Television is so heavily commercial, I can't stand to watch it. So some years ago, I stopped. If the internet goes the same way, I will stop using it too. If the Net becomes a polluted stream, information can still be obtained in other (free) formats. No society is free without the free exchange of information. It's all about freedom, really.

Having basic computer skills in today's society is as necessary as knowing how to drive. Ok. I've got my basic skills, I can now get by. When the internet loses it neutrality, and its glorious freedom, it will lose me too. Over time, dealing with cell phone companies has taught me a great deal about all the nasty little tricks, hidden charges, special fees concealed in the micro-print at the bottom of the page that come along with electronic commerce. I don't need more of that. I'm not going to accept that as a normal condition of my life. When net neutrality goes, I go.

This Congress has been a disappointment from first to last. I doubt that many in the House can even use a computer. Yet another reason to vote in November. This net decision will sting me the most of all their wrong-headed decisions.

It's not too late to write your congressional representative, People. Let's not roll over on this, eh?

Google doesn't have a mature enough search product (nor does anyone else) to merit a usage fee. If someone came up with a really very effective search engine then I would probably pay a small fee to find what I'm looking for. But if I'm not mistaken the fee I pay for broadband access should be covering the cost of the Internet backbone. Want to give me Internet access free and charge me Ala carte? I might go for that.

I agree with K. I am sickened by the amount of commercials on television. I have also stopped watching. I netflix series (HBO and others) to avoid the commercials. It saves a lot of time. I am so impressed at how un-intrusive google's ad placement is - I find it very enjoyable to use a site and it's services, and not have flashy images superimposed over the text I'm supposed to be reading. I think they provide a more enjoyable experience than anyone else. Sometimes I think that our government can be convinced by rich companies to do anything. Events like this just prove it. Miniscule foresight.

I agree with you K. Lee "Freedom is rooted in Sharing Expression" Personal Tao - 2005 So this suggests part of the solution to the current larger social problems is to reduce the commercial burdens of the current system and ensure freedom of expression. Since Congress and the current political parties ruling the country have a vested commercial interest to keep things not free, we can expect to see even more laws and copyright battles which force payments of such services.

All justifications aside, in the end we lose. Where is the competition in this? Where is our option to switch to another company if we don't like the service we're getting?

If network providers are concerned about limited bandwidth why are telecoms trying so hard to expand into video and cable companies expanding into voice? It's a joke. There is more dark fiber crisscrossing this country than they know what to do with. Consumers already pay for a set amount of bandwidth based on the type of service and they should be able to use it however they want. Without net neutrality content providers will quickly buy or build their own networks. And with a wi-max standard it will be easier than ever. It could be interesting...

Hi K Graham, HBO does not have commercials during its shows. Anyway, I also hate the cheese streaming through the tube and throught this millineum. We see it in gangster rap, movies, music in general. Now that microsoft is making it easier for morons to use computers without thinking, the internet, by definition, will have to go the same way as other popular entertainment. I do think though that just cause google may in the future have to charge to use its service, it does not mean the end of the internet. i mean Comcast cannot charge every search engine out there. In business, there are easy way around these things. The internet will always be free to those with a little bit of intelligence.

For a while I've been thinking: what will the big business (and what nowadays seems to be its incestuous brother, i.e. the government) *do* to break the Internet? Because it was clear that their tolerance for media independence will only go so far. Now I have the answer: ruin the Internet by removing Net neutrality.

This is dumb. If Google charged for a subscription, we would all use one of the 20 other search engines that we used before Google caught on. C'mon, snap out of it!) Intellectual property has a way of suddenly returning to the nothing it came from.

I think some of you might be missing the point here. The companies who pay the extra fees to the telecoms will get most of the bandwidth, and the little guys will be on little dinky 56k pipes. It's a two-tiered system that's being talked about: one for big companies, which gets priority treatment, and another 3rd-class level for everything else. Think of it like this: google, yahoo, msn, etc. will be like cable networks, and everything else will be staticky cable-access.

