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

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Exactly!! Then you are FOR NET NEUTRALITY!!

Changing the internet to match the example I provided is being AGAINST Net Neutrality!

 

[Stephanie]

Call your Reps and demand them DEFUND the FCC and all government agencies under this regime of Obama's.

that's the ONLY way to put a stop to them HURTING us and our country anymore than they already have.

 

[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.

Netflix already agreed to pay up to Comcast.

And? Streaming movies uses much more bandwith. People using more pay more, people using less pay less. You want it so everyone pays the same, regardless of usage. Nope. If you don't want to pay more then don't sign up for Netflix. Enough people do that something will give. See how that works?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

When the fuck did that ever happen to you or anyone?

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

Why do you want to fight something that doesn't exist?

That is the stated goal of these companies. I mean hell, you dont believe me, thats fine...but do you believe the companies when they TELL YOU?

 

[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.

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.

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.

Not sure how you can say I "ignored" the Universal Service fee part, since it in fact took up the majority of my post.... I guess you have no response so prefer to pretend it isn't there?

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

It is the whole point of this thread -- as I pointed out with several examples. You seem to have stripped them out of the quote as inconveniences. I put 'em back.

That indeed -- how that would work-- was the question I kept poking that no one could answer, and still can't, because it does not follow. Because there is nothing present to make it follow.

You really need to take a reading comprehension class P.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

And? Streaming movies uses much more bandwith. People using more pay more, people using less pay less. You want it so everyone pays the same, regardless of usage. Nope. If you don't want to pay more then don't sign up for Netflix. Enough people do that something will give. See how that works?

You can say screw you but when all the companies prices go up what then?

Let me guess your answer, which is the same to any new information you get: So What? (pretend not to care then offer a wild general defense) You already pay for cable anyway!

 

[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.

Netflix already agreed to pay up to Comcast.

And? Streaming movies uses much more bandwith. People using more pay more, people using less pay less. You want it so everyone pays the same, regardless of usage. Nope. If you don't want to pay more then don't sign up for Netflix. Enough people do that something will give. See how that works?

You can say screw you but when all the companies prices go up what then?

Let me guess your answer, which is the same to any new information you get: So What? (pretend not to care then offer a wild general defense) You already pay for cable anyway!

Then drop cable, or drop the services you get from the company way back, or switch to a different provider (Dish for example). Enough people do that the cable companies will do something about it by lowering prices.

Imo, technology is going to change and force changes in the cable industry anyway. Just a matter of time.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

And? Streaming movies uses much more bandwith. People using more pay more, people using less pay less. You want it so everyone pays the same, regardless of usage. Nope. If you don't want to pay more then don't sign up for Netflix. Enough people do that something will give. See how that works?

You can say screw you but when all the companies prices go up what then?

Let me guess your answer, which is the same to any new information you get: So What? (pretend not to care then offer a wild general defense) You already pay for cable anyway!

Then drop cable, or drop the services you get from the company way back, or switch to a different provider (Dish for example). Enough people do that the cable companies will do something about it by lowering prices.

Imo, technology is going to change and force changes in the cable industry anyway. Just a matter of time.

But why even give the opportunity to screw us THEN rely on millions of people individual protest to get the company to eventually change when you can avoid that entire scenario by...oh I dont know...Not allowing them to change the internet in the first place.

Seems like you want to add more steps, scenarios and outcomes to something that doesnt need to happen in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once they start charging you individually for extra bandwidth they will drive that price up to the maximum they can squeeze out of people.

I have satellite internet, which is great, except, you get severely limited on bandwidth (luckily I have a 5 hour unlimited period after midnight on my service)

and you pay a lot for more bandwidth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

HBO is going alacart
ABC & CBS have plans to go alacart
Many other services that are traditional cable only packages are making similar plans to break free of the norm.
Internet prices are dropping in my area because of price wars between the carriers.
Google fiber is offering 1 terabyte connections for the price of a standard cable connection FOR LIFE with each area that it expands to.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of the way and let the market decide.

 

[ClosedCaption]

HBO is going alacart
ABC & CBS have plans to go alacart
Many other services that are traditional cable only packages are making similar plans to break free of the norm.
Internet prices are dropping in my area because of price wars between the carriers.
Google fiber is offering 1 terabyte connections for the price of a standard cable connection FOR LIFE with each area that it expands to.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of the way and let the market decide.

Either you are just saying random things or this is your way of understanding the topic....by saying random things.

Net Neutrality has everything to do with what you are talking about. They offer these low prices right now. Google fiber offers that right now. Many of the packages are doing their own thing right now.

You like that? Yes. Then why do you want to change it? You still cant seem to understand that being against net neutrality means changing the internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Why would I cry over an exchange I so thoroughly trounced you in? That you are too stupid to grasp this fact makes it all the more delicious.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Brilliant Shitting Bull - so we must cap speeds to 56K - the speed of dial up?

AND THIS - is what will happen once the government regulates the internet!

 

[Ava]

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

Their real goal is for control. We have seen we cannot trust anything this administration wants to do. And they will do anything it takes to bring down the programs that are exposing them for what they are....a fraudulent corrupt gang of secret thieves.

 

[CowboyTed]

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

Their real goal is for control. We have seen we cannot trust anything this administration wants to do. And they will do anything it takes to bring down the programs that are exposing them for what they are....a fraudulent corrupt gang of secret thieves.

So that is the paranoid rant over with.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Their real goal is for control. We have seen we cannot trust anything this administration wants to do. And they will do anything it takes to bring down the programs that are exposing them for what they are....a fraudulent corrupt gang of secret thieves.

Will any of you talk about the subject and not the wacky conspiracy theories?

The companies say they want to change the internet from its current form. Why is that good?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Brilliant Shitting Bull - so we must cap speeds to 56K - the speed of dial up?

AND THIS - is what will happen once the government regulates the internet!

What we need is government to leave us the hell alone.

 

[CowboyTed]

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

Brilliant Shitting Bull - so we must cap speeds to 56K - the speed of dial up?

AND THIS - is what will happen once the government regulates the internet!

And here is example of someone who we thought previously didn't know what net neutrality was about.

Now we know he doesn't know what net neutrality was about.

Another idiot on board... I am actually embarrassed for you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Brilliant Shitting Bull - so we must cap speeds to 56K - the speed of dial up?

AND THIS - is what will happen once the government regulates the internet!

What we need is government to leave us the hell alone.

Why does the internet need to be changed?

 

[CowboyTed]

Call your Reps and demand them DEFUND the FCC and all government agencies under this regime of Obama's.

that's the ONLY way to put a stop to them HURTING us and our country anymore than they already have.

So nothing about actual pros and cons to net neutrality.

Maybe we should have defunded the US Army before the last Iraq war... You don't mind being lie to and having thousands of Americans killed but you have suddenly woke up when ISP corporations aren't allowed to be bribed or they aren't allowed to extort businesses for heavily preferred access.

Way to go, kill small business, kill America.