Net Neutrality If Obama is for is, Is it bad?

Stu

Stu

Town Drunkard
Donor
MBTI
.
Enneagram
.
Net Neutrality If Obama it for is, Is it bad?
 
Last edited:
Are we allowed to speak about diabolical plans to enslave humanity?
 
CAITLIN MACNEALPublishedNOVEMBER 10, 2014, 2:31 PM EST3801 Views

After President Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to act on new net neutrality rules, Congressional Republicans quickly voiced opposition, cementing the the regulations as a partisan issue.
"It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will and push for more mandates on our economy. An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in a statement Monday. "In the new Congress, Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also expressed his disapproval of net neutrality regulations, arguing that the technology industry has grown thanks to the lack of regulation.
"The President’s decision today to abandon this successful approach in favor of more heavy-handed regulation that will stifle innovation and concentrate more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats is a terrible idea," he said in a Monday statement.
Both Boehner and McConnell mentioned in their statements that Republicans pushed the FCC to drop net neutrality regulations in May.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) went so far as to compare net neutrality to Obamacare."Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014
Obama on Monday asked the FCC to finalize new rules that would keep broadband providers from cutting deals with sites like Netflix to offer faster service. Without regulations aimed at maintaining net neutrality, cable companies could start offering two different speeds of service, prioritizing companies that pay for speed.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Monday reiterated his support for net neutrality.
"Like the President, I believe that the Internet must remain an open platform for free expression, innovation, and economic growth. We both oppose Internet fast lanes. The Internet must not advantage some to the detriment of others," Wheeler said in a statement.
A federal court struck down the FCC's 2010 rules aimed at maintaining net neutrality, prompting the Commission to solicit comments on proposed rulemaking. Wheeler on Monday said that the FCC is not yet ready to propose new rules.

"The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do," Wheeler said, explaining that the FCC needs more time to make sure the rules are legally sound.
Click to expand...
.
 
So we have a dialectic emerging between the two hemispheres of the one government brain

from these seemingly opposed positions will emerge a synthesis which will be the desired result of the people who control the whole brain

The old good cop, bad cop routine

[video=youtube;ZPKxI4xkfl4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPKxI4xkfl4[/video]

The synthesis will be the carving up of the internet by the big corporations and government (corporatocracy) and your dissenfranchisement of the free flow of information
 
Last edited:
It makes me angry that Republicans are trying to skew the issue into some kind of free market fundamentalism thing, when all the actual innovators are totally for neutrality.
 
[video=youtube;AYyg6wd-TAw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYyg6wd-TAw[/video]
 
is net neutrality bad or is government regulation bad?
I'm not sure if government regulation is the lesser of the two evils.
The current evil being a monopoly created by the government to begin with.

A decision made we're supposed to be happy with. Realize we never had a choice in any of this.
 
why don't these idiots actually understand what net neutrality is. they keep saying it's the opposite of what it actually is.
 
it's because they're politicians isn't it
 
SealHammer said:
why don't these idiots actually understand what net neutrality is. they keep saying it's the opposite of what it actually is.
Click to expand...
please elaborate
 
o_q said:
is net neutrality bad or is government regulation bad?
I'm not sure if government regulation is the lesser of the two evils.
The current evil being a monopoly created by the government to begin with.

A decision made we're supposed to be happy with. Realize we never had a choice in any of this.
Click to expand...
all of us chose to go on line to read this.
 
When you get throttled for playing online games, or get scammers locking down your browser claiming to be the FBI asking you to pay a $500 fine then yeah I'd say the internet needs a few regulations.

Data is data when it comes to bandwidth so it shouldn't matter whether I'm playing games or watching YouTube if I've paid for an unlimited service plan, so it is wrong to discriminate the origin of data and rip off paying customers to give bandwidth to somebody they like better.
 
Obama has nothing left to lose by supporting it and then watching the clock run out on his Presidency.
If you look at who is behind the lobbying for destroying net neutrality, we see giant media conglomerates who want to privatize the last semi-free market.
Those who are for net neutrality are pushing to re-categorize it as a “utility”, this is the same as it is in most Asian countries…and guess what? They have speeds way beyond the US and don’t pay nearly as much…they are, less reliable, but let’s look to them and correct that issue?
The move to reclassify it as a utility is the same thing they did when Rockefeller and the Railroad barons tried to buy priority rail time….the govt. reclassified it to break up the already giant monopoly they built together.
No, I don’t trust Obama…but I trust the Lobbyists, and giant corporations, and folks like Ted Cruz even less.
 
Last edited:
Skarekrow said:
Obama has nothing left to lose by supporting it and then watching the clock run out on his Presidency.
If you look at who is behind the lobbying for destroying net neutrality and we see giant media conglomerates who want to privatize the last semi-free market.
They are pushing to re-categorize it as a “utility”, this is the same as it is in most Asian countries…and goes what? They have speeds way beyond the US and don’t pay nearly as much…they are, less reliable, but let’s look to them and correct that issue?
The move to reclassify it as a utility is the same thing they did when Rockefeller and the Railroad barons tried to buy priority rail time….the govt. reclassified it to break up the already giant monopoly they built together.
No, I don’t trust Obama…but I trust the Lobbyists, and giant corporations, and folks like Ted Cruz even less.
Click to expand...