The two real shams here are one companies controlling the internet have already admitted that they plan to create unfair situations with which to profit from and two the total usage of our fiber optic network in the US is negligible. I have heard some people say we only use about 1% of the total network bandwith! Where do they get the right saying they will "run out" of bandwith when it is clearly not going to happen in the near future? And if these lines of reasoning are correct who in their right mind would even listen to these ya-hoos? (no offense to Yahoo). If this all does come to pass people will just end up creating their own closed networks. Considering the domestic spying taking place the good old days of BBS suddenly seem a little bit better.

If I have pay to use Google, I wont stop using it, I will just have to steal it Theres no way they can make me pay for things I dont want to pay for, my windows pirated, my software pirated, I dont watch tv and if I do i will hook my cable up to my neibours, and I only pay for internet, rather than stealing it off my neibours unencrypted wireless, because I want to steal those free software faster I wont pay for technology, and what tech-illiterate old goverment retards wont change that.

GIVING UP NET NEUTRALITY SO BIG FAT CORPORATIONS CAN GET BIGGER AND FATTER AT OUR EXPENSE!!! More proof that the only way to democracy in america is through another revolution. These scumbags in washington represent themselves and their corporations, and no one else. This is not something that represents the will of the people- this is scum cashing in for scum profits off the back off the poor and the middle class which is SOP for these scumbags these days. Throw them all out - too bad our elections are now fixed by Diebold trickery.

It's a Great Swindle. We've been told over & over... From Eisenhower on down... to Nixon's 3rd Most Evil American, Chomsky... This isn't tinfoil hat stuff, its real. You see it at your place of employment. I bet at least 1/2 your corporate-employed readers do. Namaste BlueBerry Pick'n can be found @ ThisCanadian.com "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

This is an outrage to the highest degree. The very integrity and independence of the Internet depends on its neutrality. If the backbone owners get to decide who does what on their networks, it'll splinter the Internet and wreck it. The Internet is great because it's the vox populi. If this change takes place, it'll be just another commercial medium like TV and radio, with mind-numbing adds and wallet breaking fees.

It's the government/business, Stupid. We simply have to go around it, not through it.

This sounds a lot like the DVD wars a few years back. Movie companies desided that they could control how their media was to be used/viewed. No matter how much they think they can control use, those that want and yern for true freedom will do everything possable to obtain it, and that included what may be "illegal". If this happens, look for ways around it. They will be there.

Clearly, given the amount of money the telcoms are putting into buying off congress, they are getting ready to try and rape the consumer once again; this time on the internet.

The end of net neutrality means the money flows both ways. Like cable needs ESPN, Verizon/AT&T will have to have Google.

There's nothing free or even reasonable about internet access now when the poor and many families in the middle class have to decide between food and the internet. Even in these rather formative years of the internet where we have blogs that still take time sifting through and access to public information that still take time sifting through and comments/policies from our public officials that affect our lives and mostly our pocket book that still take time sifting through... Well you get the idea. Google and others are still in their formative years at best. Presumably search will some how be able to unite blogs, commercial news, public information, policies in ways that we can once again begin to trust our political and business leaders or at least force them to be honest simply because the facts are readily available to us all. I my formative years -- it seemed at least at the time -- we put our trust in our leaders to do right by us. Unfortunately expanded education and now the internet has put a lie to much of what we see and hear from those who we must trust for our own well being. Even as incomplete and inaccurate as factual/useful information is today from any source, piling on more fees for it's access is perverting the very idea of a information super highway that is accessible to all. Adding fees to things like googling for information is muzzling search and the internet for ever increasing segments of the population. Never mind those who already have chosen to eat.

imagine a world where the internet becomes for corporations only at first that looks bleak but then the lan and wan connections take over at first within a town these will be easy. then town connect to towns and the internet is reborn on our equipment by our rules

JUST give me a reason NOT TO switch to ask.com or whatever is free in the future!!!

