Sure, but what do you think about it with respect to the non-content related issues?It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.
or more likely... Comcast really slows down the connection to the DirecTv, Verizon Fios, Dish Network websites.It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.
Large fonts & webdings have already had a negative effect and this bill does nothing to help widen the tubes.But the internet is a series of tubes and this will wreck it.
You forgot to add flashing/scrolling tags.SchlzmLarge fonts & webdings have already had a negative effect and this bill does nothing to help widen the tubes.But the internet is a series of tubes and this will wreck it.
That's what I've heard as well. This is fake net neutrality.Everything I have read about the final writeup is that it will be nothing more than bs feelgood legislation with no real bite. Schlzm
ISPs waged a very expensive, hard fought campaign against net neutrality, claiming in part that it was a government take over of the internet. Some people bought into it.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
Don't let this slip to /b/, the fallout could be disastrous!SchlzmSo the Internet is now like Switzerland, and we don't have to worry about going to war with it?That sounds like a good idea to me.
Some people are against portions of what the FCC and others claim is net neutrality. "Net Neutrality" is all about how it's defined, and different people define it differently.For example, in the current Comcast vs. Level3 dispute, some people are characterizing it as a net neutrality issue. Personally, I don't consider it a net neutrality issue at all. It's an old-fashioned peering dispute, same as there have been for more than a decade. Level3 is attempting to frame it as net neutrality by invoking the Netflix stuff, but the issue has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with total amounts of traffic.ISPs waged a very expensive, hard fought campaign against net neutrality, claiming in part that it was a government take over of the internet. Some people bought into it.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
Things are "as is" right now. Why would we need the FCC involved to make them more "as is?" Don't be fooled by the bs. This is the laying of the foundation to regulate the internet in the government's (US or UN) image.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
So you would be fine with a pay-per-bit structure not outline in your originating service agreement with your carrier after crossing some nebulous usage line defined by them? Also, really the UN is going to take over the internet? They wouldn't know what to do with it much like everything else they pretend to have any control over. SchlzmThings are "as is" right now. Why would we need the FCC involved to make them more "as is?" Don't be fooled by the bs. This is the laying of the foundation to regulate the internet in the government's (US or UN) image.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
So did the FCC have absolutely nothing to do with the internet before these net neutrality rules were passed? and now they all of a sudden claim that the internet is under their jurisdiction of power?Things are "as is" right now. Why would we need the FCC involved to make them more "as is?" Don't be fooled by the bs. This is the laying of the foundation to regulate the internet in the government's (US or UN) image.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
According to this article;So did the FCC have absolutely nothing to do with the internet before these net neutrality rules were passed? and now they all of a sudden claim that the internet is under their jurisdiction of power?Things are "as is" right now. Why would we need the FCC involved to make them more "as is?" Don't be fooled by the bs. This is the laying of the foundation to regulate the internet in the government's (US or UN) image.So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
SchlzmThe rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
What I don't like, that the article mentions, is that this has never been a problem before and hasnt been voiced by people as a complaint. Yet the FCC is stepping in to assert itself as the righteous force to protect people from these big bad telecomms.According to this article;
SchlzmThe rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
ETA: That article covers the outline to the resolution, prevents traffic shaping on the backend by providers while giving them the option to offer "priority" service to those willing to pay for it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That sounds reasonable right? Those Terrible telecom companies. How dare they do that to people! But wait...The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
So they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't sound like a government run agency. Why would they do something like that?Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
So the framework is laid. The foot is in the proverbial door for more intrusion later on. Thank god the FCC is there to save us from the interwebs.At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats.
Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing.
"In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
Exactly. Setting precedent.This is simply a power grab by the FCC. They are tring to solve a problem that doesn't exist so they can assert their regulatory powers on future issues.
