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

[Uncensored2008]

So, would you do that with individual users?

No, this is about classes of service, not individuals. Essentially, the large backbones have demanded that content rich services pay a premium or have their bandwidth capped. In 2011, Verizon put a limit on the data Amazon Prime could sent over it's switches, then downgraded the speed for further data streams. This destroyed the ability to steam movies. They threatened to do the same to Netfilx, unless they ponied up the cash. Netflix is business, any increase they pay WILL be passed on to consumers, but too bad - Verizon is a business too.

Someone who uses the internet heavily (gamers and movie-watchers) should pay more than someone who uses it lightly? Or providing faster service for those who pay more (which kind of already happens, but that's a function of how one gets their internet, not simply how much they pay)?

Instead, those content rich providers, such as Blizzard, who run massive game server farms are having to pay for the traffic they create - which is exactly as it should be.

I'm new to the subject, I've already admitted it, UnC. But I'm also not going to wet my pants because someone uses the words "government regulation."

This is a typical situation where what the left claims is far from the reality of the situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, and nothing to do with the end user. This is a question of charging services for bandwidth used. Netflix and Blizzard are going to pay more - bit torrents are going to be capped (which is the real concern of leftists, who steal most of their media)

Some think that others should pay their way, and are trying to get Washington to enforce that for them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Am I living in your head for free? Three posts in a row about me while I'm not even here?

I don't swing that way dood.

You held yourself up as the poster-Socialist on the issue, so be proud that I accepted your offer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Technology changes quickly. I do know that much.

Not when government gets involved.

 

[Pogo]

Am I living in your head for free? Three posts in a row about me while I'm not even here?

I don't swing that way dood.

You held yourself up as the poster-Socialist on the issue, so be proud that I accepted your offer.

I didn't use either the term "socialism" or "monopoly", or "progressive", nor did I post any of that shit you plugged in.

Fatter o' mact I hadn't even posted here today at all. You're obsession is more than a little weird. Wassamatta? Still crying over Rachel Carson?

 

[asterism]

Hey I cant get onto USMessageboard anymore, what happened?
Company: That site hasnt paid to be fast so we dont offer it anymore.
How do I get it back because I like going to that site to debate.
Company: Find someone who carries it fast for free or play by our rules. You can always go to another site. How about the Huffington Post message board? Its faster because they paid to be faster

If that were happening now you might have a point but since it isn't there's no reason to change things now.

Technology changes quickly. I do know that much.

It changes faster to benefit consumers when there isn't micromanaging regulations.

I have no idea why someone's torrents should be mandated by the government to be equal to someone else's Netflix. High-bandwidth users should pay more, otherwise we all pay more for mediocre service.

 

[Lakhota]

Regardless of how one gets there (high-speed or dial-up) - the Internet should be the same for all who arrive there.

 

[asterism]

Regardless of how one gets there (high-speed or dial-up) - the Internet should be the same for all who arrive there.

Why?

Traffic shaping is completely legitimate. Email doesn't need to have the same priority as video, and neither need to have the same priority as http requests, VOIP, or bulk file transfer.

Priority pricing is legitimate also, it allows for those who desire the services the most to be the ones that pay for it. Would you be happy paying $100 per month for basic web and email to compensate for someone next door who runs 20 game servers?

 

[CowboyTed]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

The guys who seem to talk about freedom all the time have to see some hypocrisy here. Comcast could basically tax Ebay and Amazon (which is unlikely because they will pay) but the mom and pop internet businesses would be the ones to suffer.

Net Neturality is about stopping that type of practice. They tried to do it the nice way but lost in court. Net Neutrality is about fairness, who do you think has to enforce that fairness. Self Regulation is a joke.
Do you support someone in Comcast telling you what you can and can not surf to.

Sorry lads but if there is going to be fairness then it has to be enforceable. That is the governments job.

Are we going to be hearing from these guys how Liberals control the internet providers and every page you try and surf to you get an ad for a democrat and hey lets ban all conservative sights and redirect you to liberal ones.

I have just spent a week on an Island where the Internet is controlled. Turn on a VPN, Blocked in 5 minutes, Want to watch a game (on a legal site) sorry nope cause they had a TV package they wanted you to buy too, Degraded skype for days(also a phone company) while Goto Meeting was fine.... Hey if they don't like your company pull them off or degrade their internet access.... They even make mistakes and start banning sites for no particular reason, nearly impossible to find out who was doing it and why. Heard rumours that if find a guy and give him a few quid he would make sure you were alright.
I have worked in many Telecoms companies and the stuff that can be done and the power they can yield. Degrading an online bank so customers move to another, You are making this stuff legal.

 

[boedicca]

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?!?!

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

 

[boedicca]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

 

[Pogo]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

There's absolutely nothing in these various proposals that gives government any control over, or even access to, internet content. It would just set down rules about how that content may or may not be handled preferentially.

 

[Pogo]

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?!?!

