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

[Uncensored2008]

Still not an answer, is it?

If your neighbor is watching your TV through your window, should he have the "right" to force you to tune it to programs he prefers to watch?

Why or why not, Comrade?

 

[mudwhistle]

They always make up harmless names for their oppression.

Net-neutrality. My how wonderful!!!!

Clean air. How devious!!

As if Democrats are the only ones concerned with clean air.

Just another lie by the left.

No they arent concerned at all because as you indicated its oppression.

Or wait, you care about the harmless names for liberal oppression also? Such as "clean air"? Congrats for coming out the closet

Clean air.

Another name for sky-rocketing energy costs intended to pillage income concentrations. Shipping billions out of this country and giving it to fat-cats in other countries.

Interesting fact: Thats also your response to questions like "How are you today?" and "Nice weather we're having eh?"

Nope. Until Democrats start using them in their policies I wouldn't sweat it bud. You can still use them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If that free enterprise was so free then explain

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.

I switched from Cable to FIOS, 2 months later I received a personal visit from the cable company asking if I would switch back. That's what the free market does

Thanks but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand

Thanks but that has everything to do with the topic at hand.

It's called "Free enterprise" The ISPs will kill each other on price and service to secure customers.

It's the exact opposite of putting a Fool like Obama in charge of an operation and having the services be directed from DC

For example my government run commuter train to NYC STILL does not offer WiFi service. Why? Because it's run by the government!

The carriers would PAY Metro North to offer their services, but Government run Metro North can't get out of their own way

LOL!! As long as they dont already have a monopoly or oligopoly which they do. But according to you thats ok because the market will fix itself instead of ripping you off to make more money.

 

[BluesLegend]

Top 3 reasons

1. Democrats are FREAKING OUT over losing control over the flow of information to voters. A free internet, talk radio, Fox News makes their heads explode.

2. Democrats are control freaks, see 1.

3. As for the professional agitator Obama, an agitator is gonna agitate that's all he knows. Apparently he's not going to take his beat down in the election like a man.

 

[dannyboys]

the libs better not fuck with the internet, they will lose young voters and the pedophile vote.

Now that there is funny.

 

[Pogo]

Another wag that didn't bother to read the article.

-- where in any of that is any kind of "greedy paws in your wallet"? Where do you see any "absurd government fees" out of this? Where's any reference to fees or taxes at all?

Where?

As I said --- not an answer, is it?

You forgot the most recent lesson from uncle?

obamacare 101:

It's not a tax! It's not a tax! It's not a tax!

Oh wait, it is a tax.

If you give the government an inch, they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

 

[dannyboys]

I thought about responding but I find that Republicans are only against it because Obama is for it until you tell them what it means then they support it fully.

Or dont only because Obama supports it

As always, you have no clue what you are babbling on about;

My ability to update my SQL Server is more important than your ability to watch cat videos on YouTube.

I am willing to pay to ensure that I am able to do what I need across an uncontested pipe, you are willing to put political pressure on. I will pay for priority service because it is important to my business - you will shriek "NO FAIR" because you should be given the best just because you want it.

You will dictate that all get an equal share, the ambulance trying to send an EKG to the attending in hopes of saving a life gets no more bandwidth than OnePercenter playing Call of Duty, high on dope, in his mom's basement.

Net Neutrality fucks the internet.

And you will say that equality is bad? My concern isnt YOU paying extra since you're just some guy, my concern is slowing down other sites ON PURPOSE by companies and their competition. For example: I dont want Netflix slowed down by Comcast because HBO just launched its newest site HBOGO.

The money interests have been frustrated for years over the simple fact that in their view too many people get too good a deal using the internet.

They believe that the consumer can tolerate much more bleeding to get their internet, and they're looking for every way possible to push the costs to the consumer as far as the market can possibly bear.

In Canada those you can not afford lots of channels get three free channels. Just in case there's an earthquake.
I would LOVE to see what access to the internet BOBO would give to his 'base' for free.
MSNBC. That's a given.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Not around here you can't.

As long as that's the case the consumer needs some kind of protection. The same reason you can't sell snake oil and claim it cures cancer. The same reason we have more phone choices than AT&T. There was a time when that wasn't the case.

Look at your phone bill. Add up the ABSURD government "fees"

THAT is the scam that masquerades as "protection"

Not an answer, is it?

Of course it's an answer. The government sticks their god damn greedy paws into my wallet every time I pay my cell phone bill. If that isn't government intrusion to you I can't help you

Another wag that didn't bother to read the article.

-- where in any of that is any kind of "greedy paws in your wallet"? Where do you see any "absurd government fees" out of this? Where's any reference to fees or taxes at all?

