"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet..."

[PredFan]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

That statement cannot be any more dishonest.

 

[Roadrunner]

I'm a Republican and I all for net neutrality as are many Republicans that I know. Someone in Ted Cruz's camp needs to explain to him why comparing the internet to Obamacare is political suicide. This should be a no brainer bipartisan topic.

I just want to point out that Fang appears to be the only RW who has the integrity to stand against the radical right.

Could we have an actual Conservative in our midst?

Sorry, but there are no actual conservatives left. They were overrun by crazy right wingers. and became extinct about the time Gingrich became prominent. There have been reports of sightings lately, but no actual proof that they exist. Of course, you hope to find that somewhere a few have been saved from the extinction, as do I, but for now, that is just a hope with little chance of coming true.

Here's a clue since you seem to be devoid: When you find yourself agreeing with Luddley, you are seriously in error.

For a split second I read your screen name as Pedfan.

Thought you were one of C-bogs booty buddies for a second.

; - )

 

[ricechickie]

Regulation isn't control? What are you smoking? At any rate regulation certainly isn't freedom now is it?

This is the misinformation of our recent age.

Regulation is a set of rules, a framework within which you can act.

Sorry, you can't hunt your neighbor's dog, feed it to your kid, and build your tent city on airport property. You can't cook the dog meat on your car's engine and sell it to strangers, and call yourself a street vendor. You can't stand on the public street and scream at the top of your lungs at 3 in the morning, and you can't walk into the White House and complain personally to the President.

You are REGULATED.

Yes, thus you are controlled.

Really? Because you can't do any little thing that pops into your little head? How long has it been since people have truly been "free," in that case?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Those ARE government agencies and this isn't about Obama and the progressives. This us about government. Government never does anything efficiently, and it is never ever satisfied with the power and authority that it has. Your example of the EPA is a case in point. It has way too often overstepped its bounds and gone off the rails. If you let the government get it's hooks into the Internet then that will be all she wrote, and it won't matter who is in the White House. In the "interest of fairness", or the "security of the nation" blah blah blah. No freedom.

Okay. I don't agree, but okay. You never answered my original question. So, your solution would be...?

I have no idea what would be the best solution. That is why I said we were screwed either way. I do believe that the goverent would be more evil than Comcast simply from my perspective since I can afford the higher speeds. Other than that I can't see a good ending here.

So, just to be clear:

We can't do nothing, because the Corporations will just keep chipping away at our access to the internet until they have complete control.
We can't ask the government to put protections in place to keep that from happening, because you don't trust the government.​

You get that this is about so much more than internet speeds, right? This is also about who gets to decide what content is made available. It is about who gets to use the internet, and for what. If all you're worried about are your internet speeds, then they have already won.

Regulation is an imposition on people and when government imposes it must have a reason, a need to fix a wrong. What wrong is CURRENTLY taking place? What CURRENT wrong will regulation solve?

And allowing government to decide what content is made available will result in mandatory Obama-TV for everyone.

I believe I answered that - in detail. You chose not to respond to that.

 

[Czernobog]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

 

[Czernobog]

Regulation isn't control? What are you smoking? At any rate regulation certainly isn't freedom now is it?

This is the misinformation of our recent age.

Regulation is a set of rules, a framework within which you can act.

Sorry, you can't hunt your neighbor's dog, feed it to your kid, and build your tent city on airport property. You can't cook the dog meat on your car's engine and sell it to strangers, and call yourself a street vendor. You can't stand on the public street and scream at the top of your lungs at 3 in the morning, and you can't walk into the White House and complain personally to the President.

You are REGULATED.

Yes, thus you are controlled.

"Damn government says I can't rape, and shoot my neighbor!!! Fucking dictatorship! Down with the controlling government!!!!"

Yeah...that argument makes a lot of sense...

 

[Roadrunner]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

Your perverted musings on teacher/student sex and lowering of the age of consent precede you, perv.

 

[BULLDOG]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm a Republican and I all for net neutrality as are many Republicans that I know. Someone in Ted Cruz's camp needs to explain to him why comparing the internet to Obamacare is political suicide. This should be a no brainer bipartisan topic.

I just want to point out that Fang appears to be the only RW who has the integrity to stand against the radical right.

Could we have an actual Conservative in our midst?

Sorry, but there are no actual conservatives left. They were overrun by crazy right wingers. and became extinct about the time Gingrich became prominent. There have been reports of sightings lately, but no actual proof that they exist. Of course, you hope to find that somewhere a few have been saved from the extinction, as do I, but for now, that is just a hope with little chance of coming true.

Here's a clue since you seem to be devoid: When you find yourself agreeing with Luddley, you are seriously in error.