Yes. Net neutrality is intended to stop unfair gangster-like racketing that the rich media companies try to do.

The internet was innovated for free by scientists and it's kind of like a railroad in that you can't avoid going on somebody else's property. That is why it is free.

Net neutrality is not about taking away freedom or stopping innovation. It's about stopping greedy companies from unfairly ripping you off just because they hold the keys to the internet. That has nothing to do with freedom of innovation (unless we're talking about innovating ways to unfairly part people from their money)
 
sprinkles said:
Yes. Net neutrality is intended to stop unfair gangster-like racketing that the rich media companies try to do.

The internet was innovated for free by scientists and it's kind of like a railroad in that you can't avoid going on somebody else's property. That is why it is free.

Net neutrality is not about taking away freedom or stopping innovation. It's about stopping greedy companies from unfairly ripping you off just because they hold the keys to the internet. That has nothing to do with freedom of innovation (unless we're talking about innovating ways to unfairly part people from their money)
Click to expand...

Basically the argument to dismantle net neutrality (backed by Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) is that it costs money to maintain the infrastructure and network of cables around the system…and as such, you are driving on their rail line and they should be compensated by companies like Netflix who have large streams of data.
The only problem with such a change, is it will not stay at the top where it is intended, and we all know eventually those who are less well off, will get priced and gouged out of the market, or will have substandard garbage. This will also make way for an even greater monopoly on our internet service….you think you have trouble now?
Let’s look at the cable companies…supposedly they are regulated…but who do you really have a choice of? Most places don’t have a choice…cable or satellite…if they service your area….because they have divided up cites like drug dealers…just like drug dealers, they know, business is better when the dealer next door is charging outrageous prices too.
There has to be some common ground…where the large data dumpers like Netflix and the home computer isn’t exactly equal…but maybe a law written regarding gouging practices?
Just some thoughts.
 
Stu said:
please elaborate
Click to expand...

An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship,
Click to expand...

he describes net neutrality and says it's good and then immediately says that net neutrality is bad and that it is also the same as regulation (it's not)

professional politicians are dumb as hell
 
Skarekrow said:
Basically the argument to dismantle net neutrality (backed by Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) is that it costs money to maintain the infrastructure and network of cables around the system…and as such, you are driving on their rail line and they should be compensated by companies like Netflix who have large streams of data.
The only problem with such a change, is it will not stay at the top where it is intended, and we all know eventually those who are less well off, will get priced and gouged out of the market, or will have substandard garbage. This will also make way for an even greater monopoly on our internet service….you think you have trouble now?
Let’s look at the cable companies…supposedly they are regulated…but who do you really have a choice of? Most places don’t have a choice…cable or satellite…if they service your area….because they have divided up cites like drug dealers…just like drug dealers, they know, business is better when the dealer next door is charging outrageous prices too.
There has to be some common ground…where the large data dumpers like Netflix and the home computer isn’t exactly equal…but maybe a law written regarding gauging practices?
Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

If the data can afford to be hosted and served then it can afford to be transferred. Netflix doesn't have any problem SENDING all those movies now does it? They pay for internet service to send you stuff. They don't get online for free! If they're using an inordinate amount of bandwidth then their providers need to take it up with them.

And hey, nobody is saying that they have to offer everybody the fastest broadband if it means they can't afford it. What we are saying though is that they can't offer you a package and then try to renege when somebody tries to actually use it.

They need to gauge their throughput and not oversell its sustainable capacity. If that means a slower internet then that is the correct thing to do. The solution is certainly NOT to punish the ones least responsible for (and usually ignorant of) the problem.
 
sprinkles said:
If the data can afford to be hosted and served then it can afford to be transferred. Netflix doesn't have any problem SENDING all those movies now does it? They pay for internet service to send you stuff. They don't get online for free! If they're using an inordinate amount of bandwidth then their providers need to take it up with them.

And hey, nobody is saying that they have to offer everybody the fastest broadband if it means they can't afford it. What we are saying though is that they can't offer you a package and then try to renege when somebody tries to actually use it.

They need to gauge their throughput and not oversell its sustainable capacity. If that means a slower internet then that is the correct thing to do. The solution is certainly NOT to punish the ones least responsible for (and usually ignorant of) the problem.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Moreover, punishing users for accessing whatever internet resource they please (which the ISP does not own) is akin to putting a toll road in front of your house because you go grocery shopping too much in your car.
 
SealHammer said:
he describes net neutrality and says it's good and then immediately says that net neutrality is bad and that it is also the same as regulation (it's not)

professional politicians are dumb as hell
Click to expand...

Well either they're dumb as hell or they know what they are doing and are following an agenda which they believve they will get away with because they think the public are dumb as hell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top