Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations?

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,948
Reaction score
7,933
Points
1,140
Does this not scare the shit out of anyone with a brain? Seems that this is the same way they passed ObamaCare. Remember Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

Why Can t the Public See Obama s Proposed Internet Regulations The Weekly Standard
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,810
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
47% of the public still believe Obama is beyond reproach. The rest just plain gave up hope after he was elected to a second term.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
Does this not scare the shit out of anyone with a brain? Seems that this is the same way they passed ObamaCare. Remember Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

Why Can t the Public See Obama s Proposed Internet Regulations The Weekly Standard
Better analogy is the Patriot Act.
 
OP
Desperado

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,948
Reaction score
7,933
Points
1,140
They are focusing on the promise of free internet
I believe the current administration defines "free internet" as free wi-fi to the underprivileged!
The last thing this administration wants is uncontrolled free speech on the internet.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,820
Reaction score
9,874
Points
2,040
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,258
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.
Left out the part where the FCC will, simply, unilaterally rewrite the rules
 
OP
Desperado

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,948
Reaction score
7,933
Points
1,140
If it is not broken, why fix it, the Internet is fine the way it is.
There is no need for government regulations. A FCC Commissioner described the bill as The government is creating a “solution” for a problem that does not exist in the first place. If that is not warning enough The commissioner says in a recent statement:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation. I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."

 
OP
Desperado

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,948
Reaction score
7,933
Points
1,140
The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.
Simply the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed should be enough to opposed the bill. Laws should not be passed in the dark, bad things happens when bills are passed in this manner, such as ObamaCare and yes the Patriot Act. Let people see what you are proposing, what are you hiding?
 

AquaAthena

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16,766
Reaction score
13,793
Points
2,415
Location
Central Coast
If it is not broken, why fix it, the Internet is fine the way it is.
There is no need for government regulations. A FCC Commissioner described the bill as The government is creating a “solution” for a problem that does not exist in the first place. If that is not warning enough The commissioner says in a recent statement:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation. I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."




The FCC will vote on the Net Neutrality rules on February 26th.

:ack-1:
 

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,046
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
A vast number of internet users do NOT do it to gather information. They play games,.text, and exchange emails.

As such, they do not know and probably don't care what the government plans or does about it.

Until it's not there or hits them in the pocket book!

Something like the current texting craze. And all those who do nothing but text.
 

TimothysAlaska

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
489
Reaction score
77
Points
80
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.
Now this sounds very good and I would be willing to believe it,........but I wasn't born yesterday and we have seen this time and time again. The arguments are good and it should work like that but the reality of it is the government wants a bigger piece of the pie they want their due and this is smoke and mirrors to get it. They will need to make an FCC big enough to accommodate this new regulation then have a study then another study to see how to implement it until the study shows what they want it to show, meanwhile bilking the system taxing it to pay for all of these studies and enlargement of the FCC and that's before the regulation takes affect. Then they will say they are doing it to provide fair service again milking the system for the tax dollars and net flicks and other companies of the like are in the back room pAying huge "donations" to politicians to get what they want and in the end you have an over inflated system and more money then ever is being drawn from the consumer to pay for this regulation and the lose the companies are making to donate to the politicians to get it how they want it. until Americans get used to the high rates and subpare service,that another issue arises and we forget and we pay; all the while the gov and net flicks are getting their payday laughing all the way to the bank. That is the reality! I mean obama has many speeches railing against wall street yet he seems to only hire wall street in his administration it is all smoke and mirrors.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,437
Reaction score
6,978
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people that are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,699
Points
1,830
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.
Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight
 
OP
Desperado

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,948
Reaction score
7,933
Points
1,140
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.
Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight
Did you not read the article? Simply the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed should be enough to opposed the bill. Doesn't matter if Obama supports the bill or if Rush Limbaugh supports the bill. you don;t support a bill that is no open to the public.
You would support a bill being passed into law without knowing what it actually included in it, Only people with IQ less than room temperatures would do that.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,437
Reaction score
6,978
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.
Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight
I have already posted a link on this subject.
See how much your services that you use will go up when they add the tax and regulation expenses, then get back to those of us who warned you and tell us how much you like it.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,437
Reaction score
6,978
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]


But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.
Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight
I have already posted a link on this subject.
See how much your services that you use will go up when they add the tax and regulation expenses, then get back to those of us who warned you and tell us how much you like it.
It should also be a red flag for any American, when the government won't allow us to see it.
It does not matter who is the President.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top