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

[Jarlaxle]

That about as likely as a cowboy in england.

Well...there was at least one COWBOY in England...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That about as likely as a cowboy in england.

Well...there was at least one COWBOY in England...

He doesnt count. He was born in Edmonton Alberta where there are actual cowboys.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Brown,

I think you a little mixed up... The article you are quoting is from May. Obama was saying nothing about Net Neutrality before the Mid Terms and that was annoying people who supported it but gave his opposition little to attack him on.
After mid-terms he had a major speech on it on Monday supporting it.
The Obameter Support network neutrality on the Internet PolitiFact

There has been a number of court cases between the Administration of the Major ISPs (which is shrink through mergers at the moment, 5 Big Ones hold a huge share)

With Comcast and 4 others becoming so dominant (88% of the Market) they can effectively control what goes into your home. If they have there own video sharing company they can close Netflix in the morning, just block them.
They can favour one online bank over another. Email service over another... I showed in other examples in EU where the ISPs acted in this manner down to the point they were advertising their credit card before you could pay your credit card online.

Obama's view and many others is this practice should be outlawed but the only way he can do this (after the court cases) is to upgrade the internet to a type II utility service. This gives them the type of power which they have in water utilities. i.e. they make sure the water you get is of a certain quality (i.e. drinkable) despite what you pay while not affecting how much you want, how you pay for it...

There is arguments for and against this... many of which have not been addressed by this thread. Mainly because this thread has gone for the lower road of Government takeover/"Obama wants it therefore I don't"... Yet the same people have no problem consuming tap water, kind of ironic....

This also a lobbyist v people battle. Comcast is a massive donor to a lot of representatives and if this bill passes they could yield more media power on elections than TV.

This is not a Liberal v Conservative thing... This is about the little guys like us having unfettered access to the internet. These guys give big money hard and soft to get there way...
How Much Money Big Cable Gave the Politicians Who Oversee the Internet

This would be one of the most shocking example of money over the people issues we have seen in a while. This is not a GOP v Dem this about someone saying you can't do this and I am making sure by having laws and we will enforce them.
6 reasons real conservatives should defy Republicans and support net neutrality The Verge

The bolded? Flat. Out. Lie.

obama ran on NN in 2007.

Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president - CNET

 

[Zoom-boing]

A Timeline of Net Neutrality

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Except that is not what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is like ensuring that gas stations do not charge more per gallon for certain vehicles. Companies that use more data, like cars that use more gas, will still be paying more. Net neutrality is simply not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. It appears you are confused about what net neutrality is.

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

I am sorry that you have conflated corporate socialism with free markets.

Those who are against socialism?

Why do you support corporate 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.

False.

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

No, but that isn't what net neutrality is.

 

[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.

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.

Not relevant to anything I said. Companies that use more data still pay for that increased usage. What is not allowed is setting different price rates for different companies. For example, charging Netflix twice as much for the same data usage as another company.

 

[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.

Not relevant to anything I said. Companies that use more data still pay for that increased usage. What is not allowed is setting different price rates for different companies. For example, charging Netflix twice as much for the same data usage as another company.

You may have me confused with someone who disagrees with you.

 

[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.

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.

Not relevant to anything I said. Companies that use more data still pay for that increased usage. What is not allowed is setting different price rates for different companies. For example, charging Netflix twice as much for the same data usage as another company.

You may have me confused with someone who disagrees with you.

Not sure who I meant to quote, probably Uncensored. Sorry about that.