FCC votes 3-2 to develop new net neutrality rules for U.S ISPs

A few months ago, a U.S. federal appeals court decision eliminated many of the Federal Communication Commission's rules concerning their regulations of ISPs. Today, the FCC voted to try once again to establish net neutrality rules that would hopefully survive a court challenge.

The FCC voted 3-2 to develop the new rules, which would instruct ISPs to maintain solid net access to every web site and service, no matter what. However, it left open the option for those same providers to offer faster service to certain sites, such as the recent announcement from Comcast that it will give its customers better access to Netflix.

It's not clear yet what the minimal speed limit the FCC would want ISPs to give to their customers under this new proposal. However, in separate press announcements from AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, they all stated they would oppose any FCC proposal that would force something like the power and phone utility regulations on ISPs.

The FCC will give the public 60 days to comment on this new proposal, followed by another 57 days for responses. However, it's obvious that these new rules will generate a large amount of debate on both sides.

Source: FCC | Net Neutrality image via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Steve Ballmer: It's 'not important' if I get any credit for Microsoft's success

Next Story

Why Microsoft likely cut the price of the Xbox One: 115,000 consoles sold in the US in April

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The FCC AND most cable companies AND most Telcos need to be eliminated and separated into a bunch of smaller markets that SHARE their lines so their is a choice, or they need to be regulated to the extreme maximum.

The suggestion that cable companies aren't a monopoly because most people have the choice between cable internet and DSL is totally absurd! That's not even close to a REAL choice.

I'm not for regulation normally, but the way this stuff is ran is beyond dumb!

"It's not clear yet what the minimal speed limit the FCC would want ISPs to give to their customers under this new proposal."

I'm not sure what is meant by this. They aren't going to give everyone a dedicated line so traffic on the network is going to effect your speed. Unless you are getting commercial grade line with bandwidth guarantees there is no guaranteed minimum and it's not going to happen. What it does say is that the ISPs can't artificially limit your bandwidth below what you are paying for. So if you pay for a 10Gbit connection you might get less than that because of congestion but they can't throttle any traffic below that. What they CAN do though as others have pointed out is allow companies to pay to go OVER the limit so Netflix for example can pay the ISP to let them send you 12Gbit over your 10Gbit connection. You won't find that in the document though because they don't explicitly say it. Right now ISPs can already do that and so by not saying anything about it in this new set of rules they implicitly allow it to continue. They'd have to explicitly say ISPs can't do it in order to prevent it but the appeals court has ruled they don't have the authority to do that unless they reclassify ISPs as utilities.

The ISPs can just rack up the prices of Internet so you must purchase something way slower than what the same price would get you in another part of the world... And then Netflix would have to still pay to get manageable speeds to customers in the US.

This is just like the current situation, except that the ISPs are currently lying about the speeds they're delivering to you. All that this FCC agreement here did is make sure they tell the truth, regardless of if they make everything extremely expensive. After all, they still are monopolies.

People keep saying this monopoly thing but I don't buy it. I have Verizon FiOS and if I wanted I could switch to Comcast Xfinity or I could go with Dish or DirecTV. Streaming is on the rise and more and more people are even cutting the cord and going with just cell service from AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, etc. and then streaming their TV with Netflix, Hulu, etc. Granted not everyone has all the options I do but I doubt very many at all are limited to just one. Most people are going to have at least DirecTV, Dish, and then their phone company (be it DSL or whatever) even if they are in a remote area that doesn't have a cable provider or good cell coverage. That's at least three options just about everywhere and granted those options may not be as good as FiOS and cable but they do provide broadband access in remote areas.

If the ISPs are lying about the speed they are delivering then I'm all for the government calling them on it. That's what government regulation is for. I'm also all for the ban on ISPs blocking Netflix or whatever in favor of their own streaming service which I understand this proposal covers. I'm not a huge fan on the ISPs having to get government approval to offer the "fast lane". I'd rather there be no "fast lanes" at all (the appeals court overturned the FCC's attempt to do that) but if there are going to be some then I think they should just have to be publicly disclosed. I don't like the idea of the government bureaucrats making arbitrary (politically motivated?) decisions based off some ill-defined concept of if they decide a deal is "commercially reasonable" or not.

