effect would help slaves pull themselves up by there boot straps. Win-Win God Bless America...........

Matthew Barnard • 5 years ago

You are the same one who would say spelling "Barak Obama" wrong is racist.

tom b • 5 years ago

well hes an idiot so its ok they doing him a favor

Kevin Oge • 5 years ago

He's a corporatist. Money and power are their gods.

J C • 5 years ago

Well, it didn't take long for Republicans to spin the issue by crying about losing "internet freedom." Sadly, some people will fall for this. The only "freedom" internet regulation would take away is the freedom of ISPs to offer increasingly crappy speeds and hold subscribers and website owners hostage to pay-to-play rules while they hike the rates on everyone. Unbelievable.

Bob Potter • 5 years ago

Cue the corporate shills trying to argue that keeping the Internet the way it has always been will "stifle innovation".

Guest • 5 years ago
fartinton • 5 years ago

We're heading to a point where internet is a utility like any other. I mean, on the way to work I hear adds from the SSA instructing us to file for SS online. We've passed laws that give cable companies legal monopolies in the cities they exist in. So yes, this is about r*ping the middle class.

Bilal Mahmood • 5 years ago

except the fact that they didnt allow to handover the control to Govt or vendors only! and kept them at bay.. hence "Net Neutrality"

Kevin Oge • 5 years ago

Who needs cable?

112debunked • 5 years ago

UM.......last I checked it was the IRS that took 20% of your money from you, not COMCAST

JerryFrissell • 5 years ago

Fallacious logic, Debunked. And I shudder to think what an average tax bill would be today if the IRS had the freedom to hike rates the way the ISPs (COMCAST, TimeWarner, Verizon, et al) do almost at will.

fartinton • 5 years ago

Well cable bills have consistently increased at 3 times the rate of inflation for nearly 20 years now. So that's a peek into what would happen.

oakspar77777 • 5 years ago

YOUR cable bills have done so.

Mine (internet only) have gone down every year - all you have to do is call them when they go up and ask them to lower them.

Skip Plummer • 5 years ago

All you have to do is to get rid of them. I've never had them to begin with. I prefer to stay with DSL ($19.95 per month) and my own add-on VoIP for free outgoing and incoming calls ($28 per year).

Cable never was a "fine" idea.

Skip Plummer • 5 years ago

I've been doing this since DOS 5.0 and that's why I've never even looked into a cable company. I take it that you fell into the cable company trap?

Skip Plummer • 5 years ago

No problem there, Jerry. Don't use Comcast, Charter, TimeWarner or Verizon. I never have. I get by just fine with DSL ($19.95 per month) and my own VoIP system for incoming and outgoing calls for $28 per year.

There! You've just been debunked...

112debunked • 5 years ago

You REALLY THINK the FEDS aren't going to suck money from internet use? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WERE CHEERING? EUREKA!

Indy AZ • 5 years ago

Probably because millions of us wrote and asked them to not let corporate America take over the internet and they listened?

jon towers • 5 years ago

Why does a free and open internet require 332 pages of secret regulations?

Regulaltion #1: The internet shall remain free and open to all users should suffice. I think we've been hoodwinked by the most transparent administration in history again.

Bill Waters • 5 years ago

Net Neutrality will become the Fairness Doctrine of the broadcast world complete with an FCC Czar from the Ministry of Truth to oversee what is a "neutural" view.

Guest • 5 years ago
Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

Except the FCC has no authority to regulate internet speed. Also if you actually listen to the words spoken by the FCC commissioners, they are talking about totally unrelated things like guaranteeing access to broadband and making mobile devices as fast as wired internet. Most of what they seem to be regulating is totally unrelated to net neutrality at all. It is as though the progressives are trying to turn internet access into a right guaranteed to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for an ISP. Providing low cost internet service is as far from the meaning of net neutrality as you can get. If the FCC said all we are going to do is guarantee that a video on NBC's site travels at the same rate as a video on ABC's site then nobody would oppose it, but this is not what happened here.

tom b • 5 years ago

what part of equal for all you don't understand?

Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

If that was all this was about they could have written it into one paragraph. Instead they are creating the equivalent of a new department in Washington to micromanage everything on the internet.

Gavin Madroick • 5 years ago

Transparent, just like all those lobbyists that weren't going to work for his administration.

Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

Yes the ones who have secretly met in the White House since day one. There is a revolving door between the administration and big donors. They move from government to big business almost seamlessly. Anyone who things Obama is taking on big business is in lala land. Business and the government will both get more money if the FCC regulates the internet.

Brad Svendesky • 5 years ago

obamacare, obamanet....don't question, just obey. We too can be just like europe.

Funny that little barackie's admin said "most transparent in history", lol.
the clinton grifters slogan was "the most ethical in history".

So when liberal/progressives are being specific, they are lying.

