said by Skippy25 :

The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity.

said by anonpisser :

this coming from a guy that supports a shill scam on wall street called Infinium labs.

said by Talis :

Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content.

said by NGOwner :

Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase.

said by NGOwner :

Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks.

said by johnh123 :

I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong?

said by LinuxJunkie :

They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap.

said by TKJunkMail :

Your rates were going up no matter how this law came out. Higher bandwidth apps were going to increase rates. The only question is who is going to get more of your money - the isp's or the content providers.

said by AnonProxy :

I think you may be missing one small point:

The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T.

Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access.

"Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."

said by Odie97 :

Dominant telco's will now become the "gatekeeper's" to the traffic on the network (Internet) and the on/off ramp paths as well as "fast" and "slow" lanes of traffic (applications)based upon a set of conditions that they (the Telco's) will be able to set, fix and control.

Should make your lack of patience for the Telco's to move to anxiety and anger

said by rit56 :

do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up.

said by nasadude :

net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads.

While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content.

said by User0101 :

Will someone take the political speak out of this topic and put it in real world terms. First I've heard of the "Cope Act" but I've not followed this topic very strongly due to my lack of patience with Telcos.