As for what broadband costs in other parts of the world that's apples and oranges. Most of the rest of the world isn't as geographically large and diverse as the U.S. so it's much easier (and cheaper) for them the build out broadband networks. Building a national network that works great in downtown New York as well as remote parts of North Dakota is expensive and so U.S. broadband is going to cost more. If you want to pay European prices move to Europe. If European providers think they can do it for so much cheaper then nothing is stopping them from coming over here and building their own boadband networks. The fact is they can't, it's too expensive and if they tried they'd have to charge just as much, if not more, to cover their build-out and so there is no point in doing that.

Good points of view, but I think you may be overlooking something larger.

1. It's great you have access to multiple Internet choices and television choices. Most do not. This is why the Federal government attempted to subsidize the cost of rolling out Internet to remote areas. But the ISPs said NO. We will take the money, but we want to choose where it is spent and in what areas (AKA: Spend it in areas we already have services and use tax payer money to do the upgrades, so we can then charge them more money and/or increase our profit margins).

2. OK, that did not work, Fed says NO…So now the ISPs will acquire/buyout their competition. You know those “options” you had 12 months ago….Just give it another 24 months. You will have Comcast, Comcast, Comcast or…..AT&T….You will have Directv (or is it AT&T now) and Dish and Comcast….You will have Verizon, AT&T and Sprint and TMobile (Until Sprint buys them)….Once you only have 3-4 companies to choose from in 12-24 months…Where are you going to run if you don't like the prices you pay or the service you get? And what is the government going to do to stop them if they start doing things like charge for fast lanes….Is the FCC going to shut them down….Where will the customers go? Remember the financial banks disaster a few years back…TOO BIG TO FAIL!!!

3. Do you live in Arizona or other large states with HOAs and corrupt politicians…Sweetheart deals…Cox, TWC, Comcast do this all the time here in the southwest…”Hey, we will give you (the HOA or Politicians) some kick-back money if you agree to let us have exclusive rights on this neighborhood for service”…Guess what, no choices.

The complaints are not that we are “completely” monopolized today, but we are quickly heading in that direction….So we need to get ahead of that NOW and once upon a time it was the job of the FCC to prevent this, but they have now be taken over by lobbyist and corruption (just like all areas of our government)….20-30 years ago they did their jobs and broke up the Big Bell and AT&T….What happened?…more competition, cheaper and BETTER long distance and telephone services….Rapid innovation by the companies to win our business with new techs and services. “The PCS digital cell phone” you now call the iPhone in your pocket. The iPhone would not exist if it had not been for what the FCC did 20-30 years back. You really thing AT&T would have spent billions of dollars creating a new digital cell phone service if it had not been for Sprint and Verizon coming in and creating competition. Do you think you would have 3G and 4G data services?

But you say some small start-up should come into the country and offer service…How could they when Bell and AT&T owned the country…AT&T would simply buy them out, or destroy them through temporarily offering free service for 6-12 months to shut you up and keep you and once the start-up shuts down…Your prices would go back up.

Yes, does it cost billions to deploy a nationwide network? Yes! But trust me…they have a 25-50 percent or higher price gap for profit. Cisco Systems has for years been pushing million-dollar routers and million dollar annual service contracts for TAC support…Does it really cost that much for Cisco…NO!!! And now Juniper and Hauwie are killing Cisco because they are making the same hardware for half the cost…So did it really ever cost as much as Cisco claimed, or was Cisco simply milking it because the had no competition…