Where?

As I said --- not an answer, is it?

You are the fool here buddy. The government has NEVER gotten involved in anything that didn't cost the consumers in the end. Just because you're a sucker that falls for the pitch doesn't mean everyone else is. And we haven't even touched on the possibilities of future censorship.
I remember democrats trying to pass some kind of parity bullshit not that long ago.

Give an inch they will take a mile......scratch that, they'll steal your car & drive a dozen miles.

So you have no answer, can't show your basis and have nothing. Just say it.

Try reading the article next time before you dig yourself into a hole.

I haven't, nor do I need to read the article. The government is tasked with protecting me from our enemies not my fucking cable company. Uncle Sam needs to butt the fuck out & leave capitalism alone.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

What he's saying is Sure it doesnt say anything like what I'm telling you but trust me its going to happen

Your words, they contradict.

Let's fight and give government power over the interwebz cause corporations might do bad things.

Don't fight net neutrality because government will have more power and will keep reaching.

No the corporations said in details what their plans are and none of it leaving the internet alone BUT I cant blame you for not paying attention to things that are actually said since you have a shit ton of time to imagine Obama wants and desires.

If you think the internet should be changed then you are against net neutrality. Period

 

[dannyboys]

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!

What a fool. Making it a utility means it can't be restricted. Remember, it's Republicans who want to ban and burn books, not Democrats. If Republicans could restrict what goes over the Internet, you know they would. That's who they are. What is expected of them.

God you're a fucking moron!
So put up a list of books the REPs want to "burn" cocksucker!
Waiting.

 

[BluesLegend]

Not an answer, is it?

Of course it's an answer. The government sticks their god damn greedy paws into my wallet every time I pay my cell phone bill. If that isn't government intrusion to you I can't help you

Another wag that didn't bother to read the article.

-- where in any of that is any kind of "greedy paws in your wallet"? Where do you see any "absurd government fees" out of this? Where's any reference to fees or taxes at all?

Where?

As I said --- not an answer, is it?

You are the fool here buddy. The government has NEVER gotten involved in anything that didn't cost the consumers in the end. Just because you're a sucker that falls for the pitch doesn't mean everyone else is. And we haven't even touched on the possibilities of future censorship.
I remember democrats trying to pass some kind of parity bullshit not that long ago.

Give an inch they will take a mile......scratch that, they'll steal your car & drive a dozen miles.

So you have no answer, can't show your basis and have nothing. Just say it.

Try reading the article next time before you dig yourself into a hole.

I haven't, nor do I need to read the article. The government is tasked with protecting me from our enemies not my fucking cable company. Uncle Sam needs to butt the fuck out & leave capitalism alone.

How often does the government royally screw things up? Exactly. If you were going to hire someone for this job the government would fail the interview.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It has nothing to do with censorship - again you post falsehood in an attempt to pervert perception so that the party might gain control of vital resources through the state.

Net Neutrality deals with providing superior service to select customers, offering backbone priory to banks and medical services while lowering bandwidth allocations to NetFlix and YouTube.

I dont know what you call it but what do you call giving one group superior service for a fee? Discrimination? Equality? Because whatever it is would you please explain to your buddies here that it doesnt mean "leaving the internet alone".

 

[Uncensored2008]

I dont know what you call it but what do you call giving one group superior service for a fee? Discrimination? Equality?

Capitalism.

I went to a nice restaurant last Friday. One wine was $20 a bottle, a far better wine was $150 a bottle. Naturally the ThinkProgress coalition demanded that both wines be offered for the same price, because there must be "wine neutrality."

Because whatever it is would you please explain to your buddies here that it doesnt mean "leaving the internet alone".

It means selling service at a variety of price points and speed points - as civilized people do.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Heres what it comes down to

Q. What's the problem?
A. Most people get their high-speed Internet access from only a few telecommunications giants...see Abuses below).

Q. So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?
A. Network neutrality means applying well-established "common carrier" rules to the Internet...[ MORE > ]
..in order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of a network, that holds itself out to all-comers, from discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network management purposes such as easing congestion or blocking spam).

Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept – these rules have a centuries-old history. They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks. In fact, common carrier rules have already been written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by Congress; they just need to be applied to broadband Internet communications by the FCC.

Now, if — like the AOLs of yore — the broadband provider is also providing information, tools to access the Internet or various types of multi-media content itself, it has the First Amendment right to control that content. Just providing "dumb" pipes meant to move data from user to user, however, is quintessential common carriage.

