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

[asterism]

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!

I do not agree with increased FCC authority and I do not agree with new regulations.

Then you want to change the internet but have no reason why you want that

The reason is that I don't think the proposed solution will work.

Regulating the Internet as a utility will not foster innovation and it will not solve the problems some say are coming. The prices are currently set to levels that the market will bear and that's worked very well for 20 years.

Yes I know its worked all this time and you want to change it you just dont know other than "problems some say are coming...one day"

I know what is claimed by the activists, my education and professional experience leads me to think it's unfounded. You are free to think I'm not an expert but that doesn't make you correct.

 

[RKMBrown]

So give me ONE good reason that Netflix and Apple TV should not pay for the bandwidth they consume?

Because the hate sites have programmed you to be a corporate shill is NOT a good reason.

You keep making up the statement that Netflix and Apple TV do not pay for the bandwidth they consume. But that is an ABSOLUTE LIE. Why do you keep making this straw-man? Netflix does not have a free pipe to the internet. Nor does Apple. Why make stuff up?

You're right that they pay for access to the internet, and I'm sure they pay quite a bit considering the speeds they need. However, they don't pay for the bandwidth on the backbone. I've heard at times that Netflix can be up to a quarter of the traffic, that's an incredible amount.

As I understand it though that's not the issue so much as companies that want more bandwidth for faster speeds are not allowed to get it for paying more. That is "Internet neutrality" which requires all traffic to be prioritized the same. Our Marxist liberal friends don't believe anyone but politicians should be getting preferential treatment. The ability to pay more doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy more.

There's no law against buying two internet connections.

 

[Jarlaxle]

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

Net Neutrality means that they pay no more for the hundreds of terabytes they transmit each month than a small business does for 2 or 3 gigabytes.

Look, you're just a shill for the mega-corporations of Apple and Netflix, fighting to make sure they don't have to pay their way.

Serious question: how big a download would a streamed 2-hour movie be?

 

[kaz]

There are two sides to every packet of data sent over the internet... the source and the destination. FYI both sides are paying for those packets to be moved. What this is about is metering use of the internet. Instead of you being able to use the bandwith you are paying for to transfer a virtually "unlimited" amount of data over your connection, you will instead be metered, just like some cell phone providers are metering your use of the internet over your phone.

I have seen no proposals to return to the metering of consumer data like in the 90's - not from anyone.

This is about metering the content delivery services - period. This is Apple and Netflix demanding unlimited bandwidth at zero cost.

No, it's not just that. It's services that are willing to pay more to get faster speeds and higher priority. That's what net neutrality refers to. Now the government blocks you from getting preferred treatment. So for example Amazon could pay to get higher traffic priority than other online sellers. Government prohibits that now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Serious question: how big a download would a streamed 2-hour movie be?

Depends on quality, but about 4.6gb for an MP4 encoded 480P movie. This would be DVD quality - hi def goes up exponentially.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Damn...what would it be for one in HD?

 

[RKMBrown]

Damn...what would it be for one in HD?

It depends...
Here's the information from netflix:
They provide 3-4 different levels of quality:

• Low (0.3 GB per hour)
• Medium (SD: 0.7 GB per hour)
• High (best video quality, up to 3 GB per hour for HD, 7 GB per hour for Ultra HD)

 

[ShackledNation]

No, charging discriminately for use.

Much like gas stations charge discriminatory prices for gasoline, the more you use, the more you pay.

In a free society, that is how resources are allocated.

If I go to a gas station they do not charge me more per gallon if they notice I am driving a Hummer.

Those who demand that the government give to each according to his need, instead of placing the product on a free market so that each can purchase what he needs and can afford, absolutely is socialism.

You are conflating corporatism with free markets.

You mean advocates of a free market, where goods and services are for sale to those with the means and willingness to buy? That is "socialism" to you?

No. Perhaps you had trouble reading. I said those who are against Net Neutrality.

Yes, Net Neutrality will aid Apple and Netflix, ergo you shill for them to get this through - that is true.

And lower income taxes will aid me as well, that doesn't make lower taxes socialism.

I prefer free markets and liberty. You prefer to loot, using the implied power of the gun held by the state.

No, I prefer free markets and liberty. That is why I support net neutrality. You are against it because you support corporatism, which you have wrongly mistaken for free markets and liberty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Damn...what would it be for one in HD?

Blu-Ray in raw MP4 is 25 to 30gb.

There are a lot of compression techniques to reduce file size - all of them are lossy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"Lossy"? Is that a typo for "lousy", or is that a tech-y word I do not know?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If I go to a gas station they do not charge me more per gallon if they notice I am driving a Hummer.

Correct, but because you have a 55 gallon tank, you pay more then the Geo Metro at the next pump over with a 6 gallon tank.

Gas Neutrality will fix that though, so all fillups have the same experience, and those with bigger tanks pay no more than those with more modest needs.

You are conflating corporatism with free markets.

No, you simply don't know what a free market is.

No. Perhaps you had trouble reading. I said those who are against Net Neutrality.

Those who are against socialism?

That does not include you, though. To each according to his need, right?

And lower income taxes will aid me as well, that doesn't make lower taxes socialism.