If the government is offering money they have the right to attach conditions to it and you have a right to refuse the money if you don't want to abide by those conditions. I see no problem at all with your scenario 1. It's good the government offered to subsidize the roll out of internet to remote areas... it's perfectly fine that ISPs chose not to accept it. The only issue would be if they ISPs took them money and then violated the terms and used it on their existing network instead of what it was given for. If that happened it should be illegal and the government should not only recover the money but charge additional fines for breaking the terms of the agreement.
2) The feds have to approve these giant mergers, they don't happen automatically. So if the pool of competition starts getting too small they can just deny the mergers. If the pool gets too small anyway (companies fold, oversight fails) then the government can split up the dominant companies.
3) HOAs and Politicians are elected by the people. This isn't a dictatorship. If you don't like them, vote them out. If you don't like the options availble to you, run for office yourself. The FCC ruling on Net Neutrality isn't going to fix corruption in HOAs and local/state politicans. You're just choosing the move the corruption from the state and local level to the national level.

At no point did I say "some small start-up should come into the country and offer service". If broadband in other parts of the world is so great that broadband must be provided by someone. Whoever the dominant players are there (not "small start-ups") would be stupid to ignore the huge U.S. market if U.S. providers were ridiculously overcharging. They aren't doing that because building out a national network in the large, geographically diverse United States is prohibitively expensive and they'd have to charge just as much if not way more to consumers to recoup that cost. That high expense is why existing providers are so expensive. You think AT&T likes having their 4G network maps compared to Verizons? They are both spending a fortune trying to build out their 4G networks over top of their 3G ones. It's a different situation here in the U.S. then it is elsewhere in the world and so comparing our prices to theirs is Apples to Oranges. The entire United Kingdom is smaller then the U.S. state of Michigan which is only the 11th largest state.

Hmmm…It's a Friday and I am ready to go have fun…. and again…interesting views you have that I ONCE had and I do respect your views.…There was a time when I believed people had the power and life was black and white….I have grown up now and realize there is lots of grey and the people can “VOTE” all day long for the politicians they are “GIVEN” to pick from. …Do you really think those “CHOICES” you have when you vote have not been carefully pre-selected by the people with power? It's called the “illusion” of choice. Like going to the grocery store, or buying health insurance, or buying a car, etc…hundreds of choices, all owned and controlled by 5 large companies.

There is another story running on Neowin and DSL Reports today. Comcast wants TWC so bad they are going to GIVE AWAY 3 million of their customers to a new ISP called “SpinUP”, until they come up with a new name. Comcast has chosen the CEO of this new company and like usual…People will believe this is a new ISP that gives them a choice from Comcast….But the fine print of the deal is that in 7 years (after everyone has forgotten TWC existed and how the FCC let us down again)…Comcast will be allowed to buy this new SpinUp…..back!

Make no mistake my friends…Breaking up ATT and Bell was not a huge deal like we make it sound today. Telephone and long distance were GREAT new services, but not mission critical to the USA security such as water and electricity….Fast-FORWARD 30 years…The Internet is a critical utility and ATT and all these ISPs have grown 1000 times in size. They employ 100s of thousands of people and can crash our stock market and bring large businesses to their knees in one day if they were to shut down….They are CRITICAL to the United States security TODAY, unlike 30 years ago….Do you really think the FCC will break them up now….LOL….Come back to reality my friend….These large ISPs can have the current FCC chairman fired and replaced in one day if he does not play ball with them and the Fed govt could not and cannot do anything to stop them, even if they wanted to….And every year we are making them larger and larger…..And last I check they are so large now…They are buying out the wireless and ISPs in Europe now….Didn't Verizon just take over Vodafone…? So this monopolizing is now spreading over seas….But is happens slowly, so by the time you and I have our chance to talk and argue about it on an internet forum….TOO LATE!!!!

