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

[SwimExpert]

What many people seem to not know, or perhaps they're simply ignoring, is that the FCC already has regulatory control over the internet. It always has. This is a question of categorization. Should the internet be placed in Column A or Column B?

Ideally, the internet should not be changed, nor any regulations changed, with net neutrality being preserved. But that seems to be an impossibility. Classifying the internet as a utility would actually create more regulatory stability. Amazingly (or maybe predictably in these modern times), it seems the FCC is currently preparing to establish new rules that will destroy net neutrality, and be a huge weight around the necks of small businesses.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/opini...wick-net-neutrality/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

[Mustang]

Just keep your fucking paws off the Internet!

Again Frank - Explain.

Frank wants to pay more for his internet. He wants the 'free market' to pick his pocket.

It continues to dumbfound me how the same voices that rail against "big gummint infringement" turn around and have no issue at all with Corporatia doing exactly the same thing.

I can change the channel. I can change internet providers. I can buy different products.

Not around here you can't.

As long as that's the case the consumer needs some kind of protection. The same reason you can't sell snake oil and claim it cures cancer. The same reason we have more phone choices than AT&T. There was a time when that wasn't the case.

But feel free to step right up and explain, where everyone else failed, how a prohibition of censorship amounts to "government intrusion".

Well, if the gov't ever passes a law that says a person can be prosecuted for posting lies on the Internet, two groups of people will be in BIG trouble. Teenage girls, and conservatives.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How do you libs feel about Obama holding this off until after the election? More of his dirty tricks. You people are chumps!

 

[SwimExpert]

How do you libs feel about Obama holding this off until after the election? More of his dirty tricks. You people are chumps!

Not likely. This is more of a populist move. If this were a political stunt, I'd expect to see it before the elections.

 

[Rotagilla]

america is getting very tired of his unilateral decision making.... picking and choosing which laws he will uphold and which he will ignore...tired of him ramming policies through that HE wants, with no regard for what we want...
This country is finished anyway, but after the collapse and partitioning american patriots will make sure some intense corrections are made.

 

[Rotagilla]

What many people seem to not know, or perhaps they're simply ignoring, is that the FCC already has regulatory control over the internet. It always has. This is a question of categorization. Should the internet be placed in Column A or Column B?

Ideally, the internet should not be changed, nor any regulations changed, with net neutrality being preserved. But that seems to be an impossibility. Classifying the internet as a utility would actually create more regulatory stability. Amazingly (or maybe predictably in these modern times), it seems the FCC is currently preparing to establish new rules that will destroy net neutrality, and be a huge weight around the necks of small businesses.

Will the FCC ruin the Internet Opinion - CNN.com

The american people didn't ask him to do anything with the internet....or with their healthcare...or to bail out GM...or to bail out AIG..or to bail out wall street....or to grant amnesty to illegals....the narcissist manchurian muslim took all that on himself so he could utilize the Cloward-Pivens strategy and "fundamentally change" the nation he hates. (the one our white forefathers built.)


this country is finished anyway....but after the breakup and partitioning then there will be some "fundamental changes"...and they'll be "intense", too.

 

[SwimExpert]

Guy, if you don't want to bother reading what I say, don't bother posting replies that quote me.

 

[Rotagilla]

Guy, if you don't want to bother reading what I say, don't bother posting replies that quote me.

I'm not particularly concerned with what you say and I'll post anything I like whenever I like.
Now what?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Again Frank - Explain.

Frank wants to pay more for his internet. He wants the 'free market' to pick his pocket.

It continues to dumbfound me how the same voices that rail against "big gummint infringement" turn around and have no issue at all with Corporatia doing exactly the same thing.

I can change the channel. I can change internet providers. I can buy different products.

Not around here you can't.

As long as that's the case the consumer needs some kind of protection. The same reason you can't sell snake oil and claim it cures cancer. The same reason we have more phone choices than AT&T. There was a time when that wasn't the case.

But feel free to step right up and explain, where everyone else failed, how a prohibition of censorship amounts to "government intrusion".

Well, if the gov't ever passes a law that says a person can be prosecuted for posting lies on the Internet, two groups of people will be in BIG trouble. Teenage girls, and conservatives.

Lol

 

[Wyld Kard]

Obama's problem is he never knows when to shut his hateful and ugly mouth

He can go to hell he isn't running the show anymore

He can go to hell he isn't running the show anymore

He never really ran the show at all.

Obama is nothing more then a puppet for the corrupt globalists and international bankers.

Dance little puppet, dance!

 

[Stephanie]

I hope if he gets his grubby greedy hands on it, it hurts those who voted for him THE WORST

would serve them right

 

[Rotagilla]

Obama's problem is he never knows when to shut his hateful and ugly mouth

He can go to hell he isn't running the show anymore

He can go to hell he isn't running the show anymore

He never really ran the show at all.

Obama is nothing more then a puppet for the corrupt globalists and international bankers.

Dance little puppet, dance!

....but along with doing their bidding, he never misses an opportunity to take his racial envy, resentment and jealousy out on evil colonialist america. ..and the perpetually aggrieved minorities fall right in with him. all good, though.

there will be a backlash one day.

 

[Pogo]

Not an answer, is it?