K Holmes • 5 years ago

Perhaps sometimes, or it might just be your "take". More reliable than your proposed theory is, when conservatives disagree with a regulatory agency ruling, it means that some pesky rules are getting in the way of them making more and more money, now and in the future. Their explanations are a smoke screen. Where does / would that money come from? How 'bout we, the consumers, my conservative friend. Aren't you a consumer too? That's why this (Net Neutrality) is a victory for consumers, obviously. That's the only reliable, and obvious fact here. Have you ever considered the possibility that the conservatives have fleeced you, and many others, into voting for them, (and their policies) which, in the long run, make them wealthier, and cost you money? Unless, of course, you are as wealthy as they are. Correct me if you are exceptionally wealthy (if so, you are actually voting in your own interest, and thus, "off the hook"). If not, my friend, that hook is firmly embedded in your cheek, or you're in line for the cool aid. You pick the metaphor.

Matthew Barnard • 5 years ago

Corporations exist to make money. Government exists to have and take power. Companies like google with their fiber network will be hurt by this. I will pay a larger bill every month. Regulation costs money and Comcast certainly won't absorb the cost, I will.

K Holmes • 5 years ago

The FCC and millions (yes, millions) of Americans who expressed their opinions to the FCC, disagree with all but your first statement. For a while, it appeared that the "fix" was on, as it is so often in similar matters, but on this one, you guys got skunked. Enjoy the ambiance.

Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

The public have been sold a lie. They think their costs will go down just like they thought the Affordable Care Act would make health care more affordable.

K Holmes • 5 years ago

Not sure anyone thinks costs will go down. They do, however, know that their costs would go up if business interests found ways to manipulate internet service into separate sub services, connection speeds, and charges, more so than they already do. For sure the affordable care act was sold as something that would make health care cheaper. This remains to be seen, but most people don't understand the "ins and outs" of coverage, now and before the law started, at least enough to make a cost comparison. However, if you don't find it a positive thing that 15 million (with an "m") previously uninsured Americans now have insurance coverage, the type that works in a more straight forward way than the old medicare system, then your personal priorities speak for you.

Erica Simmonds • 5 years ago

Government and business are working together to increase their bottom line. This is why almost everything in the USA costs more than it does in other countries.

Tom Schmidt • 5 years ago

They are politicians! I had no idea there was anyone out there gullible enough to think politicians by and large were anything but practiced liars.

cardboardcowboy • 5 years ago

Lol right..."The Internet should remain free and open to al users." Because that ambiguous sentence would surely hold up against any legal challenges from Verizon, Comcast, et al.

*rolls eyes*

Bryan Broome • 5 years ago

Then by all means boycott. The internet is not a necessity for our existence.

Val Real • 5 years ago

Boycotts don’t work with monopolies.

Guest • 5 years ago
Val Real • 5 years ago

FACT: Internet providers have monopolies in many areas throughout the U.S.

Corrupt politicians abusing regulations to line their own pockets is a separate issue.

oakspar77777 • 5 years ago

Hardly. There are multiple satellite companies, your local cable monopoly, possibly the phone company, and in some places a specific municipal internet access.

I live in the back end of nowhere and even before they ran cable back here (about 2 years ago) we had choices in internet (satellite, the other satellite, or the one that went through the cell phone system).

Skip Plummer • 5 years ago

You may be at least partially right. I know (we all know actually) that cable for TV, Internet and phone is the biggest rip-off that I can really think of right now but I would hope that would be offset, at least a little, by the local telco offering DSL service.

I've been doing the computer thing since DOS 5.0 and have never used a cable company for anything. First dial-up and later DSL. I don't even know if there is a cable company in this town... I've never checked. I can get all of the TV/movie entertainment that I can stand via the Internet so there is really no reason to look up a cable company. I even run my VoIP system over my "always on" DSL service. I can make calls to anywhere for free ($28 a year) and it came with a free local telephone number for incoming calls.

I'm well aware of the satellite Internet systems but that has never been needed around here. In the beginning there was dial-up followed closely by DSL. There is a fixed, wireless, ISP around here (Digitalpath) and I imagine that there is a cable company, as well.

Digitalpath is almost $400 per year but my DSL is $19.95 per month. I have no idea what a cable package would cost but I think that I can assume that it would be a great deal more than either of those other two... a trap not to get caught in.

Tom Schmidt • 5 years ago

5 years ago, we had 4 choices. Satellite, Comcast, DSL (phone) and a local cable company. Local company snapped up by Comcast. So now down to 3. DSL is spotty and ridiculously slow. Satellite, well... wait till the wind kicks up. Your ONE choice for reliable and fast internet is via Cable. But when only one company can use the cables....

Skip Plummer • 5 years ago

Get 'em to improve the DSL (I wouldn't touch a cable company). I've got "always on" DSL ($19.95 a month) and it never even hiccups. My VoIP system ($28 a year for all outgoing calls free) works just fine and it came with a local number for incoming calls. I added the VoIP on for myself.

TV? Movies? I get all of that I can stand right over the same DSL connection.

There's always the chance that you're just a kid and don't know a hill of beans about the DSL that's available to you right there. If I were you I would try to get over that and dump the cable company (they say that's hard to do anymore), get the DSL service and learn how to do things with it.

Guest • 5 years ago