My letter to the FCC,

As an I.T. professional I fear that our USA government and corporation are once again using their money and lobby power to manipulate and essentially take control of another American and word-wide service called the Internet. Like many services before, IT WAS and IS WORKING, and now THE GOVERNMENT is trying to FIX IT. The American people are YET again being lied to by methods of fear tactics indicating the ISPs do not have enough resources to keep the Internet working. As an I.T. professional who works with some of the largest ISPs and other data providers, I know this is not true. With new cost reducing competitions to Cisco and Juniper and Huawei and the cost of wire line and wireless technology is becoming cheaper and more efficient, while the profit margins for the ISPs have increased over the years. Hence, I see no valid excuse for justifying data caps, tiered data pricing and charging Internet based services based on usage. The simple and undeniable truth is these large ISPs and data companies need new profit models. The previous services such as text messaging, data tethering, provider specific and proprietary video and voice services which were HUGE profit buckets have been replaced with more efficient and FREE internet based services. The ISPs have now become NO MORE than simple gateways to the Internet, and now they are trying to manipulate the American people and FCC government with fear tactics to justify creating new profit models to replace their now obsolete services. These new profit models, IF approved by the FCC, will insure the ISPs will FOREVER have control of ANY small and large internet based service and effectively allow the ISPs and data providers to take a share of the profits of companies that require Internet services. Basically, I can now take a share of the profits of all business that wish to use the streets of my city to have their required products and service delivered. Basically a TOLL road…where I can change the TOLL costs anytime I feel I want more profit. And if you don't pay me, your business will suffer. The larger fear that is not widely being discussed and is heavily connected to this is LACK OF COMPETITION. 10 years ago we had more than 10 wireless and wireline providers. With the mass acquisitions of telco and ISPs and wireless providers. There will be nowhere to RUN. If you don't like my TOLL charge, what other options will you have? There is no more competition! No choices,….No way to keep the ISPs in balance. They will make all the rules and that WILL BE the end of the INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT!

As an American, please fight this. American corporations are also fighting this battle oversees here in the EU. And if they win in the US, they will surely put more pressure on us :(

The best comment I heard so far was something like this...

Quit being indecisive and start making a decision. Either rule that internet is like power and phone utilities OR rule ISPs can do what they want and then BREAK THEM UP! Right now they arent regulated AND have monopolistic power.

I like that idea. Regulate them or let the free market decide but we have to have a free market to decide. In the town I grew up in one provider has pipe into the whole lot of cities. The city I live now has 2 ISPs... That aint a free market...

Scabrat said,
The city I live now has 2 ISPs... That aint a free market...

and what's keeping you (or most other people) from starting your own ISP business? Regulations? No, you just don't have the financial power to do it, that's all. Your market is free, believe it or not. In fact, it's so free that it enables providers to become monopolies and have way too much power. Your market is TOO free, that's your problem.

audioman said,

and what's keeping you (or most other people) from starting your own ISP business? Regulations? No, you just don't have the financial power to do it, that's all. Your market is free, believe it or not. In fact, it's so free that it enables providers to become monopolies and have way too much power. Your market is TOO free, that's your problem.

The market isn't free (at least in this little section)... This is a monopolistic market in its very nature (only so many people can run the physical lines)...

Realistically, there is only so much can be done, but I have been tire kicking around some ideas on how to fix it. Maybe I'll write it out in a blog post someday, but no one ever really is interested in those :p.

The basic solution, IMHO, is to solve the "last mile" problem and the "lack of choice" issue in a manner very similar to how the business world has solved it. To my door in South Philadelphia I have 2 ISP choices, effectively, and one isn't worth it right now... I can chose between Comcast Cable at speeds up to 150Mbps or Verizon DSL at up to 1.5Mbps (FiOS is coming, but my house isn't on the list yet). So Comcast effectively dominates the market. If I were to go to the data center in Center City I have a choice between all major ISPs (including Tier 1 providers) in the US. Why the difference? It is a lot cheaper to build a line to one place and hit 5K+ customers than it is to build one to my house and hit only me...

The draft solution I have is to split the "last mile" out of the network. Build central "trunks" that allow any ISP to offer its services to an area and the "last mile" would be run by a separate utility who has no control over the ISPs.

The user would then be billed a "utility" rate for maintaining and upgrading the lines. They would then also have the choice of any ISP and pay that ISP directly for their service usage...

This would ensure we get the best possible coverage while fostering competition where it makes sense to do so.