The quote you cite says the problem exists now, but claims there have been "few" complaints. Few isn't a number. It can mean pretty much anything. And the talk about stifling investments in broadband is rich considering ISPs received huge subsidies to build their networks.So they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't sound like a government run agency. Why would they do something like that?Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.SchlzmWhat I don't like, that the article mentions, is that this has never been a problem before and hasnt been voiced by people as a complaint. Yet the FCC is stepping in to assert itself as the righteous force to protect people from these big bad telecomms. *snip*According to this article;
SchlzmThe rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
ETA: That article covers the outline to the resolution, prevents traffic shaping on the backend by providers while giving them the option to offer "priority" service to those willing to pay for it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
So the framework is laid. The foot is in the proverbial door for more intrusion later on. Thank god the FCC is there to save us from the interwebs.
Thats not the fringe left. Those are the 3 people on the FCC board out of 5 that voted for this. They felt it needed to go further but settled on what they could get.As far as the sky is falling, if you look at any government take over that has occurred in the last cenutry, a problem or crisis had to be created to slip in basic powers. Then later on the expansion of those powers occured. Income tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Sure it seems like we're making a mountain out of molehill but that molehill turns into a mountain a few decades down the road.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.SchlzmWhat I don't like, that the article mentions, is that this has never been a problem before and hasnt been voiced by people as a complaint. Yet the FCC is stepping in to assert itself as the righteous force to protect people from these big bad telecomms. *snip*According to this article;
SchlzmThe rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
ETA: That article covers the outline to the resolution, prevents traffic shaping on the backend by providers while giving them the option to offer "priority" service to those willing to pay for it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
So the framework is laid. The foot is in the proverbial door for more intrusion later on. Thank god the FCC is there to save us from the interwebs.
Actually it's two people who happen to sit on the council right now and were counteracted by the two republicans who thought any regulation what-so-ever was far too sweeping and unnecessary. Luckily these types of commissions are seated in such a way that one ideology doesn't go too far, as we see in this ruling. It is a solid medium providing both consumer and corporate protections and options without hindering or harming either party. SchlzmThats not the fringe left. Those are the 3 people on the FCC board out of 5 that voted for this. They felt it needed to go further but settled on what they could get.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.SchlzmWhat I don't like, that the article mentions, is that this has never been a problem before and hasnt been voiced by people as a complaint. Yet the FCC is stepping in to assert itself as the righteous force to protect people from these big bad telecomms. *snip*According to this article;
SchlzmThe rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
ETA: That article covers the outline to the resolution, prevents traffic shaping on the backend by providers while giving them the option to offer "priority" service to those willing to pay for it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
So the framework is laid. The foot is in the proverbial door for more intrusion later on. Thank god the FCC is there to save us from the interwebs.
I think you're being naive here. A "fringe" problem is enough excuse for the FCC to step in to establish precedent that they can dictate to private companies how much or how little broadband they can provide to their customers. Small step but once established, it only makes the step to regulating content that much shorter.Actually it's two people who happen to sit on the council right now and were counteracted by the two republicans who thought any regulation what-so-ever was far too sweeping and unnecessary. Luckily these types of commissions are seated in such a way that one ideology doesn't go too far, as we see in this ruling. It is a solid medium providing both consumer and corporate protections and options without hindering or harming either party. Schlzm
I think you are chasing a ghost here in the regard of all things to be concerned about when it comes to government intervention. Think of this as being similar to anti-monopoly laws in that it protects consumers from unfair actions taken by the providers without notice or even a clear mandate on what provokes those unfair actions. How would you feel if your utilities provider decided you were using too much electricity and cut you off halfway through the month? Even though this was never outlined in your original service agreement and the amount they determined too much could be shifted at will?SchlzmI think you're being naive here. A "fringe" problem is enough excuse for the FCC to step in to establish precedent that they can dictate to private companies how much or how little broadband they can provide to their customers. Small step but once established, it only makes the step to regulating content that much shorter.Actually it's two people who happen to sit on the council right now and were counteracted by the two republicans who thought any regulation what-so-ever was far too sweeping and unnecessary. Luckily these types of commissions are seated in such a way that one ideology doesn't go too far, as we see in this ruling. It is a solid medium providing both consumer and corporate protections and options without hindering or harming either party. Schlzm
How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.ETA: Actually, this is a great example of my point above; that lots of people define net neutrality differently. Personally, I define the topic of net neutrality as whether or not carriers can treat different types of traffic differently based on content and/or source. Whether carriers charge more for those who use more is absolutely not part of net neutrality; it's simply those who use the most bandwidth trying to get everyone else to pay for their use.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.