Most things like this have two sides to the argument, pros and cons, but this I can only see one side to it, it is all bad. There is no benefit whatsoever to anyone apart from a small number of large businesses (oh yes and one or two politicians on thier pay roll). This will just make it hard for the little guy to compete with the big guys, something which the interent has so far largely encouraged. I live in the UK so we shouldn't be affected by this, but no doubt our weak politicians will follow America's bad example and just say "well the US are doing it so should we" The motives behind this are so clear and so unambiguous it is shocking that politicians are so blatantly showing who they care more about, Big business rather than free individuals

The Net is full full of corrupt and false information. only time i use the net at all as a source is when I need to lookup something quickly to cross referance it with a libary data base. 5 dollars a month for a service that is free and there is other areas just to lookup the same information. Is laughtible at best. It smell like to me some greedy pigs want to feed at the user base. Here is what will happen when goggole is Pay per use. 96% of their trafic will drop the next day and 4% of the people will pay. Its like of like why news papers are a thing of the past. they want you to pay 5dollars a day to get a roll of adds. Any news is just rehashed trash or socialist properganda. Both of which i can get a plenty on the Alphabet soup TV channels. In all I would Never pay for a service like this. Should the net become Pay per Use. Ill quit it and just use a cell for email and text message at the same price. Whats the point of the net at this point other then Porn, Ebay and Online gaming? Nothing i can see.

i quit watching tv due to being swamped with commercials. went to linux and google news so i didnt have to see all those ads. in the good ol days we went to fm radio in the cars because it was commercial free. dont turn on car radio now. if i have to pay more for internet i will just turn it off.

Market forces will provide alternatives to PAY to PLAY. So far as I have seen, the only laws which can limit human activities significantly are Natural Laws.

People often mistake "free enterprise" and "market forces" as free competition and diversity, which it is not. Corporations are almost Darwinian in their drive toward the elimination of competition. Even when competition is forced, like with the breakup of AT & T, these companies tend to combine again until there are fewer and fewer of them. This is true of the airline companies, the oil companies, retailing (viz., Wal-Mart), banks, and telecommunications. It seems inevitable that eventually only a few companies will "own" the Internet, just as only a few companies "own" the airlines, and only a few companies "own" all the banks. Those few companies will extract a profit from the Internet, and brook no competition from outsiders. Consumers have never had the slightest chance of standing up against these seemingly irresistible forces. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just the way these things evolve. The fact there are no Teddy Roosevelts or other "trust busters" on the political scene only hastens the inevitable.

OK, folks, how many of you posting here have e-mailed or written your congressman yet? It really doesn't take much longer than posting here. I have done it. Join me!

interesting responses, aside from the fact that most people don't understand what the net neuter discussion is all about. i would like to address the disconnected 'pay for play' google future: you don't need to pay for it in cash, up front. it will hit you when you buy something else. google will start charging for advertising and preferred placement (oh, wait...) and businesses will raise your prices to cover their new costs. as much as i would like to put an eBay contextual ad in this response to help pay my current internet bill, like most americans, i'm paying it the old fashioned way: i'm using the internet at work. hey, i heard after net neutrality, they (your beholden congress) is going to start taxing emails at .05 a piece...(why is there no 'cent' sign on my keyboard? where was your outrage then? yeah, we were all in school playing kickball...) got get your fat kids off the online games so they'll quit slowing down my wife's eBay and my latenight pr0n...