But I'm sure no one is interested in this in a blog post from me so hopefully the short version was useful.

audioman said,

and what's keeping you (or most other people) from starting your own ISP business? Regulations? No, you just don't have the financial power to do it, that's all. Your market is free, believe it or not. In fact, it's so free that it enables providers to become monopolies and have way too much power. Your market is TOO free, that's your problem.

If a market is dominated by a monopoly it isnt free then. Lol, there is no such thing as too free. Its like a girl being too pretty or being too lucky. There isnt such a thing. =)

+LogicalApex, "The basic solution, IMHO, is to solve the "last mile" problem..."
----
Indeed. As has been done in some other countries and in a few locals stateside, separate that and you solve various problems, the most important is the barrier to entry\natural monopoly issue. Of course good luck getting that changed, all the localities, all the existing exclusivity deals etc, total mess, and one that would of course be fought tooth and nail by those with the existing effective monopolies.
Still it's doable over time with the proper will and motivation of various parties\entities but sadly such does not yet exist.

You guys mix up monopolies and free market. The market is still free, and yes there is such a thing as too much freedom in a market, and that's why regulations and government interventions are needed to limit market freedom are needed sometimes.

audioman said,
You guys mix up monopolies and free market. The market is still free, and yes there is such a thing as too much freedom in a market, and that's why regulations and government interventions are needed to limit market freedom are needed sometimes.

Lol. The very nature of a free market means no government interference. Once the government steps in its call a controlled (or regulated) market.

Anyways, I might be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure the reason we are in this mess in America is because of some of the governmental kickbacks the major ISPs have gotten over the years. Be that local, state, or federal governments. Which has made current ISPs grow stronger while keeping out smaller ones.

An example where I use to live was that we had one pipe coming into town (the last 30 miles, much less 1 mile) and another ISP would lease that line. Well, its bottle necked so a 3rd ISP was coming into the area. But because of a small town requiring permits for dishes the size of direct tv to be placed on a house no internet could come into the whole area, nor the town (mountains man... They interfere with stuff). So they still have one ISP with another leasing from the one. Crappy internet and crappy prices...

Scabrat said,

Lol. The very nature of a free market means no government interference. Once the government steps in its call a controlled (or regulated) market.


Well then what the hell are you laughing about? That's what I said, that having monopolies doesn't mean not having a free market, is means having a TOO free market, which needs to be regulated.

Although the FCC may have said "no" to slow internet, they said OK to a "super-fast lane" which effectively makes the "regular" internet into "slow" internet. Make no mistake, this is not a win for net neutrality as the article makes it out to be.

I'm at a loss here... Why is the debate getting so crowded with misinformation or a solid lack of understanding on how the Internet works, as of right now? Net Neutrality has always been about traffic prioritization (or limiting) within the ISPs network. It was never about peering connections...

I haven't read the new rules yet (I will over the weekend), but the article summation appears to say the following in plain English to me: "Traffic shaping, in any form, is prohibited within the ISP network. All customer traffic has to be treated equally. Peering agreements are allowed, including ones that effectively place customer equipment directly on your backbone." If my plain English summation is what the article said then this is Net Neutrality as it has always existed...

The Internet is a collection of disparate networks! Every time your traffic has to leave your ISP network and hit another network it is subject to the limitations put in place by your ISPs peering relationship. If you are using latency intensive services, like streaming video or real-time voice communications, then you want to reduce the number of peers traffic has to go through to reach its destination. You can only do this by getting as close to the destination network as possible.

Netflix wanted to be on the Comcast network for that very reason. If they can reduce the number of peering connections they reduce the chance that exhausting the bandwidth at any peer along the way would have adverse impact on their ability to reach customers on Comcast's network. This has been the case literally since the dawn of the Internet...

I am all for Net Neutrality, but we need to keep misinformation from clouding the debate. There is nothing wrong with Comcast wanting to charge peering networks for the right to peer. The natural forces of the market keeps these relationships balanced (meaning Comcast needs to peer with others as much as others need to peer with them...).

The problem is that it doesn't rule out allowing Netflix to pay Comcast extra to deliver content at speeds faster then what the what the end user is paying for. E.g. I pay for 15mbps but Netflix pays more to deliver it to me at 20mbps. This allows Netflix to push out better quality video then a new market competitor may allow.

