The equal time rule doesn't work as it is. Basically all it covers is 'face time', and the effect is that there is no 'face time'. You don't see a candidate just hold a press conference and be on the air, because the network would be required to provide equal access.

What you see is networks with a preference that invite supporters of candidate A on their news talk shows to discuss the 'scandals plaguing candidate B' (or vice versa), since equal time only applies to the candidates not their surrogates.

You see candidates clipped to the 'newsworthy' sound bite, which will be either a favorable or unfavorable edit as determined by the network's orientation.

Allowing controls on access in the fluid environment of the internet will no doubt create even greater opportunities for abuse.

I don't use the internet for much. Gameinformer, some forums, news sites, and a few other things (like Gamefaqs and Amazon). I can live without most of the internet so....

Sounds like Hughesnet (satellite internet in general, but Hughesnet is the worst). You have limited bandwidth except between 2:00 AM - 7:00 AM. So a few 5 minute Youtube videos and you have eaten all your bandwidth for the day and have to wait 2 days before you can watch a few more. Unless you pay $5 for your bandwidth to be replenished.

I can honestly live without most of the internet as well honestly since I don't do much... (Facebook, Deviantart, and forums are basically what I do).

This is what I am more worried about honestly.

Unfortunately there is a stronger force at work here: Capitalism

This is why having Digital Rights Management (DRM) copy protection client software is stupid and this is why physical boxed versions of the console versions and the PC versions of video games should still be sold and 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free.

Because if this takes off and the Supreme Court also strikes it down or Congress strikes it down like the Federal Court you can kiss console gaming, steam, online gaming, and any other digital website bye bye.

It essentially means that ISP's want to "double-dip" charging for their services. They charge you for bandwidth and then they want to charge providers of internet services for you to use the bandwidth that you already paid for.

It's like if you had to buy your driveway from a "driveway provider." This provider builds and maintains your driveway and you pay a monthly fee to use it. Then, let's say you like to go to Home Depot a lot. Even though you're already paying for your driveway, they want Home Depot to pay because you use your driveway to go to Home Depot a lot.

IMO it makes no sense...you're already paying to use your driveway as much as you want (or a certain number of times per month depending on your contract/plan). It shouldn't matter where you're heading in your car once you leave your driveway, but that's what the ISP's are trying to do. It's classic double-dipping, and IMO it should not be allowed.

As others have said, what this will amount to is higher prices to use the services that the ISP's want to charge. Your ISP will essentially be charging you twice for your bandwidth, albeit indirectly.

Theres a few things this society has now that you can just not take away.. I see this as a bad idea and if they don't want some menacing mob mentality throughout the country, they probably should undue what they just did. People like their freedom, most of the time, when freedoms are lost they aren't noticed.. I think this is very noticeable, and a power grab that the public shouldn't turn a blind eye towards. Who passed this anyway? The supreme court?