timmah if you write money amounts as .05 a $ dollar sign is required at the beginning so 5 cents would be $0.05. That is why there is not a cent sign on your keyboard. i agree with jimmy toot, this will not just effect google but all the alternative free search engines who cannot pay for the big bandwidth. If you use them to search even though you pay for DSL or Cable they can't afford the "Express Lane" on the new internet so they will send you your info at a snails pace on the broken down pipes unless you pay the price. This will effect all sites that do not pay for the bandwidth the traffic to them will be routed on less efficient and lower priority routes, meaning more dropped packets, longer load times, and limited connections to the site. I pay for access to the net, I should not have to pay to access every single site I want to go to plus access to the NET. If I have to pay per site then I want free access. Its just another way to stick it to the consumers and price gouge, just like the utilities, gas, cable, Microsoft, ISPs and everyone else. "We did not make $44 Billion dollars in profits this year time to increase our rates." - Big Business

When I rent an apartment, I stay in the Apartment how I want.., the apartment owner does not tell me when to get up or when to sleep.. and cannot charge me for oversleeping... When I rent a car, I drive the car where I want.. the car rental does not tell me where I drive and he better not charge me for going to a coffee shop that he thinks is getting better business just because he has his office next to it. When I sign up for an internet Service, be it comcast or SBC DSL.., Oops AT&T.., I decide How I use it.. or get rid of it..... If it comes to a point that I pay for Google... I'd rather give up using it..., Its stupid enough that we pay so much as some nonsense fees to these ISP providers..... Its like asking to pay to Safeway for every meal you cook, just because you purchased grocery from them.....

No man is truly free unless & until he is free to express himself uninhibitedly

Imagine what happens when Google has to start paying for the infrastructure they use for free - ol' Sergey and Larry's BILLIONS might have to start flowing to the hard working Americans who built out the network. Google's never going to charge, it's just going to have see its ludicrous profit margins decline to share the wealth. And I'm a left leaning progressive democrat - before you go throwing slurs.

How would this work? Does that mean Americans have to pay to access Google but folks in Nigeria get it for free? Its one thing that Americans have to pay dearly to get the best medical treatment and drugs and its another thing to make them pay for a service others (non Americans) get for free. Without free access to information the Congress is going to speed up the third-worldization of the US.

Google != Internet. Usually when I want a search query to fetch me meaningful results I do the search at domain specific sites like webmd, mayoclinic, java.net, smartpages etc. What is up with all these software companies not being liable for the *PAID* products/services they deliver. If I'm paying for it. I want a refund everytime.. 1. I do a Google search and I have to scan over junk links to get to my useful link. 2. A Google search fails to return search results I want or I deem relevant 3. A web page that is accessed through the "special paid net" takes more than 1 second to show up on my browser. Sure I will pay for Google. But can Google and Comcast guarantee the "service and products" they are charging me for? This might all sound absurd but I think the door should swing both ways. If I pay I'm going to expect quality the way I define it. It works that way in retail. In retail I can always return my merchandise. Congress should deliberate all the intricate legalities of what consitutes "service and products" when it comes to search engines.

I think I found a compromise that will satisfy the stated goals of both net neutrality sides. Even better, it should actually work, and work in the consumers' interests. The idea is Tariff Rebate Passthrough -- i.e., the ISP can charge by byte for QOS (but only by byte) and the information service provider (Google) can rebate the costs directly to the consumer (but only to the consumer). This works because it meets the need to pay for differentiated QOS, without letting the telecom companies' control over that payment become actual control over content. I.e., all the good parts of net neutrality are preserved, but there's no need to give something costly away for free. The idea is spelled out at http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/19/net-neutrality-tariff-rebate-passthrough/

I think I found a compromise that will satisfy the stated goals of both net neutrality sides. Even better, it should actually work, and work in the consumers' interests. The idea is Tariff Rebate Passthrough -- i.e., the ISP can charge by byte for QOS (but only by byte) and the information service provider (Google) can rebate the costs directly to the consumer (but only to the consumer). This works because it meets the need to pay for differentiated QOS, without letting the telecom companies' control over that payment become actual control over content. I.e., all the good parts of net neutrality are preserved, but there's no need to give something costly away for free. The idea is spelled out at http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/19/net-neutrality-tariff-rebate-passthrough/