By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Acevil said:
Kasz216 said:
Apparently nobody explained to the appeals court that people don't really have choice in ISP providers because of the cable infrastructure needed for high speed internet.


Since I consider you an educated user, even if sometimes I feel you lean a bit more right compared to me, can you explain to me what exactly has happened. I'm at work, and I just need a summary of the issue.

Internet providers have wanted, for years, to monetize internet. They want to change it from being a simple provided utility service, like water or electricity, to being more like cable and satellite.

They want to sell it as tiers instead of one giant on/off switch.

Basically, just as you have basic cable, expanded cable, premium channels, etc... they want to provide the internet in a similar fashion with some websites only available for premium prices.

Its absolultely anti-consumer and something FCC was trying to block as it would restrict web interaction (new sites would have to sign deals with ISPs to be visible, just as a new channel in cable) as well as create easy and simple censorship that currently is non-existant in US.

Obvsiously the courts are now listening to government and corporations to F people.