It's gotten so bad till their Saint Ronald would be drummed out of the GOP/TP as a RINO. Nope...the honorable Conservatives exist no more. The teabaggers ate them.

 

[Czernobog]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

Your perverted musings on teacher/student sex and lowering of the age of consent precede you, perv.

Again, I don't usually worry about reporting people's stupidity. However, if you cannot stay on topic, I may have to make an exception here. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic, or are you only interested in following me around from thread to thread, attacking me personally?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

Well, I see the intelligent, well read liberals are still trying to educate the willfully ignorant RWs.

You may as well give it up cuz RWs will continue to be against net neutrality just because libs and President Obama are in favor of it.

 

[BULLDOG]

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

Really? No. In China television is under government control. In most Middle East countries television is under government control. If television were truly under government control do you honestly believe that the NSA story would ever have seen the light of day? I'm not sure you really understand what "government control" actually means. You should speak to someone who had to grow up under a totalitarian regime sometime, and you might have a some idea of what "government controlled" media actually looks like.

If anything television is under corporate control. Although, fortunately, even that is not universal - yet.

Not with people like Edward Snowden working for the NSA Some Americans are patriots even if they work for the government.

You really are that stupid, aren't you? If television, in the United states, were "under government control" what makes you think that you would ever have even heard of Edward Snowden? Control means just that - control. That means the government decides what you see, what you hear, what you read. The government decides what is for "public consumption". The very fact that you even know who Edward Snowden is is proof that the government does. not. control. our. media.

Dude obama has people on his staff that are related to those who control the flow of information from every major news outlet but fox, and I'm sure if I dug hard enough A fox executive will have a relative on obamas staff. So yes obama controls the mainstream media.

WOW....You're really in fine form tonight. I have a cousin who works at a gas station, Does that mean I control Exxon?

 

[Roadrunner]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

Your perverted musings on teacher/student sex and lowering of the age of consent precede you, perv.

Again, I don't usually worry about reporting people's stupidity. However, if you cannot stay on topic, I may have to make an exception here. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic, or are you only interested in following me around from thread to thread, attacking me personally?

Aw, your avatar looks like it is going to cry.

This is not CDZ, so report away.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

Well, I see the intelligent, well read liberals are still trying to educate the willfully ignorant RWs.

You may as well give it up cuz RWs will continue to be against net neutrality just because libs and President Obama are in favor of it.

It's a waste of time because unless they hear it on fox, they won't believe it anyway. I mostly just come here to laugh at them and occasionally remind them they are teabaggers so their heads explode.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

Well, I see the intelligent, well read liberals are still trying to educate the willfully ignorant RWs.

You may as well give it up cuz RWs will continue to be against net neutrality just because libs and President Obama are in favor of it.

It's a waste of time because unless they hear it on fox, they won't believe it anyway. I mostly just come here to laugh at them and occasionally remind them they are teabaggers so their heads explode.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

One thing proven by Gruber is that anything coming from the Obama regime is a lie. If they say net neutrality is good, then it will be a disaster. This is just a plot to turn over the Internet to politicians who will immediately put up restrictions on who can comment on politicians. If Obama doesn't like what you're saying, he can close you down.

Obama is for net neutrality so of course, the knee jerk RWs are against it. Just one more example of the right being in favor of something that hurts them just because Obama is in favor of it.

Idiots.

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


.

We don't trust your motherfucking President. Whatever he tells us, you can depend upon it being a lie.

 

[Czernobog]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

Your perverted musings on teacher/student sex and lowering of the age of consent precede you, perv.

Again, I don't usually worry about reporting people's stupidity. However, if you cannot stay on topic, I may have to make an exception here. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic, or are you only interested in following me around from thread to thread, attacking me personally?

Aw, your avatar looks like it is going to cry.

This is not CDZ, so report away.

So that would be, "No. I intend to continue to be an ignorant fuck with nothing intelligent to say". Got it, thanks for letting me know. Now I can just put you on ignore with the other ignorant fucks. Buh bye.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I'm no fan of Obama, but wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Letting ISPs win this one and remove net neutrality DOES NOT benefit you in any way shape or form.

You take the Internet away from the private sector, giving it to the government and it will become expensive, slower and no longer free. Look at the DMV. Learn.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm no fan of Obama, but wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Letting ISPs win this one and remove net neutrality DOES NOT benefit you in any way shape or form.

You take the Internet away from the private sector, giving it to the government and it will become expensive, slower and no longer free. Look at the DMV. Learn.

Net neutrality will prevent it from becoming expensive, and slower. It's not free now. You don't have an ISP bill every month?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Dear Senator Ted Cruz I m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal

Maybe this will help RWs understand why net neutrality is a GOOD thing.

Yeah, I doubt it too.

You give Obama control of the Internet and you can kiss your pornography goodbye.