SOOPRcow said,
The problem is that it doesn't rule out allowing Netflix to pay Comcast extra to deliver content at speeds faster then what the what the end user is paying for. E.g. I pay for 15mbps but Netflix pays more to deliver it to me at 20mbps. This allows Netflix to push out better quality video then a new market competitor may allow.

Where do you see this? What I have read so far doesn't suggest that in the FCC document. It is limiting its scope to peering, as I said above.

Ars has a good article on it. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...lanes-theyre-already-legal/

"When asked by a reporter whether edge providers can purchase a faster path beyond the performance levels a consumer has paid for, Wheeler dodged. “You're going off and inventing hypothetical paths to the Internet," he said."

Of course its not hypothetical at all. Cable companies already do this with specific content. Such as there TV streaming apps to tablets and what not.

All in all I think we should all be very concerned that the cable companies are happy with this.

SOOPRcow said,
Ars has a good article on it. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...lanes-theyre-already-legal/

"When asked by a reporter whether edge providers can purchase a faster path beyond the performance levels a consumer has paid for, Wheeler dodged. “You're going off and inventing hypothetical paths to the Internet," he said."

Of course its not hypothetical at all. Cable companies already do this with specific content. Such as there TV streaming apps to tablets and what not.

All in all I think we should all be very concerned that the cable companies are happy with this.

I am not sure why this is a problem... So long as they give you the speed you are paying for and not artificially slowing Netflix below what you pay for.

LogicalApex said,

I am not sure why this is a problem... So long as they give you the speed you are paying for and not artificially slowing Netflix below what you pay for.

The problem is that Verizon can choose to not allow Netflix directly on their network (or make the fees too high for Netflix to pay, making it de facto instead). Then they add a a competitor streaming video site (e.g. Redbox) to their fast lane, and elect to only meter "regular" non-fast-lane internet. Suddenly, watching Netflix counts towards your limit, red box does not.

Now, lets say that you have a 500gb cap. That's a lot right now. But in 5 years when you buy a 4k TV, that's 3 or 4 movies from Netflix before you're over your cap... or unlimited from Redbox.

Verizon has redbox, comcast has xfinity on demand. Comcast has plants to put data caps in place within 3 years, nationwide, and I'm sure Verizon will do something similar too.

In effect, the cable company controls all of your media. The internet changed that, and with competition you got unlimited $7 Netflix. Comcast and Verizon are going to try to jack that back up to $80. This is the fight to prevent that.

LogicalApex said,

I am not sure why this is a problem... So long as they give you the speed you are paying for and not artificially slowing Netflix below what you pay for.

For example, as I said above, the problem is that it Netflix could pay extra to get their content delivered to Comcast customers at a higher rate (e.g. I pay for 15 but Netflix comes in at 30). This gives Netflix a competitive advantage as they can push out much higher quality video content. This creates a higher cost of entry for a new competitor into the market. The problem isn't that they would be reducing speed, it's that they would be giving extra speed to those who can afford it.

SOOPRcow said,

For example, as I said above, the problem is that it Netflix could pay extra to get their content delivered to Comcast customers at a higher rate (e.g. I pay for 15 but Netflix comes in at 30). This gives Netflix a competitive advantage as they can push out much higher quality video content. This creates a higher cost of entry for a new competitor into the market. The problem isn't that they would be reducing speed, it's that they would be giving extra speed to those who can afford it.

I still fail to see a problem with this... This has always been technically possible under Net Neutrality rules that have always existed...

You can't get rid of this "problem" (if you want to consider it that) without pulling the ISP outside of the rest of the company...

This is only a real problem if bandwidth is being artificially slowed down to force advantage for local services. The only area this gets very hairy is in the download caps that are being kicked around. If they are allowed those should be heavily regulated to ensure that they aren't used as backdoor traffic shaping policies. Personally, I think they shouldn't be allowed to have caps at all. Just raw speed limits.

