asshole obama jumping into net neutrality

[NeverEndingMe]

an we really trust that cunt, obama?

 

[phrodeau]

I wanna see porn. Post some porn next time.

 

[DooleyDarter]

If you like your internet you can keep it.

If you like your website you can keep it.

 

[nakedboater69]

How's that CHANGE working for you?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

How's that CHANGE working for you?

the obama/hillary cunt slaves do not care about change ... they just want more welfare

 

[Ishmael]

"ShuckNJiveCare" for the internet. *chuckle*

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Now people have a right to free high speed internet.

Liberals just can't control themselves.

 

[Ishmael]

Now people have a right to free high speed internet.

Liberals just can't control themselves.

And everyone else gets nailed with an immediate 17+% tax imposed on the rest of us.

This isn't about 'net neutrality', it's all about more re-distribution.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

And everyone else gets nailed with an immediate 17+% tax imposed on the rest of us.

This isn't about 'net neutrality', it's all about more re-distribution.

Ishmael

Exactly. As usual The Fraud gives it an innocuous name knowing full well it's just another government scam.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Nice to see people who have no clue what net neutrality means spouting off their usual nonsense.

At one time we had over 1,500 ISPs in this country. Today, thanks to the "free market" we have four. As a direct result we have the slowest internet speeds in the industrialized world at the highest prices.

It's no wonder this country keeps falling further and further behind.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

that God, the Al Gore internet was free to build and create .... and that Al doesn't need cash to heat up is 20,000 ft home ....

 

[phrodeau]

Where's the porn at?

 

[eyer]

Nice to see people who have no clue what net neutrality means spouting off their usual nonsense.

At one time we had over 1,500 ISPs in this country. Today, thanks to the "free market" we have four. As a direct result we have the slowest internet speeds in the industrialized world at the highest prices.

It's no wonder this country keeps falling further and further behind.

You're either intentionally lying...

...or supremely ignorant.

 

[Ishmael]

Nice to see people who have no clue what net neutrality means spouting off their usual nonsense.

At one time we had over 1,500 ISPs in this country. Today, thanks to the "free market" we have four. As a direct result we have the slowest internet speeds in the industrialized world at the highest prices.

It's no wonder this country keeps falling further and further behind.

And exactly how is NN going to fix that? Hmmmm?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

At one time, we were on dialup.

The infrastructure had been built by the evil monopoly Ma Bell...



The fact that they are not there anymore is testimony to their inability to raise enough profit to create a new infrastructure. It takes Capital to put up cell towers and develop a network and the people who do that deserve to take a profit way more than any socialist redistributor deserves to take a profit.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm still waiting for what'sit'sface to explain how NN is going to address, let alone solve, the laundry list of bitches he/she has spewed forth? Not only does NN NOT address ANY of those issues it is actually going to make it worse on the cost to the consumer side.

Ishmael

 

[Libsam]

maybe these regulations will break up the monopolization of American internet? allowing for more competition.

 

[Ishmael]

maybe these regulations will break up the monopolization of American internet? allowing for more competition.

Really? Just how is that going to happen?

Ishmael

 

[cowslinger64]

Oh yeah...that'd be awful.


You guys are morons.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/10/president-obama-net-neutrality-reaction/18797601/


President Obama's call for net neutrality could drive the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers' ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled.

The FCC is an independent agency that will establish its own rules. But Obama's public prodding could push the agency to adopt a new set of regulations that will allow greater oversight of Internet service providers.

Obama walked into the fray Monday, seeking more clarity on the hot-button issue. His unequivocal support for "net neutrality" – the notion that any and all content should be treated equally by Internet providers – could add fervor to a fight that has already gone on for years.

"We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."


1: Under the concept of net neutrality, all data on the Internet are treated the same by an Internet service provider

Specifically, Obama called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. His proposals also include a recommendation to mostly ban paid-for "fast-lane" access, in which a content provider refusing to pay extra would be subject to slower Internet transmission.

His support for the FCC to reclassify consumer broadband Internet service and regulate it as if it's a utility – like electricity and water – rallied many consumer advocacy groups that have asked for a similar strategy to protect unfettered access. The reclassification would give the FCC "much greater authority to address consumer problems," says John Bergmayer, an attorney at technology policy advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It's a source of authority that the FCC can draw on for many broadband problems."




2: But some content, such as video, is more data-intensive and can hit bottlenecks, frustrating consumers.


"This is the critical infrastructure of our 21st century," said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and special adviser to Common Cause. "This is how we communicate with each other. This is our news and our information, our journalism, our innovation and entrepreneurship. This really demonstrates that the president understands how important this issue is."


USA TODAY
Obama endorses net neutrality


3: Net neutrality rules would require all content be treated equally. Some exceptions could be made for prioritized traffic such as data involving health care and emergencies.(Photo: Source USA TODAY research by Mike Snider, USA TODAY)
However, industry groups that represent ISPs criticized the plan. "Such a move would set the industry back decades, and threaten the private sector investment that is critically needed to ensure that the network can meet surging demand," the Telecommunications Industry Association in a statement.


The FCC has been recasting new net neutrality rules because the previous set were tossed out by a federal court in January. The court agreed that the agency could regulate the Internet but first must enact rules that establish its authority. The agency got nearly 4 million responses during its public comment period on potential rules.

While the FCC had been expected to vote on new rules by the end of the year, that is unlikely. "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," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement after the president's was made public.

Net neutrality supporters have criticized early drafts of the rules saying they could allow ISPs to create "fast lanes" that would cost consumers more. Meanwhile, ISPs have told the FCC that they would abide by open Internet rules, to not prioritize certain content, without such a utility-based regulatory approach.