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

Of course. I can see the line on my phone bill.
But that's not what the poster claimed. What Jaraxle's trying to do -- on a post that wasn't even his-- is change what the poster said and then claim my documentation disproving what he actually DID say -- is wrong. Which is as dishonest as it gets.

 

[boedicca]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

I wouldn't count on that, bub.

 

[Pogo]

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?!?!

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

Of course. I can see the line on my phone bill.
But that's not what the poster claimed.

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

I wouldn't count on that, bub.

Well, that's why I've been challenging anybody to show where that door is opened. And no one can, because it doesn't exist.

Diga me amiga...
What's the difference between on the one hand Bob Bowdler (who works for the government) redirecting, manipulating, or blocking your internet activity, and on the other hand Bob Bowdler (who works for XZY ISP) redirecting, manipulating, or blocking your internet activity? Are you not redirected/manipulated/blocked either way?

 

[boedicca]

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?!?!

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

Of course. I can see the line on my phone bill.
But that's not what the poster claimed.

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

I wouldn't count on that, bub.

Well, that's why I've been challenging anybody to show where that door is opened. And no one can, because it doesn't exist.

You can't see what giving the FCC power to regulate the internet and apply the Fairness Doctrine would do to free speech on the internet?

 

[CowboyTed]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Red what Net Neutrality is about. The Government doesn't block sites, simple.

If there is a problem it could make it harder to quell virus attacks and removing child porn. But a reasonable framework of common sense should make that avoidable.

In the early days of the internet we had this in Ireland (call technical issues), certain Banks got preferred treatment as with certain media sites... Are you happy with a completely faceless unaccountable guy making these decisions which you will have no right to appeal to or if it happens(and it is rare, Child porn is the biggest reason) then the decision can be appealed properly.

 

[boedicca]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Red what Net Neutrality is about. The Government doesn't block sites, simple.

If there is a problem it could make it harder to quell virus attacks and removing child porn. But a reasonable framework of common sense should make that avoidable.

In the early days of the internet we had this in Ireland (call technical issues), certain Banks got preferred treatment as with certain media sites... Are you happy with a completely faceless unaccountable guy making these decisions which you will have no right to appeal to or if it happens(and it is rare, Child porn is the biggest reason) then the decision can be appealed properly.

I'm really tired of the Child Porn canard being used to keep people from engaging in free speech on the internet.

 

[ricechickie]

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

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

Of course. I can see the line on my phone bill.
But that's not what the poster claimed.

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

I wouldn't count on that, bub.

Well, that's why I've been challenging anybody to show where that door is opened. And no one can, because it doesn't exist.

You can't see what giving the FCC power to regulate the internet and apply the Fairness Doctrine would do to free speech on the internet?

Who said anything about the Fairness Doctrine?

 

[Pogo]

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

Dipshit disputed that the fee was "applied to phone companies and not consumers".
So I proved and documented that it, in fact, is applied to phone companies and not consumers. Which documentation is sitting right there above these words. In bold.

Are you illiterate?

Silly widdle Pogo. All fees charged to Phone Companies end up being passed through to consumers via the rates and fees they charge them. The Phone Companies don't eat those fees.

Of course. I can see the line on my phone bill.
But that's not what the poster claimed.

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Yes it is, China being a ready example.

But that's got nothing to do with the issue here. It's wholly unrelated.

I wouldn't count on that, bub.

Well, that's why I've been challenging anybody to show where that door is opened. And no one can, because it doesn't exist.

You can't see what giving the FCC power to regulate the internet and apply the Fairness Doctrine would do to free speech on the internet?

The Fairness Doctrine was dumped decades ago. And when it was in play, it had no effect on free speech on the airwaves except to ensure it had a chance to breathe.

For example, when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his exposé on Joe McCarthy, the Senator invoked the Fairness Doctrine and requested time to rebut. In response he was given an entire show to do so, which was made a certainty by the FD. Without it, CBS could have refused.

For an analogy, imagine this message board routinely deleted any posts by, say, right wingers and let the rest stand. That's what the FD prevented from happening.


And the current proposals don't "regulate the internet" -- they would regulate ISPs. Big difference.

 

[CowboyTed]

Well it is nice of some of the people here wanting to support corporates like Comcast effectively being allowed to:
Redirect Sites (i.e. Comcast could redirect Google to there own search engine)
Block Sites
Place ads anytime they like
.....

And many other things...

That's funny. Blocking sites is commonly done when the Internet is controlled by a Government.

Red what Net Neutrality is about. The Government doesn't block sites, simple.

If there is a problem it could make it harder to quell virus attacks and removing child porn. But a reasonable framework of common sense should make that avoidable.

In the early days of the internet we had this in Ireland (call technical issues), certain Banks got preferred treatment as with certain media sites... Are you happy with a completely faceless unaccountable guy making these decisions which you will have no right to appeal to or if it happens(and it is rare, Child porn is the biggest reason) then the decision can be appealed properly.

I'm really tired of the Child Porn canard being used to keep people from engaging in free speech on the internet.

So you are the pro Child porn industry... Like why shouldn't a 9 year old be allowed to make a few bucks....