Here it comes! Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[CrusaderFrank]

So which one is it? The left is lying that it happened and AT&T is lying about it too? You're on both sides.

AT&T denies that they censored anything. Since in the 8 years after this event there is no other occurrence, I would tend to believe them. You seek to place state, and ergo party control on the Internet. You and the leftist hate sites doing your thinking for you have a strong incentive to lie and hype - AT&T does not.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. Just because someone has an excuse doesnt change the fact that it happened....just like you said it doesnt

You gave a false one.

If AT&T didn't do it - than it is irrelevant, This is no different than a mod here moving a post.

On a related matter, Obama uses the NSA to spy on everyone and uses the IRS against his enemies, aka: Republicans

 

[CrusaderFrank]

oh fuck!

Know what the problem really is?

Da po' can't afford an IP Address!!!

 

[Roadrunner]

Are you saying that the Internet should not be regulated? Are you saying that Internet freedom is "safer" in corporate hands?

I am.

Fuck the government, they fuck up everything they touch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

oh fuck!

Know what the problem really is?

Da po' can't afford an IP Address!!!

Find someone passionate about Net Neutrality and you'll find someone illegally downloading media - every last time.

Amazon and NetFlix have reached agreements are are paying for the bandwidth they consume, the ONLY ones throwing a hissy are the punks on the Bit Torrents.

 

[Roadrunner]

If you like the fact that you're paying 100 bucks a month, or around that, for your cable's 200 channels of CRAP 90% of which you don't even want,

by all means, give those sorts of companies more power of internet service and pricing.

So, this is about more redistribution of wealth to the unproductive class, I see.

 

[boedicca]

Slate published an excellent parody of how the internet would have developed if the FCC has regulated it. I wonder if they will now editorialize against Obama's maneuver to squash freedom on the web.


In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users "log on" to communicate via "e-mail" and "chat rooms," make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are "walled gardens" that don't allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publically regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

The FCC ignores the standalone Internet because nobody but academics, scientists, and some government bodies go there. So do the online services, which don't offer Internet access.

"Regulating the Internet would make as much sense as regulating inter-office mail at Michigan State University," says the FCC chairman. "The online services are the future of cyberspace."

The online companies protest and vow to sue the FCC, but the heavily Democratic Congress moots the suits by passing new legislation giving the commission oversight of the online world.

The FCC immediately determines that the lack of interoperability among the online systems harms consumers and orders that each company submit a technical framework by January 1994 under which all online companies will unify to one shared technology in the near future. The precedent for this are the technical standards that the FCC has been setting for decades for AM and FM, and for television. The online services threaten legal action again, and again Congress passes new legislation authorizing the FCC to do as it wishes. The online companies hustle to submit a technical framework. Microsoft wants in on the game, so it persuades the FCC to extend the framework deadline to July 1995.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, Tim Berners-Lee has invented the first Internet browser—"WorldWideWeb," he calls it. The Internet continues to creep along on campuses as a marginalized academic/scientific network used mostly for e-mail. A college student at the University of Illinois named Marc Andreessen helps write a more sophisticated graphical browser, which is released to little fanfare in 1993. When Andreessen leaves his graduate school program, he can't get a job in his field of computer sciences and takes a position as a night manager at a Taco Bell. He spends his spare time repairing broken Macintoshes.

In late 1993, AOL and Delphi become the first online services to offer the Internet. The FCC orders both to drop the feature until the FCC's labs approve it.

"We can't have the online industry pushing out beta software on unsuspecting customers willy-nilly. Such software could compromise the users' computers, interfere with other users' computers, or crash the whole online world," the FCC chairman says....

If the FCC had regulated the Internet A counterfactual history of cyberspace.

 

[Roadrunner]

If you like the fact that you're paying 100 bucks a month, or around that, for your cable's 200 channels of CRAP 90% of which you don't even want,

by all means, give those sorts of companies more power of internet service and pricing.

I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE TO DO THAT!

I love how hypocritical you liberals are.

You don't care that OBAMA FORCES YOU TO PAY THAT AND MORE FOR HIS EXPENSIVE HEALTHCARE OR FACE IRS FINES.

But the idea that we have the FREEDOM to decide what prices we pay on internet.

OH WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Liberals care about freedom? That's a riot!

Libs with time to be on the 'net hours on end are all about freebies.

And this is about creating a new benefit for the dependent classes.

Soon, computers will be a "human right", and the libs will be giving them away to the dependents too.

 

[Roadrunner]

If you like the fact that you're paying 100 bucks a month, or around that, for your cable's 200 channels of CRAP 90% of which you don't even want,

by all means, give those sorts of companies more power of internet service and pricing.