Q. Why should I care about net neutrality now?
A. In the past, telecom companies were always forced – formally or informally – to adhere...[ MORE > ]
...to net neutrality principles. As incidents of abuse have accumulated, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) acted to enforce rules against wired broadband providers preventing blocking or discrimination.

But! All that changed in January 2014 when a major court decision stripped the FCC of its power to enforce network neutrality protections under the regulatory framework it was using. This decision provides an opening for the telecom companies to begin exploiting technologies by monitoring and controlling data sent via their networks.

Q. What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet?
A. The FCC can still protect the Internet. The agency was not blocked outright by the January...[ MORE > ]
...court decision from enforcing network neutrality principles. It was blocked from doing so because it had classified broadband carriers as "information services" as defined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, that classification never made sense; broadband carriers always fit much better under the law's definition of "telecommunications services." To remedy this, all the FCC has to do is reclassify Internet carriage as a "telecommunications service," which would automatically subject online communications to common carrier protections. Unfortunately, it has instead said it will propose a rule allowing companies to pay for access to a fast lane to deliver content to their customers. That’s still not the end of the story, however. The public will have the opportunity to weigh in before, according to media reports, the FCC votes on the new rules at the end of 2014.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I dont know what you call it but what do you call giving one group superior service for a fee? Discrimination? Equality?

Capitalism.

I went to a nice restaurant last Friday. One wine was $20 a bottle, a far better wine was $150 a bottle. Naturally the ThinkProgress coalition demanded that both wines be offered for the same price, because there must be "wine neutrality."

Because whatever it is would you please explain to your buddies here that it doesnt mean "leaving the internet alone".

It means selling service at a variety of price points and speed points - as civilized people do.

I dont know what you call it but what do you call giving one group superior service for a fee? Discrimination? Equality?

Capitalism.

I went to a nice restaurant last Friday. One wine was $20 a bottle, a far better wine was $150 a bottle. Naturally the ThinkProgress coalition demanded that both wines be offered for the same price, because there must be "wine neutrality."

Because whatever it is would you please explain to your buddies here that it doesnt mean "leaving the internet alone".

It means selling service at a variety of price points and speed points - as civilized people do.

I get it but we already have free great wine for everyone right now. Why are you advocating spending more to experience the internet the way it is for free today?

Essentially, using your example the $20 bottle will be available for $150 the next time you go. Why? No real reason.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So just to be clear, the Net Neutrality goons demand that an ISP be forbidden to offer higher speeds at a higher cost to those willing to pay.

And how is this NOT Communism?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

 

[BlindBoo]

No it doesn't.

False, as is the case of so much you post.

I keeps the internet free from censorship by large service providers.

It has nothing to do with censorship - again you post falsehood in an attempt to pervert perception so that the party might gain control of vital resources through the state.

Net Neutrality deals with providing superior service to select customers, offering backbone priory to banks and medical services while lowering bandwidth allocations to NetFlix and YouTube.

It has nothing to do with your ability to set up a VPN to administer your SQL Server, or any computer on line for that matter.

I assume you are lying due to ignorance, though I know you well enough to know that you would lie for the left under any circumstance.

{Have U.S. Internet users’ worst fears just been realized? A new report from iScan Online programmer David Raphael claims to confirm that Verizon, which you might recall helped lead the charge against net neutrality regulations, has begun limiting the bandwidth utilized by certain websites for its FiOS Internet subscribers. In a blog post on Wednesday, Raphael shared a troubling account of issues that his company had been experiencing with service slowdowns. After digging into the problem he finally contacted Verizon customer support, which seemingly confirmed that the ISP is throttling bandwidth used by some cloud service providers including Amazon AWS, which supports huge services including Netflix and countless others. As BGR has learned, however, this is in fact not the case.}

Verizon Throttling Netflix Amazon AWS Following Net Neutrality Death BGR

The ONLY thing is has to do with is the allocation of bandwidth and priority of service.

You appear to have it backwards.

Net neutrality means that Internet providers should treat all data that travels over their networks equally, rather than slowing down or even blocking access to sites of their choosing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I get it but we already have free great wine for everyone right now. Why are you advocating spending more to experience the internet the way it is for free today?

I have a 120/50 link. I pay $79.99 a month for it.

My parents have a 6/1 link - they pay $19.95 a month

What you demand is that all ISP's be relegated to offering the same service to all - that they not be able to sell tiers of service

Essentially, using your example the $20 bottle will be available for $150 the next time you go. Why? No real reason.

Actually, that is what Net Neutrality will do. If all services must be the same, then they will charge the same price for all.

So in 6 months, you will be back demanding that the government decide how much an ISP can charge.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Whats wrong with the way the internet works today?