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

[reconmark]

Was it your purpose to showcase your ignorance of the topic or simply showcase you ignorance???

 

[Uncensored2008]

This site is not a Common Carrier. Analogy fails.

Nor is the "Blue Room" a "common carrier," though this was your (actually the leftist hate sites) example of "censorship" by the evil corporations.

Most of those in here are utterly ignorant of technology, including you . On a backbone level, I can block ports, i can block sockets, I can block domain registrations. I can't block based on content, because on the backbone, I don't know what the content is. The ISP can (and should) block content, but your common carrier claim is ignorant and fails

I realize to you, more government is always better, total government is perfect, thus you seek to hand the internet over to the folks that gave us telephone service in the 1970's - when a call to the next city over cost several dollars - the FCC.

No thanks.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

You ignored this part:

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.

I'm not ok for an independent agency such as the FCC to go around congress and whack huge-assed fees. Regardless of how it's spun by the left, we the people will end up paying for it. Always. You seem to not be bothered that the gov't whacks businesses with such fees but oh noez! businesses (which we can use or not, our choice) pass it along to us and it's a crime.

As for the 'government taking over the internet'? Not my ballywick.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Guilty.

I didn't know what it means, and upon finding out, I'm pretty much in favor of it.

Because more government is better, total government is perfect?

 

[ricechickie]

Guilty.

I didn't know what it means, and upon finding out, I'm pretty much in favor of it.

Because more government is better, total government is perfect?

Because unchecked corporations would charge for each liter of oxygen you use, if given half a chance. And your solution would be, "get a job, and don't breathe beyond your means."

 

[Zoom-boing]

One point about the end of net neutrality that might resonate with some of you clowns around here:

Why You Could Have To Pay More For Online Gaming Soon

The entire article is based on "could happens", "maybes" and "what ifs", including the title. Reminds me of those who've been screaming for the past six years 'obama is going to declare martial law and take all your guns!'. Yeah.

"Proponents of net neutrality say this is bad news. Nothing will happen right away, and the debate will likely continue for months and years to come, but without legislation protecting net neutrality, there's nothing to stop, say, Comcast from deciding that hey, Netflix uses way too much bandwidth, and if they want the same speeds as every other website, they're going to have to pay a premium. Now, if Netflix has to pay more to your cable company, guess who foots the bill? (You.)"

And YOU can choose to say 'screw you, Comcast, I'm not paying'. And when enough people do this, Comcast will stop charging more. Or another alternative will arise. Or, perhaps those things that use a bunch more bandwith should pay more ... because they're using more.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals are too dumb to figure out something as complicated as the Internet, let Obama do it for them

 

[boedicca]

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.

You ignored this part:

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.

I'm not ok for an independent agency such as the FCC to go around congress and whack huge-assed fees. Regardless of how it's spun by the left, we the people will end up paying for it. Always. You seem to not be bothered that the gov't whacks businesses with such fees but oh noez! businesses (which we can use or not, our choice) pass it along to us and it's a crime.

As for the 'government taking over the internet'? Not my ballywick.

It's a way to enforce content censorship. High fees will drive out small content providers and lead to an MSM of the internets. That's what the Prog elite want: to go back to the days of a media Oligarch through which they funneled unchallenged propaganda.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Da Po' can't a-ford no internetz

hey do you need ID to sign up with an Internet provider?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because unchecked corporations would charge for each liter of oxygen you use, if given half a chance. And your solution would be, "get a job, and don't breathe beyond your means."

Corporations cannot do anything without the consent of government,

Socialists like Pogo like to spew idiocy about "monopoly" and how if government doesn't run the internet we all will perish. Of course Pogo would like government to dictate what we have for dinner and when we may use the bathroom.

In the Los Angeles area there are 7 groups with internet backbones, AT&T, TW Telecom. Level 3, Verizon, Charter, Time Warner, and Covad. Full disclaimer, Time Warner has merged backbone services with Charter. Level 3 is in the process of swallowing TW Telecom. That will leave 5 - now be aware that I am talking backbone, not local loop or ISP - there are literally thousands of those, CLECs mostly - riding on the fiber and copper of another carrier.