Of course it's an answer. The government sticks their god damn greedy paws into my wallet every time I pay my cell phone bill. If that isn't government intrusion to you I can't help you

Another wag that didn't bother to read the article.

-- where in any of that is any kind of "greedy paws in your wallet"? Where do you see any "absurd government fees" out of this? Where's any reference to fees or taxes at all?

Where?

As I said --- not an answer, is it?

You are the fool here buddy. The government has NEVER gotten involved in anything that didn't cost the consumers in the end. Just because you're a sucker that falls for the pitch doesn't mean everyone else is. And we haven't even touched on the possibilities of future censorship.
I remember democrats trying to pass some kind of parity bullshit not that long ago.

Give an inch they will take a mile......scratch that, they'll steal your car & drive a dozen miles.

So you have no answer, can't show your basis and have nothing. Just say it.

Try reading the article next time before you dig yourself into a hole.

I haven't, nor do I need to read the article. The government is tasked with protecting me from our enemies not my fucking cable company. Uncle Sam needs to butt the fuck out & leave capitalism alone.

Yeah actually you do need to read it. Might keep you from looking this degree of stoopid.

You actually think security is the only function of government huh? Let the FAA know that next time you get on a plane. Let the FDA know next time Squibb wants you to take their new drug. Let your passengers know why you can't use the roads to get from point A to B. Rotsa ruck there, Simplisticon.

 

[Pogo]

You're right, lets wait until that happens THEN fight it.

What he's saying is Sure it doesnt say anything like what I'm telling you but trust me its going to happen

Your words, they contradict.

Let's fight and give government power over the interwebz cause corporations might do bad things.

Don't fight net neutrality because government will have more power and will keep reaching.

No the corporations said in details what their plans are and none of it leaving the internet alone BUT I cant blame you for not paying attention to things that are actually said since you have a shit ton of time to imagine Obama wants and desires.

If you think the internet should be changed then you are against net neutrality. Period

Which is sweet irony, since he (they) could have used the internets to figure this shit out in the first place...

 

[Pogo]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Kinda like the way you're unable to navigate the OP article on your own, innit?

 

[Pogo]

Before you go on, I would like one of you communists to show ANY data stream throttled to below 2010 standards (2mbps) by any major carrier?

I dont know about the 2mbps thing but here is a list of abuses

Broadband providers have both the incentive and the ability to interfere with the Internet. That hasn't stopped network neutrality opponents from claiming that the threat is "theoretical," or that applying time-honored common carrier principles to the Internet is a "solution in search of a problem." In fact, there have already been numerous incidents of abuse:

AT&T's jamming of a rock star's political protest. During an August 2007 performance by the rock group Pearl Jam in Chicago, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder's performance. The ISP, which was responsible for streaming the concert, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home." By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied viewers the complete exclusive coverage they were promised. Although Vedder's words contained no profanity, an AT&T spokesperson claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being exposed to "excessive profanity." AT&T then blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor hired to screen the performance, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of Vedder's appearance online.

Of course AT&T denies this ever happened, but that doesn't stop the left from issuing the claim.

Like claims of Sarah Palin claiming to see Russia, this is a hate site staple that flies in the face of reality.

{
But AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said the edit was a mistake made by webcast contractor Davie-Brown Entertainment. AT&T's Blue Room has no age restrictions, and it does operate with a slight delay to edit out excessive profanity and "wardrobe malfunctions", Coe said. But editing politically-themed lyrics during a song violates AT&T policy, he added.

AT&T is working on including the complete performance on Blue Room and is taking steps to make sure such editing doesn't happen again, Coe said.

"We are not happy at all that this was done," he said. "We regret that it did happen."}

AT T denies censoring Pearl Jam - News - Macworld UK

Even with this bogus charge, the hate sites had to dig back 8 years to come up with anything.

Censorship is censorship. What the fuck does it matter what the date was?
You lost the point, Pothead. Deal with it.

 

[Ava]

The FCC should never ever be able to touch anything involving the internet. All we need is for them to get their censoring paws on it and pffft! away it goes.

Well that is the Democrat's intentions, you can be sure.

They want their monopoly back. The monopoly they had when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no Fox News, no internet and they controlled what came on the news on only three Networks.

They will do their all to try to make that happen.

The only thing that stops them is US.

Don't depend on that Republican victory to stop them.

Republicans will sit on their hands if we let them.

We are going to have to raise HELL with them to make them stop this.

They only really do the right thing when we make them worry about their cushy jobs.

Yes, a round-about-way to kill off Fox News but it won't happen. Barry is now all about trying radical measures to keep his base happy for `16 when they hope Elizabeth Warren will be their nominee. Fat chance. She can never raise the money. Hillary has that power if she isn't too afraid to fail twice.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Censorship is censorship. What the fuck does it matter what the date was?
You lost the point, Pothead. Deal with it.

This site censors stuff all the time Huffer, every time a post is moved or deleted, or a poster banned. Is it your claim the federal government should stop Avg-Joe from banning conservative posters? Should the FCC dictate to Cereal-Killer what posts can be moved?

*I* lost the point? I think you're having more Rachel Carson delusions.

 

[Pogo]

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 ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Kinda like the way you're unable to navigate the OP article on your own, innit?

I didn't try to navigate the article dumbass. No interest in it.

Go smoke a dick loser