Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

a reply to: Aazadan

So who pays for the provisioning of the ability to do this? It's apparently not going too be content providers. Do you expect the ISPs to eat it or Will they pass it in to their customers? Or will it be the taxpayer?

Let's come back in 6 months and a year and compare costs. I currently pay $120 month for phone and internet in a rural area with the one wired choice. No metering, no bells and whistles on the phone. Only other choice is satellite.

a reply to: jefwane

They'll probably pass all costs along to the consumer. They're effectively monopolies and that's a standard business practice. Here's the thing though, they were already passing all costs along to the consumer so nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is that newer higher bandwidth activities like streaming video aren't going to be discouraged so the networks are going to have to build the upgrades they already promised to build (and took money for).

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, the Republicans sure don't like this, and are trying to twist the information to make it look like a bad decision for the average American when, in reality, the FCC ruling/decision gives some breathing room to an internet under attack.

Explain your position. How does it give "breathing room" to a supposed service "under attack"? Wait, even a better question; what is in the proposed regulation that the general Public isn't allowed to see that you are so confident and knowledgeable about?

FCC's net neutrality rules open door to new fee on Internet service

www.latimes.com...=1