100 a month? ROFL yeah right.. and all those taxes you pay they don't cover any of your health care costs do they... ROFL
Here it comes! Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility
- Thread starter teapartysamurai
- Start date
We currently have net neutrality, the changes Obama wants take it away.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,850
- 2,250
How so? How do the changes to net neutrality that Obama proposes 'take it away'.
And feel free to get specific.
From the wiki:
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia Universitymedia law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4] Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
On 23 April 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality.
From the following report:
Bill Moyers blisters Obama for abandoning his net neutrality promises
Obama’s choice to head the commission, Tom Wheeler, not only “bundled” more than $500,000 for Obama’s successful re-election campaign, but also a “top gun” for the cable and telecommunications industries. What’s more, Wheeler has staffed the FCC’s legal team with a coterie of former telecom attorneys, some of whom had actually lobbied against net neutrality before joining its ranks.
The commission has been heavily criticized for a series of new proposals that would reportedly include an option allowing Internet service providers to charge a “fast lane” rate to certain companies.
The public uproar led video streaming giant Netflix to meetwith FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai’s office while the matter is still up for public comment.
“This public comment period is crucial,” Moyers told his viewers. “You have a chance to tell both Obama and Wheeler what you think, so that the will of the people and not the power of money and predatory interests, is heard.”
So in summary... Obama claimed to be for it then decided to put the people who were against it in charge of it to kill it and change it into the opposite of what it was originally intended to be. Typical.
Last edited:
What part of moving to different classes of users on the internet being the opposite of one class of users to ensure net neutrality is confusing you? Or are you just saying answer the question again and again to be a troll?
No. Less Taxes than US and $100 a month. Oh yeah, ROFL...
Personally I think we should be going for Italian model, Top 3 health system in the world and spend only 8.7.
Sorry, Took out comment. Thought you were the rude ones from earlier.
I would say this is off topic at this stage but I will discuss it again.
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
asterism
Congress != Progress
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 point you brought up about water is valid. We used to have a private water system in my town, and people had the choice to use their own wells. Since it's been taken over by the city government (even for non-city residents), rates for water have quadrupled for basic service and typical consumption for households have increased by 6-10x. Private wells for consumption are illegal. Sewage fees are charged even for those who use septic tanks.
We were promised lower rates due to efficiencies and economies of scale, but the rates have only gone up. It's not that the city government can't do it efficiently, it's that they have no incentive to do so. They have a monopoly.
RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
Thats literally all it is.
They all support the idea of a free and open internet, but once Obama backs that position they argue against themselves.
Uneducated hypocrites.
ding ding ding....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 point you brought up about water is valid. We used to have a private water system in my town, and people had the choice to use their own wells. Since it's been taken over by the city government (even for non-city residents), rates for water have quadrupled for basic service and typical consumption for households have increased by 6-10x. Private wells for consumption are illegal. Sewage fees are charged even for those who use septic tanks.
We were promised lower rates due to efficiencies and economies of scale, but the rates have only gone up. It's not that the city government can't do it efficiently, it's that they have no incentive to do so. They have a monopoly.
Our government's job is to break up monopolies... but they refuse to do that. Instead they offer us a choice of private monopolies or government monopolies.
Yes there are many issues and many solutions. And yes obama wanting to create a government monopoly instead of breaking up the private monopolies they have allowed is one of the issues.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
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,723
- 1,830
Heres what the company CAN do and HAS done. If you want more of this
At least that chart represents the actual question, though I doubt you understand it.
So, you believe that a for-profit company like Netflix, should be granted unlimited bandwidth without having to pay for it? That backbone providers should be obligated to spend billions to increase infrastructure to accommodate the load of Netflix on their own dime?
But Kudos, at least you identified the actual issue at hand.
Verizon Fios made it less convenient to watch Netflix at my house. I switched to Bright House. Problem solved.
But why create the problem to solve it? leave the internet alone and you dont have to find a solution
Granting new authority to the FCC and regulating the Internet as a utility is not leaving it alone. No matter how many times your repeat a lie, it's still a lie.
As long as you cant point out why changing the internet is a good thing for consumers, according to rules of debate, you dont have a position. Being anti-me is not a position
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 point you brought up about water is valid. We used to have a private water system in my town, and people had the choice to use their own wells. Since it's been taken over by the city government (even for non-city residents), rates for water have quadrupled for basic service and typical consumption for households have increased by 6-10x. Private wells for consumption are illegal. Sewage fees are charged even for those who use septic tanks.
