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

[Pogo]

Right, give the government more power to regulate the internet. Sounds real "neutral."

another one who doesnt understand the issue

Bit of advice -- if you're going to actually count the posters who can't be bothered to read the article or ascertain what the issue is before knee-jerk reacting, you're in for a long evening....

 

[Plasmaball]

An Open Internet Is Essential to a Free Internet Why Net Neutrality Should Matter To Everyone Electronic Frontier Foundation

Net Neutrality closes the internet - puts us on the kind of model the Chinese use. Of course that is EXACTLY what you of the left dream of, an Internet where those who work against the aims of the party can be punished.

no it doesnt

 

[Pogo]

He trying to keep a free and open internet so the cable companies don't block what websites you can go to you idiots. Apparently corporations should have that power according to nutters.

Obama is a liar why should we believe anything spewing from his lying sewer mouth?

Poison the well fallacy. Dismissed.

 

[Plasmaball]

Right, give the government more power to regulate the internet. Sounds real "neutral."

another one who doesnt understand the issue

Bit of advice -- if you're going to actually count the posters who can't be bothered to read the article or ascertain what the issue is before knee-jerk reacting, you're in for a long evening....

oh i know....People like Teaparty typically ends up trolling her own threads because she doesnt actually understand the issue at hand

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

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".

Look at your phone bill. Add up the ABSURD government "fees"

THAT is the scam that masquerades as "protection"

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

irrelevant

 

[BlackSand]

Right, give the government more power to regulate the internet. Sounds real "neutral."

another one who doesnt understand the issue

Bit of advice -- if you're going to actually count the posters who can't be bothered to read the article or ascertain what the issue is before knee-jerk reacting, you're in for a long evening....

If you have to wait until everything falls apart before you make excuses why you never saw it coming ... Then you are calm and well studied.

.

 

[Pogo]

Right, give the government more power to regulate the internet. Sounds real "neutral."

another one who doesnt understand the issue

Bit of advice -- if you're going to actually count the posters who can't be bothered to read the article or ascertain what the issue is before knee-jerk reacting, you're in for a long evening....

If you have to wait until everything falls apart before you make excuses why you never saw it coming ... Then you are calm and well studied.

Thank you.

I tire of citing Speculation and Slippery Slope fallacies over and over. I'm going to call this one "Argumentum ad ChickenLittleum".

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

Let's hope the Repubs have the cohones to let Obummer know that, too.

 

[BlackSand]

Right, give the government more power to regulate the internet. Sounds real "neutral."

another one who doesnt understand the issue

Bit of advice -- if you're going to actually count the posters who can't be bothered to read the article or ascertain what the issue is before knee-jerk reacting, you're in for a long evening....

If you have to wait until everything falls apart before you make excuses why you never saw it coming ... Then you are calm and well studied.

Thank you.

I tire of citing Speculation and Slipper Slope fallacies over and over. I'm going to call this one "Argumentum ad ChickenLittleum".

That is a decent speculation ...

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

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".

Look at your phone bill. Add up the ABSURD government "fees"

THAT is the scam that masquerades as "protection"

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

irrelevant

The village welfare leech speaks....

 

[TemplarKormac]

AFTER THE ELECTION of course.

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations on it and protect net neutrality. "The time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do," Obama writes in a statement this morning. "To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility The Verge

You libs can say "calm down, it's just an attempt to regulate broadband!"

Oh that's the Trojan Horse that Democrats will use to justify it. But it won't stop there! DOES IT EVER STOP WITH LIBERALS ONCE THEY TASTE A NEW POWER?

I told you this was coming. Democrats on the FCC made rumblings about this before the election. Well, Democrats LOST badly and they intend to do something about it.

We can't have that darn internet where too much freedom of speech is happening.

NOOOOOOOOO, we have got to 'regulate it."

Oh they will start out with the usual, like taxes and rules.

But then they will demand that we no longer can have nick names on the internet. NO, we MUST have our real names to be on the internet.

That way they KNOW who you are, when you say something Democrats don't like, WHERE THEY CAN FIND YOU!

Expect the audits and other privacy invasions if we say things Der Fuhrer Obama and Der Fuhrer Democrats don't like.

I told you, they would make their move in a thread about a month ago. HERE IT COMES!

Obama goes to the golf course so much, perhaps he should classify his golf clubs and golf cart as a utility.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This got lost in the shuffle. Or ignored.

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

How? Via the FCC

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

If the FCC succeeds in classifying some or all of broadband services as interstate telecommunications services, it would effectively exclude its bureaucratic rivals in both the states and federal government from competing to regulate and to tax the Internet. State and local governments do not have the authority to tax or regulate interstate telecommunications services. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission, which increasingly seeks to regulate the Internet, has no jurisdiction over common carriers or “telecommunications services.”

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This got lost in the shuffle. Or ignored.