Lower taxes are not at the sacrifice of the property of others.

You seek to use the implied force of the government to seize the private property of others to give to those you deem more deserving - in this case the corporations of Apple and Netflix.

No, I prefer free markets and liberty. That is why I support net neutrality. You are against it because you support corporatism, which you have wrongly mistaken for free markets and liberty.

So, you think that government theft at the point of a gun is "free markets?"

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you saying that the Internet should not be regulated? Are you saying that Internet freedom is "safer" in corporate hands?

No...It should NOT... The internet is OUR last line of defense against government tyranny before we are forced to take up arms.
Think that appears extreme? Think clearly.
What is it with you libs and your man crush on government.
The internet in the hands of the free market has done pretty well, thank you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Lossy"? Is that a typo for "lousy", or is that a tech-y word I do not know?

It means that quality is lost. When Netflix or Amazon stream video, they reduce the size of the data by about 75% - but the quality drops as well. The lossy compression does things like merge pixels with the same or similar colors. Depending on how extreme the compression is, it can be barely noticeable, all the way to horrendous.

Lossy compression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

No, charging discriminately for use.

Much like gas stations charge discriminatory prices for gasoline, the more you use, the more you pay.

In a free society, that is how resources are allocated.

If I go to a gas station they do not charge me more per gallon if they notice I am driving a Hummer.

Those who demand that the government give to each according to his need, instead of placing the product on a free market so that each can purchase what he needs and can afford, absolutely is socialism.

You are conflating corporatism with free markets.

You mean advocates of a free market, where goods and services are for sale to those with the means and willingness to buy? That is "socialism" to you?

No. Perhaps you had trouble reading. I said those who are against Net Neutrality.

Yes, Net Neutrality will aid Apple and Netflix, ergo you shill for them to get this through - that is true.

And lower income taxes will aid me as well, that doesn't make lower taxes socialism.

I prefer free markets and liberty. You prefer to loot, using the implied power of the gun held by the state.

No, I prefer free markets and liberty. That is why I support net neutrality. You are against it because you support corporatism, which you have wrongly mistaken for free markets and liberty.

Some roads do charge by the axle and/or tonnage. Same with shipping rates, no? Liberty is good no? What part of the changes they want to make to the current net neutrality law, will result in free markets and liberty, and what part of the current system does not include free markets or liberty? All I here is a bunch of campaign slogans.. no facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Damn...what would it be for one in HD?

Blu-Ray in raw MP4 is 25 to 30gb.

There are a lot of compression techniques to reduce file size - all of them are lossy.

The average blueray movie is about 10gb. Blueray capacity is not the same as the size of the movies.

 

[guno]

Are you saying that the Internet should not be regulated? Are you saying that Internet freedom is "safer" in corporate hands?

No...It should NOT... The internet is OUR last line of defense against government tyranny before we are forced to take up arms.
Think that appears extreme? Think clearly.
What is it with you libs and your man crush on government.
The internet in the hands of the free market has done pretty well, thank you.

before we are forced to take up arms.

How delusional is that!! You teacrackers would be flattened like bugs against the armaments of the US government, but if it makes you feel better, clutch your guns and bible

 

[thereisnospoon]

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!

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.

Incorrect...The internet belongs to the PEOPLE...It is OUR pipeline to the world.
Government would find ways to limit, choke down and even legislate content.
Broad terms such as "offensive", "fairness" or "National Security" would be used to shut us up.
Government would deem that areas where internet signals are hard to reach would receive subsidies to receive internet wires or via wireless systems as the expense of others. An "internet welfare" system, if you will. Internet access is expensive as it is. I think most would agree they would be in strong opposition to paying some 20% tax so that people who live in far flung places or those who cannot afford regular internet services can have them.
BTW, internet content is regulated by We the People.....That is the way it should be.
If you want government controlled internet, feel free to subscribe to it and YOU pay for it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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!

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.

One issue I cannot feature....."and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes"..So you would be in favor of prohibiting individuals or groups from paying for internet speeds which serve them in their their best interests? That appears similar to regulating the types of vehicles people wish to own.
"New government rule...You may not purchase an expensive automobile because it is not "fair" to those who do not have the means to buy such an automobile"...
What the hell kind of mind even dreams up stuff like this?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

The Democrats like Clinton and Obama spent their entire regimes stuffing the government with like minded leftist radicals like themselves.

That was one of Bush's biggest mistakes. Not taking the time to clean out that nest of snakes.

They would LOVE to stop any and all freedom they can.

All it takes is for us to go back to sleep after the election sure that the Republicans will take care of it.

They won't. We have to make them!

The Republicans would love to have power over the internet as well. Complete separation of net and state is the only way.

This is not about partisan politics. This is a threat to the one method of communication and information sharing pipeline which is controlled by US.

 

[asterism]

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

Net Neutrality means that they pay no more for the hundreds of terabytes they transmit each month than a small business does for 2 or 3 gigabytes.

Look, you're just a shill for the mega-corporations of Apple and Netflix, fighting to make sure they don't have to pay their way.

Serious question: how big a download would a streamed 2-hour movie be?

2GB standard definition 6GB HD

How can I control how much data Netflix uses