We were promised lower rates due to efficiencies and economies of scale, but the rates have only gone up. It's not that the city government can't do it efficiently, it's that they have no incentive to do so. They have a monopoly.
The one thing is even the waster City Government guy cuts corner you can sue them federally.. Same thing happen here in that
Yes there are many issues and many solutions. And yes obama wanting to create a government monopoly instead of breaking up the private monopolies they have allowed is one of the issues.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
Obama interferes with monopolies he is called anti business.
He tries regulating them for the good of the consumer, he is called anti business.
I will point out a difference between Ireland(a country with higher rated economic freedom than US) and US. We start with the premise 'What is best for the Irish Citizen first.' Screw with that and we ship you out of government fast and get someone else.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
Explain this fake cowboy.
The wife and I were on the west end in Jamaica when a couple showed up from england.
He was on crutches and during the course of our stay the conversation turned to his injury. Turned out he'd broken his ankle two months ago when he fell of a ladder.
Imagine my shock when he told me he was still waiting to have it fixed. When I asked him about the brace on his ankle I was told it was temporary until he could get a slot to have it operated on.
TWO FUCKEN MONTHS WITH A BROKEN ANKLE???? And the best part? He wasn't scheduled to have it fixed for another month and half!!!! At which point they would have to re break the ankle to set it properly!!
Go ahead and keep telling how great the UK health care plan is...I'll continue to laugh.
And you're full of shit about Americans going to the UK for healthcare.
That about as likely as a cowboy in england.
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #597
Still talking in circles I see.
Not from the UK for starters..
One this guy didn't have any private insurance, most Europeans get a top up. I know I wouldn't be waiting.
So the guy didn't buy an insurance which is about $100 -120 a month but paid for a holiday in Jamaica...
The operation if he took out his own pocket would have been a few grand again decide to go to Jamaica instead... My friend saw the bill for triple by pass in Ireland and it didn't break €12,000(he had insurance)...
If he was in America how would he have been treated in the same situation, this case is obviously not urgent. He had no problem with taking a 8+ hour flight.
Lets compare Apples with Apples, with no insurance how would this guy been treated?
By the way, your guy could have walked into a hospital and got treated in Jamaica and NHS normally reimburse him.
Compare funding routes - Treatment abroad - NHS Choices
So you want the Government to offer everyone cadillac care, that is not the way it works... So you premise is full of holes...
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
I had a cancerous tumor removed from my kidney,and a hip replacement.
Zero out of pocket other than my monthly insurance payment.
And I had the best doctors in the state of Texas.
Both of these surgeries were done within days of scheduling them.
We? You speak for all of ireland?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 point you brought up about water is valid. We used to have a private water system in my town, and people had the choice to use their own wells. Since it's been taken over by the city government (even for non-city residents), rates for water have quadrupled for basic service and typical consumption for households have increased by 6-10x. Private wells for consumption are illegal. Sewage fees are charged even for those who use septic tanks.
We were promised lower rates due to efficiencies and economies of scale, but the rates have only gone up. It's not that the city government can't do it efficiently, it's that they have no incentive to do so. They have a monopoly.
The one thing is even the waster City Government guy cuts corner you can sue them federally.. Same thing happen here in that
Yes there are many issues and many solutions. And yes obama wanting to create a government monopoly instead of breaking up the private monopolies they have allowed is one of the issues.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
Obama interferes with monopolies he is called anti business.
He tries regulating them for the good of the consumer, he is called anti business.
I will point out a difference between Ireland(a country with higher rated economic freedom than US) and US. We start with the premise 'What is best for the Irish Citizen first.' Screw with that and we ship you out of government fast and get someone else.
IMO, what is best for the people is government breaking up private monopolies not creating private monopolies or a government monopoly. I come to this opinion based on experience, and historical evidence.
But yes because Obama refuses to do his job breaking up monopolies (door number 1, the best choice), he will be chided by the people for choosing either of the two wrong choices that set up monopolies A.Private or B.Government to screw the people.
The internet is a market. Free markets are great for everyone, right up to the point where monopolies use their power to screw the market over. Thus government is supposed to be there to break up the monopolies. Yes, sometimes the people are stupid and decide to go with a public monopoly over a free market. Then that beast we call government grows until it swallows up every single dime. Then the folks find they are but turfs working for the surfs begging for scraps from their table.
Comprehende?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump’s Culture of Corruption
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 5
-
-
The violent protests are spreading as protesters clash with federal agents in NYC and Paramount CA !- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 12