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

How? Via the FCC

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

If the FCC succeeds in classifying some or all of broadband services as interstate telecommunications services, it would effectively exclude its bureaucratic rivals in both the states and federal government from competing to regulate and to tax the Internet. State and local governments do not have the authority to tax or regulate interstate telecommunications services. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission, which increasingly seeks to regulate the Internet, has no jurisdiction over common carriers or “telecommunications services.”

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes

Now now, don't be cluing in Pogo or any of the other mindless drones. Leave them in their isolation bubbles least they freak out.

 

[reconmark]

"to protect net neutrality".

I'll bet every one of you either is in favor of net neutrality, or doesn't know what it means.

The o.p. and his supporters are so pathologically stupid it makes my head hurt.

 

[georgephillip]

But then they will demand that we no longer can have nick names on the internet. NO, we MUST have our real names to be on the internet.

When nick names are outlawed, only outlaws will have nick names. Who's your dog in this fight, the FCC or Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon and other corporate-statist?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

"to protect net neutrality".

I'll bet every one of you either is in favor of net neutrality, or doesn't know what it means.

The o.p. and his supporters are so pathologically stupid it makes my head hurt.

Interesting. Kinda makes me wonder just how stupid you are.....

Reading the thread supposedly makes your head hurt, yet here you are extending the content of your supposed misery.

 

[Pogo]

This got lost in the shuffle. Or ignored.

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

How? Via the FCC

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

If the FCC succeeds in classifying some or all of broadband services as interstate telecommunications services, it would effectively exclude its bureaucratic rivals in both the states and federal government from competing to regulate and to tax the Internet. State and local governments do not have the authority to tax or regulate interstate telecommunications services. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission, which increasingly seeks to regulate the Internet, has no jurisdiction over common carriers or “telecommunications services.”

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes

Now now, don't be cluing in Pogo or any of the other mindless drones. Leave them in their isolation bubbles least they freak out.

-- from the assclown who admits he can't even be bothered to read the OP article to figure out what the issue is...

 

[Pogo]

This got lost in the shuffle. Or ignored.

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

How? Via the FCC

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

If the FCC succeeds in classifying some or all of broadband services as interstate telecommunications services, it would effectively exclude its bureaucratic rivals in both the states and federal government from competing to regulate and to tax the Internet. State and local governments do not have the authority to tax or regulate interstate telecommunications services. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission, which increasingly seeks to regulate the Internet, has no jurisdiction over common carriers or “telecommunications services.”

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes

That's better -- at least it rises above all the Speculation/Slippery Slope bullshit.

What the writer's talking about here:

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014.

-- is a universal fee applied to phone companies -- not consumers -- to fund things like LifeLine and internet access in libraries. From the FCC page:

>> Universal service is the principle that all Americans should have access to communications services. Universal service is also the name of a fund and the category of FCC programs and policies to implement this principle. Universal service is a cornerstone of the law that established the FCC, the Communications Act of 1934. Since that time, universal service policies have helped make telephone service ubiquitous, even in remote rural areas. Today, the FCC recognizes high-speed Internet as the 21st Century’s essential communications technology, and is working to make broadband as ubiquitous as voice, while continuing to support voice service. <<
​

-- which however ignores this from the OP article:

>> Obama does leave a significant amount of room for exceptions in the wireless space, potentially allowing some amount of throttling so that providers can manage their networks when under heavy use. Notably, his proposal also asks the FCC not to enforce rate regulations on internet service. <<
​

-- and further, the writer's point hangs tenuously on this conditional phrase that introduces it:

>> One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC. <<
​

"One set of proposals". Despite the FCC making noises of taking a "hybrid" approach (back in the OP article).

Bottom line, this fee applied to telephone companies, whether it would apply to the internet or not, is a fee on service providers, and not a "tax" on consumers. The Universal Service Fund is set up exactly for the benefit of consumers -- those library and school internets.

All of which is beside the point. The question was how does NN find a way to "control", "censor" or "silence" the internet? That's been the raison d'être of this thread since Post 1. And it's got no clothes.

We can't have that darn internet where too much freedom of speech is happening.

NOOOOOOOOO, we have got to 'regulate it."

Oh they will start out with the usual, like taxes and rules.

But then they will demand that we no longer can have nick names on the internet. NO, we MUST have our real names to be on the internet.

A subsequent post:

Well they got control of our health care so of course the commies want to control the Internet.

will the people rise up and stop them? to be seen

Another:

Yeah, because Obama taking over healthcare went so well.

What's to fear about him taking over the internet, right?????????

Yet another:

Censuring the internet only favors democrats.

[sic]

Then there was this guy:

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.

I asked him to show where the FCC ever "censored" anything. I got the usual and expected crickets.

 

[SwimExpert]

Now what?

Now you've again shown your incredibly low intellect. And maturity level. Hope you finally feel like a man, now.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wanna know how gullibly stupid Pogo is?
From his post: is a universal fee applied to phone companies -- not consumers -

And he's dumb enough to believe it