New Legistlation In The Works To Take Our Free Internet Away From Us

@Bluedoll I think that the intention is to permit to internet providers to make more money. For example, with no net neutrality, they will be able to offer subscriptions only for a few sites like a FB and Twitter bundle. Some people can live only with that, but on the long term it will kill small sites.

@Daelii Like I wrote, I experienced it in France in the late 1990's. There were really absurd situations. For example, I realized that sending an email to a friend having a different provider was blocked, and I ended by opening a "neutral" email address in a different country. I am happy that we have laws to guarantee net neutrality today in many european countries.

@topffer Exactly. But the big thing about it, is it allows each internet provider the ability to filter out and block content. So they can decide to block anything they want to. Looking at how republicans have been busted for re-drawling the voting districts in in order to break up heavily democratic ones, so majority in each district were republican and the minority were democratic.. Can you just imagine how much a thing like this can be abused when providing information concerning different political candidates? Its absurd. Yet majority of people don't truly understand what all the bill covers because they don't even bother to read it or look into it. They just assume its "liberals fighting for more welfare things like free internet". No, no one minds paying for internet services and if they do, there is surely plenty of free places to get a hot spot. However, its fighting to keep access to all content free to be able to reach it in the virtual world without biased and communistic control and filtering.

In 2011 CRTC Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission determined that a fee for how much data was transferred could be made chargeable. Internet providers began charging people extra for anything over 1 GiG of data per month. I was affected by this change as I watched my bill triple as did others. The extra fee was later dropped as it was overturned by a government decision not to limit internet data usage. As a result service providers now offer a low priced standard plan for internet as well as premium higher bandwidth plans with unlimited usage. If the US changes his policies on internet use I would expect to see changes as well.

@Bluedoll its not about how much interent you use. Its saying, big companies or corporations can make deals with different internet providers so they can decide what websites a person can use. So if someone wants to use mylot, they need to sign up with a company that offers it. If someone wants facebook, they must sign up with that company. That if Facebook makes a deal with internet companies, they can and will block any other competing social network sites so only theirs can and will be accessible. If you want to be able to have email? you must pay for email access to a select email service provider. Want video? must pay for access to a video service. Want to pay for social media website? pick one! pay for the ability to access facebook or wherever. How many people will pay internet service bill and then a social media access fee to get to mylot?

People who don't read the bill make this mistake in thinking it's about paying for access. Everyone has to pay for internet except some places do offer free WiFi. The bill would make people pay for what they want to access on the internet. Like tv. You want tv you pay for it. Then you pick a package for channels you want and you pay for those channels.

@Daelii as in communist China today? So as not to repeat what I already wrote... (China does have a "brain project" in the works)

@celticeagle Its not giving you free services from different websites, its the freedom to be able to go to those websites if that's what you want to do. To expect it free is like going to Amazon.com and saying "I paid for internet, give me free merchandise now!". No, its to say that if you have the freedom to go to whatever website like amazon or ebay or whatever, and not have it blocked because amazon made a deal with your internet that you can no longer ever access any other paid for merchandise site that competes with amazon. Exactly @Bluedoll . If we lose net neutrality then it means companies can and will limit what you get to use. If a company doesn't want you to see anything from competitors, then they will block all that content.

I explained in another comment. It would turn internet into buying packages for different websites like we have different tv channel packages for tv. So you would no longer be able to get everything on the internet and what you can access is limited to government control and what packages you wanted to buy.

Exactly.

For access. We have the freedom to go to the sites we want. With this legistlation we may have to start paying to go to certain ones.

It's already like that and has been for quite a while @celticeagle I just choose the freebie sites.

@rebelann yeah and what will you do if those free sites are put on a server you must pay for in addition to internet access to an internet provider?

Sure could. And worse.

No. I mean the individual sites we visit. They could charge us to go on them.

I guess that is all we can do. And write to our congressman.

It was last night.

It's all over the news. Here is just one:

@celticeagle Okay but how about showing me something that didn't happen 3 years ago because that hasn't happened with Netflix. I have Netflix and nothing has changed all the years I've had it. How about something more current no more than one year old because a lot can change in 3 years.

@celticeagle All I'm saying is the information you're using is old news. If you have anything about it that's more current we can discuss this further. I just can't find any recent information about this subject.

The US.