The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice does follow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach.

It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.

To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules [fcc.gov]

To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose:

That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
That no legal content may be blocked; and
That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

I think you're all missing the big issue here is the cable companies really don't care what you do with the internet as long as you're not watching movies from other sources, like YouTube, Netflix, etc. as they're in the steaming video business as well.

It has to be paid for somewhere along the line.

when the world was deciding how to classify the internet, most first world and several third world countries classified it as a utility. Then their governments poured money into infrastructure, so as a result, the US has less bandwidth and slower internet at higher costs than what the rest of the first world and several third world countries enjoy.

The problem, as you rightly indicate, is the use of video steaming, which is a bandwidth hog

The problem, as you rightly indicate, is the use of video steaming, which is a bandwidth hog. More an more people, around the world, are choosing to download movies and stream videos, so it's only going to become a bigger problem.

There are many ideas and proposals packed under the rubric of "Net Neutrality," but the core principle amounts to rent control on the Internet: all web traffic must be treated equally. In its undiluted, absolute form, this idea would work about as well as rent control does - it would destroy the Internet experience as we know it. The ability to sell high bandwidth to large websites that can afford it, adjust rates and access speeds for users who consume large amounts of bandwidth, sell unused bandwidth at a discount, and otherwise treat traffic unequally is crucial to the business model that sustains the fast, inexpensive, and powerful Internet we have come to take for granted.

On the other hand, some ideas packed into Net Neutrality appeal to most consumers, particularly when discussion turns to Internet gatekeepers who deliberately sabotage traffic to certain websites they disfavor. For example, if an Internet Service Provider happens to sell streaming video, it might decide to artificially reduce bandwidth to other streaming-video providers, giving itself a competitive advantage. People who buy Internet access from this ISP will think, "Man, their streaming video service works a lot better than Netflix or Amazon Prime, so I'll buy it from them," unaware that Netflix and Amazon Prime are being deliberately slowed down to make their service look inferior. It's not surprising that this form of unequal bandwidth allocation is unpopular with end users.

US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Tom Wheeler has had a major change of heart when it comes to net neutrality, it's reported.

The The Wall Street Journal claims the FCC will propose new rules on net neutrality that would allow companies to pay for faster access to their websites and services, so long as they are sold on "commercially reasonable" terms. This breaks tradition with years of net neutrality, which has allowed all internet users a level competitive playing field.

According to the WSJ, the proposed FCC rules would go further; the agency is reportedly backing away from designating internet services as public utilities which must be provided equally for all, in favor of keeping them as information services, which can be run in whatever way the ISP chooses, within reason.

The Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler has confirmed reports that proposed changes to internet governance will abandon net neutrality principles and says companies can charge extra for some types of traffic so long as it's "commercially reasonable."

"There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong. Tomorrow we will circulate to the Commission a new Open Internet proposal that will restore the concepts of net neutrality consistent with the court's ruling in January," he said in a statement.

We essentially pay for usage where I am. 10GB/month with your subscription (plus 10 "bonus" GB between 2am and 8am), then $8/GB after that. I can tell you that if that's what it ends up costing generally, all video services would disappear overnight. Basically, what those prices mean for us is that if we download a standard def 1-hour TV show, that's basically $3 in bandwidth. I have no idea what an HD movie costs, but I expect that in the end I could order the Blu-Ray for a little more.

No competition?

I assume that you are in the US

and not in a very remote area?

US has worse infrastructure than several third world countries

I rather like the USA version better than the other countries with higher level of service.. but then again, I'm more of a privacy fan rather than running on a government mandated service.

How do ergophobe's costs and options compare with those in major cities?

As for government mandating things, if you look at how things work in the EU, the key government intervention is to allow more competition through local loop unbundling.

complete with control and backdoors, et al. in same as all the "competitors" have to qualify to the government to operate

[edited by: graeme_p at 6:03 am (utc) on May 5, 2014]

</rant>