"This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today's immediate stock market reaction demonstrates," said Comcast Corp. executive vice president David Cohen in a statement.

Shares of ISPs fell Monday morning following the announcement. Comcast fell 3.75% to $53.07.

Cohen argued that Congress should be the body to enact new net neutrality rules. "The Internet has not just appeared by accident or gift – it has been built by companies like ours investing and building networks and infrastructure. The policy the White House is encouraging would jeopardize this engine for job creation and investment as well as the innovation cycle that the Internet has generated," he said.

During his initial campaign, the president promised to fight for an open Internet, in which free speech was protected and content flowed equally. Still, his public statement "is a dramatic move. It's unprecedented for the Oval Office to issue a statement so forcefully and clearly," said Richard Doherty of industry consulting firm The Envisioneering Group.

With the midterm elections behind him, Obama wants clarity on the agency's direction, he says. Still, Doherty expects any regulation to allow some market forces to work organically, allowing competition and prioritization for critical functions such as remote health care monitoring. "I think we will see what America is best at .. (a) competitive marketplace at work."

 

[Libsam]

Really? Just how is that going to happen?

Ishmael

I dunno, just looking for a silver lining. That's why I asked instead of making a statement.

It does seem like an oxymoron though. More regulations for a free internet...

 

[Ishmael]

I dunno, just looking for a silver lining. That's why I asked instead of making a statement.

It does seem like an oxymoron though. More regulations for a free internet...

There isn't any 'silver lining.' The problem is, and always has been, "the last mile." What is meant by that is that the internet for the greater population is provided either by the cable company or the phone company and that connection is a hardwired connection. Your state, county, and local officials have complete control over which provider has access to the utility easement that provides the wire access to your premises (house/business). In a free market world you would have a choice of 2 or more land line phone providers and 2 or more cable providers, in other words competition. But with very rare exceptions you don't because your local officials have granted your provider(s) a limited monopoly by restricting who has access to the utility easements.

The proposed FCC reg. does NOTHING to address that issue, and that issue is outside the charter of the FCC anyway. Meaning they can't do anything about it even if they wanted to.

Ishmael

 

[someoneyouknow]

You're either intentionally lying...

...or supremely ignorant.

Everything I said was absolute fact. Go look it up.

In fact, during the Clinton administration, $200 billion of taxpayer money was given to private industry to upgrade our infrastructure to provide broadband to the masses.

Companies took that money and did lay some fiber, but never bothered to connect it to anything, then proceeded to pocket the remainder and pad their balance sheets.

The result is what you see today: slow speeds and high prices.

Even worse, millions of dollars are spent each year to bribe elected officials in an effort to thwart any competition to the Big 4 instead of being used to provide better, faster service.

Here is an article from 2006 which outlines the money handed over to private industry and how it was poured down a black hole resulting in the U.S. consistently having the slowest broadband speed in the industrialized world:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=186

And this link from March which outlines what poor service we have in the U.S., ranking behind places such as Estonia and Uruguay:

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

 

[someoneyouknow]

There isn't any 'silver lining.' The problem is, and always has been, "the last mile." What is meant by that is that the internet for the greater population is provided either by the cable company or the phone company and that connection is a hardwired connection. Your state, county, and local officials have complete control over which provider has access to the utility easement that provides the wire access to your premises (house/business). In a free market world you would have a choice of 2 or more land line phone providers and 2 or more cable providers, in other words competition. But with very rare exceptions you don't because your local officials have granted your provider(s) a limited monopoly by restricting who has access to the utility easements.

The proposed FCC reg. does NOTHING to address that issue, and that issue is outside the charter of the FCC anyway. Meaning they can't do anything about it even if they wanted to.

Ishmael

Here is what should be done. The last mile is regulated, just like electricity. From that point you would choose your provider, just like electricity.

There would be one line coming into your place which is serviced by 3 or more providers who compete against one another for lowest price/faster service.

Using the electricity example, I have something like 20 different providers to choose from. If I want to get the lowest price I sign up with whoever has it. If I want to be a bit "green", I can choose a slightly higher priced provider. If I want to get the lowest rate for 3 months rather than signing up for a year or more, I can do that. If I want to spin the wheel and go with whatever the monthly rate changes to, that's an option as well.


Broadband in the U.S. just plain sucks. When an island nation such as Iceland can have consistently faster broadband speeds across its entire country, including its outlying towns which are snowed in for four or five months out of the year, than densely packed places such as New York or LA, something is very, very wrong.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The United States has no gap.

The problem is that we have vast spaces to cover while those whom you put forth as example of what we should be do not.

 

[eyer]

Everything I said was absolute fact.

You're a liar.

At one time we had over 1,500 ISPs in this country. Today, thanks to the "free market" we have four.

An ISP (Internet Service Provider) simply provides internet service to customers...

...wiki currently hosts 125 pages of "Internet service providers of the United States" and even those don't contain all the ISPs in America; eg, the last two ISPs I've done business with aren't included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_service_providers_of_the_United_States

As a direct result...

A lie can render no legitimate "result" of any kind...

...you lied, therefore you FAIL.

...we have the slowest internet speeds in the industrialized world at the highest prices.

Another outright lie.

Here's a hot interactive graphic; hover your pointer over any country and you can instantly see what its average Internet speed is. Scroll down a bit further and the world's countries are ranked in order.

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

Why do pieces of shit like you have to lie and make this shit politically partisan all the time?

Fuck you and fuck your "net neutrality" Party line...

...Internet independence is what this war will be fought over, and there will be absolutely no compromise.