Schlzm
If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.
Schlzm
I edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.
Schlzm
Schlzm
Your two statements seem to be at odds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
Edited edit makes more sense and under standard contractual rules you are correct, though there were cases where this wasn't happening. In my above link pertaining to Comcast cutting off customers this was actively occurring back in the spring of 2007. Here is their service amendment, effective 01OCT2008, stating they are implementing a 250GB/month restriction. I had not seen any successful legal action regarding the cases that had occurred prior to the FCC taking action. SchlzmI edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.
Schlzm
Schlzm
I’m Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate.The Internet is a platform for innovation. Every day entrepreneurs, including many in Kentucky, offer new services to millions of Americans, like yourself, who use the internet on a daily basis – and are using it right now to watch this video. Our economy has benefited from the rapid growth of the Internet, and that’s due in large part to the lack of government involvement.But that could soon change. The Obama Administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks and student loans, now wants to brazenly control how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its usage. This would harm investment, stifle innovation and lead to job losses.I, along with several of my colleagues, have urged the FCC Chairman to abandon this flawed approach. But we need your help. Please share this video with your friends on the Internet.The Internet is a valuable resource and it must be left alone.
Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
Just because people didn't sue, or didn't sue successfully, doesn't mean that existing laws aren't/weren't working. In the one article, the guy they quoted specifically said he didn't sue because he didn't think he could afford the lawyers. I don't think the FCC should be stepping in for such a case.Back to "net neutrality", I just don't see how a carrier telling its customers how much data they can use under their terms of service has anything to do with net neutrality. Ditto for AT&T getting rid of "unlimited" wireless data plans; how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?Edited edit makes more sense and under standard contractual rules you are correct, though there were cases where this wasn't happening. In my above link pertaining to Comcast cutting off customers this was actively occurring back in the spring of 2007. Here is their service amendment, effective 01OCT2008, stating they are implementing a 250GB/month restriction. I had not seen any successful legal action regarding the cases that had occurred prior to the FCC taking action. SchlzmI edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.
Schlzm
Schlzm
When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
Can Comcast just say that they're treating all their subscriber's bandwidth equally now, and tell Netflix to take a hike with their streaming? I mean, if they're supposed to carve up the bandwidth equally between Netflix, which uses a ton, and those that use smaller amounts, such as Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, ESPN, etc., streaming wouldn't work, right?Kenny Blankenship said:
They haven't - yet(technology is there - and to some effects you see it with espn360) - that's why they want a "neutrality" law that allows them the right to do it. It's what McConnell and his supporters want to do - by not having any "neutrality" Comcast can do what they want.When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
Yes because we need laws against things that havent happened just because they may do it. I like the sound of the government doing that.They haven't - yet(technology is there - and to some effects you see it with espn360) - that's why they want a "neutrality" law that allows them the right to do it. It's what McConnell and his supporters want to do - by not having any "neutrality" Comcast can do what they want.When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.Yes because we need laws against things that havent happened just because they may do it. I like the sound of the government doing that.They haven't - yet(technology is there - and to some effects you see it with espn360) - that's why they want a "neutrality" law that allows them the right to do it. It's what McConnell and his supporters want to do - by not having any "neutrality" Comcast can do what they want.When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
People are also complaining that internet service providers want to regulate how people/businesses can access the providers customers.So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
And yet I imagine the same people arguing for this are against the Supreme Court's decision in Raich (where they basically said the feds can restrict your ability to grow marijuana because you *might* sell it across state lines if you were allowed to grow it). Seems like the same argument to me.They haven't - yet(technology is there - and to some effects you see it with espn360) - that's why they want a "neutrality" law that allows them the right to do it. It's what McConnell and his supporters want to do - by not having any "neutrality" Comcast can do what they want.When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.