LogicalApex said,

I still fail to see a problem with this... This has always been technically possible under Net Neutrality rules that have always existed...

You can't get rid of this "problem" (if you want to consider it that) without pulling the ISP outside of the rest of the company...

This is only a real problem if bandwidth is being artificially slowed down to force advantage for local services. The only area this gets very hairy is in the download caps that are being kicked around. If they are allowed those should be heavily regulated to ensure that they aren't used as backdoor traffic shaping policies. Personally, I think they shouldn't be allowed to have caps at all. Just raw speed limits.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of Net Neutrality. It's not just about preventing data shaping. It's all about the barrier of entry into the network.

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

SOOPRcow said,

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of Net Neutrality. It's not just about preventing data shaping. It's all about the barrier of entry into the network.

Except, Comcast treating traffic on Comcast's network differently isn't the Internet. That is its local network...

Should it also extend to my company not being able to adjust traffic on their LAN since it covers multiple cities and I can access the Internet on it?

If you're paying Comcast for 100Mbps to the Internet and they aren't doing ANYTHING to discriminate against your traffic to the Inernet all is good. If they also want to use their excess network capacity to do something else then they are free to do that too...

The difference being that your LAN is paying for access to the internet from an ISP. Comcast is the ISP. It is your access to the internet.

And you're right, you're getting your 100mbps. Except that the problem isn't for the customer receiving the data. The problem is for the customer sending the data. They're now pseudo required to pay an additional fee if they want to effectively compete within their market.

Also, I should point out that this could also lead to the receiving customer paying extra as well.

Example:
Say Comcast sells only a 30mbps plan now. But for $10 more a month you can buy the streaming package. This will allow you to stream from Netflix and Amazon websites at 60mbps. Unfortunately that doesn't include Hulu's streaming so you'll still get that at 30mbps.

It get's incredibly messy and you start ending up with premium packages and what not like cable TV. But hey, it's all on Comcast's network so who cares right? Let the free market win? Except that we don't have a free market when it comes to ISPs. Which is why these ISPs need to be regulated as Title II Common Carriers.

SOOPRcow said,
The difference being that your LAN is paying for access to the internet from an ISP. Comcast is the ISP. It is your access to the internet.

And you're right, you're getting your 100mbps. Except that the problem isn't for the customer receiving the data. The problem is for the customer sending the data. They're now pseudo required to pay an additional fee if they want to effectively compete within their market.

Also, I should point out that this could also lead to the receiving customer paying extra as well.

Example:
Say Comcast sells only a 30mbps plan now. But for $10 more a month you can buy the streaming package. This will allow you to stream from Netflix and Amazon websites at 60mbps. Unfortunately that doesn't include Hulu's streaming so you'll still get that at 30mbps.

It get's incredibly messy and you start ending up with premium packages and what not like cable TV. But hey, it's all on Comcast's network so who cares right? Let the free market win? Except that we don't have a free market when it comes to ISPs. Which is why these ISPs need to be regulated as Title II Common Carriers.

The "Internet" is simply a collection of local networks strung together by loose peering relationships... You can stitch together your own "Internet" if you want to. All you need to do is provide a link between your LAN and another LAN along with defining the route on your router...

When you talk about ISPs controlling "internet" access you're talking about what the can do regarding traffic crossing their network with an intended destination that isn't on their network. Requiring that they don't discriminate here is important and this is Net Neutrality...

What they do on their network is up to them... If you start putting limits on this then you get into all sorts of nutty areas that will limit innovation... Should Comcast not be allowed to push its VoIP phone service across the same lines? Should they also be barred from pushing On Demand TV across those lines? etc...

If Comcast is treating your network traffic to the Internet appropriately then there is room for Netflix to ignore paying Comcast to be "inside the network". If Netflix wants to pay to be inside then that is up to them...

This is no different than choosing to host your website on a server in your basement or to move the server to a Co-Lo data center so you have access to multiple Tier-1 pipes (to be closer to the intended user and reducing network latency)...

I'm not sure why this division is so controversial...