I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE TO DO THAT!

I love how hypocritical you liberals are.

You don't care that OBAMA FORCES YOU TO PAY THAT AND MORE FOR HIS EXPENSIVE HEALTHCARE OR FACE IRS FINES.

But the idea that we have the FREEDOM to decide what prices we pay on internet.

OH WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Liberals care about freedom? That's a riot!

Libs with time to be on the 'net hours on end are all about freebies.

And this is about creating a new benefit for the dependent classes.

Soon, computers will be a "human right", and the libs will be giving them away to the dependents too.

 

[Londoner]

As a utility the Internet cannot be monopolized by a handful of politically connected corporations. The cost will go down because the taxpayer won't have to support a functionless rentier class that raises costs and decreases services because they don't have competition. This is why water and electricity were so cheap before they were increasingly privatized and monopolized.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As a utility the Internet cannot be monopolized by a handful of politically connected corporations. The cost will go down because the taxpayer won't have to support a functionless rentier class that raises costs and decreases services because they don't have competition.

well clearly you don't know anything

 

[BlackSand]

At some point you might want to try reading your own article before you post thinking it says the opposite of what it actually does ---

>> Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

... Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. <<
​

--- your own link.

Imagine say, a broadcast station tightly controlled by corporate commercial interests that strictly controlled the stream of what information and entertainment you get according to what benefits them.

Oh wait -- that's what we already have.

So you want the internet to be like that? Because that's what this approach would try to prevent.

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So which one is it? The left is lying that it happened and AT&T is lying about it too? You're on both sides.

AT&T denies that they censored anything. Since in the 8 years after this event there is no other occurrence, I would tend to believe them. You seek to place state, and ergo party control on the Internet. You and the leftist hate sites doing your thinking for you have a strong incentive to lie and hype - AT&T does not.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. Just because someone has an excuse doesnt change the fact that it happened....just like you said it doesnt

You gave a false one.

If AT&T didn't do it - than it is irrelevant, This is no different than a mod here moving a post.

I get the game you're playing.

Ask for examples then claim every example you said didnt exist is completely understandable.

Welp...heres another one:

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So which one is it? The left is lying that it happened and AT&T is lying about it too? You're on both sides.

AT&T denies that they censored anything. Since in the 8 years after this event there is no other occurrence, I would tend to believe them. You seek to place state, and ergo party control on the Internet. You and the leftist hate sites doing your thinking for you have a strong incentive to lie and hype - AT&T does not.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. Just because someone has an excuse doesnt change the fact that it happened....just like you said it doesnt

You gave a false one.

If AT&T didn't do it - than it is irrelevant, This is no different than a mod here moving a post.

I get the game you're playing.

Ask for examples then claim every example you said didnt exist is completely understandable.

Welp...heres another one:

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I get the game you're playing.

Ask for examples then claim every example you said didnt exist is completely understandable.

Welp...heres another one:

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

The "game" I am playing is dealing with fact.

Text messaging has nothing to do with the Internet or Net Neutrality.

STEEERIKE TWO....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I get the game you're playing.

Ask for examples then claim every example you said didnt exist is completely understandable.

Welp...heres another one:

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

The "game" I am playing is dealing with fact.

Text messaging has nothing to do with the Internet or Net Neutrality.

STEEERIKE TWO....

 

[ClosedCaption]

I get the game you're playing.

Ask for examples then claim every example you said didnt exist is completely understandable.

Welp...heres another one:

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

The "game" I am playing is dealing with fact.

Text messaging has nothing to do with the Internet or Net Neutrality.

STEEERIKE TWO....

But you claimed no service provider ever...nevermind. I can show you all day abuses by service providers (like you claim never happen) and every one you'll say its not real or it doesnt apply.

All you have to do is read any article on the topic. Peace!

 

[Stephanie]

And don't forget they aren't coming for your guns either

Obama is a puke control freak who see $$$$$ signs in everything you LIKE and need

 

[Stephanie]

And don't forget they aren't coming for your guns either

Obama is a puke control freak who see $$$$$ signs in everything you LIKE and need

 

[Stephanie]

And don't forget they aren't coming for your guns either

Obama is a puke control freak who see $$$$$ signs in everything you LIKE and need

 

[Stephanie]

And don't forget they aren't coming for your guns either

Obama is a puke control freak who see $$$$$ signs in everything you LIKE and need

 

[Stephanie]

And don't forget they aren't coming for your guns either

Obama is a puke control freak who see $$$$$ signs in everything you LIKE and need