So a good socialist like Pogo puts his hands on his hips and says "well see, soon only 5 companies will have backbones." EXCEPT the fact that this IS still a free nation, ergo we have innovators like Broadband Internet Service Provider T1 DS3 Fiber Internet who came out of left field and offer internet with no need to hit regional backbones.

You see, as long as there is a market, competition will keep prices down and quality up - if Pogo and the rotters win, then we will sink into a situation that is similar to the government monopoly of AT&T on telephone service in the 70's - high cost with no service.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a way to enforce content censorship. High fees will drive out small content providers and lead to an MSM of the internets. That's what the Prog elite want: to go back to the days of a media Oligarch through which they funneled unchallenged propaganda.

So far this is driven by those who seek Warez - they fear that connections to Bit Torrents - a file sharing technology used to illegally download movies and music - will be throttled. That priority will be given to hospitals and police departments, when they haven't stolen the latest Hunger Games film yet. NO FAIR.

Content really can't be censored at the backbone level. The lies that CC and Pogo post are just that, lies. Censoring Eddie Vedder in "Blue Room" is no different than moving a post here.

 

[ricechickie]

From what I've read, it's not about monopoly, but about making sure that internet providers don't decide to "parcel up" services, like charging more for Facebook or twitter or whatever other site is popular and can be considered "premium." Like cable and dish companies currently do.

 

[Plasmaball]

Don't forget folks.

we must all now be PUNISHED for rejecting him and party of comrades in arms. This is just the Beginning

fema camps!!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

One point about the end of net neutrality that might resonate with some of you clowns around here:

Why You Could Have To Pay More For Online Gaming Soon

The entire article is based on "could happens", "maybes" and "what ifs", including the title. Reminds me of those who've been screaming for the past six years 'obama is going to declare martial law and take all your guns!'. Yeah.

"Proponents of net neutrality say this is bad news. Nothing will happen right away, and the debate will likely continue for months and years to come, but without legislation protecting net neutrality, there's nothing to stop, say, Comcast from deciding that hey, Netflix uses way too much bandwidth, and if they want the same speeds as every other website, they're going to have to pay a premium. Now, if Netflix has to pay more to your cable company, guess who foots the bill? (You.)"

And YOU can choose to say 'screw you, Comcast, I'm not paying'. And when enough people do this, Comcast will stop charging more. Or another alternative will arise. Or, perhaps those things that use a bunch more bandwith should pay more ... because they're using more.

Netflix already agreed to pay up to Comcast.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From what I've read, it's not about monopoly, but about making sure that internet providers don't decide to "parcel up" services, like charging more for Facebook or twitter or whatever other site is popular and can be considered "premium." Like cable and dish companies currently do.

It's not Facebook and Twitter, it's Netflix and Amazon Prime. The massive bandwidth eaters were paying nothing for riding on the backbones of the primes.

Can you come up with any rational reason that Netflix should NOT have to pay for the bandwidth they consume?

It's just like buying gas, if you use more, you pay more. I realize that most of the progressives here would outlaw private cars and force everyone on government run public transportation, but you understand the analogy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Netflix already agreed to pay up to Comcast.

Shouldn't they?

They consume some 80% of ALL backbone bandwidth.

 

[asterism]

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!

Remember the 90's? Remember the big fight to deregulate cable? Remember how the cable companies claimed it would result in much more competition, better choices, more value,

for YOU? Well, it passed.

How'd that work out for you?

I do have three companies competing to deliver TV service in my area and they offer about 10 times the number of channels as was offered by the one government-regulated monopoly in my area.

So not too bad.

 

[asterism]

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

And how would this proposal do that, Steph?

Aye --- there's the rub.

The anti-Obama reflex mechanism in these people kicks in independently of that thinking mechanism on their shoulders,

assuming they have the latter.

Yeah, because Obama taking over healthcare went so well.

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

You can now get insurance despite your pre-existing condition of dementia. You should be grateful.

At least research net neutrality. You might change your mind.

The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj

Facts and reality only confuse Pogo and the other Progressives....

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

It's because I got off my ass and read about it.
Since you're so helpless, here ya go:

>> Who Pays for Universal Service?
All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. <<
​

-- what you miss by not bothering to read. Dumbass.

Whether or not it is itemized on the bill, the consumers pay EVERY CENT of it! God and goddess, are you STUPID?!?!