• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Tells F.C.C. to Ensure Open Internet

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON — In his most direct effort yet to influence the debate about the Internet’s future,President Obama said on Monday that a free and open Internet was as critical to Americans’ lives as electricity and telephone service and should be regulated like those utilities to protect consumers.The Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Obama said, needs to adopt the strictest rules possible to prevent broadband companies from blocking or intentionally slowing down legal content and from allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane to reach consumers. That approach, he said, demands thinking about both wired and wireless broadband service as a public utility.
Continue reading the main story[h=2]RELATED COVERAGE[/h]

“For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access into and out of your home or business,” Mr. Obama, who is traveling in Asia, said in a statement and a video on the White House website. “It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data.”
Click to expand...


Read more @:
[h=1]President Tells F.C.C. to Ensure Open Internet[/h]
How anyone who favors the internet as we know it right now is not in favor of this is beyond me! We need to protect the internet! We need to keep the internet neutral.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]
[h=1]President Tells F.C.C. to Ensure Open Internet[/h]
How anyone who favors the internet as we know it right now is not in favor of this is beyond me! We need to protect the internet! We need to keep the internet neutral.
Click to expand...

The internet is neutral. Just a bunch of hyperbole from cheapskates who do not want to pay their way who sucker the gullible into thinking this is about something it is not. Google made no big deal about this and pays the fees to help ISP's continue to meet the needs of the users. Other companies just want welfare. "Net Neutrality"="Corporate Obamaphones"
 
Declan said:
The internet is neutral. Just a bunch of hyperbole from cheapskates who do not want to pay their way who sucker the gullible into thinking this is about something it is not. Google made no big deal about this and pays the fees to help ISP's continue to meet the needs of the users. Other companies just want welfare. "Net Neutrality"="Corporate Obamaphones"
Click to expand...

I think you may be a little confused about the concept of net neutrality.. What is network neutrality? - Everything you need to know about network neutrality - Vox
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I think you may be a little confused about the concept of net neutrality.. What is network neutrality? - Everything you need to know about network neutrality - Vox
Click to expand...

I am not confused at all. Companies that suck up bandwidth do not want to have to pay to have their cache servers integrated into the existing ISP infrastructure and are demanding that the ISP's absorb this cost. Vonage forcing Verizon to pay for the cost of them sharking their customers would be like forcing your neighbor to mow your lawn to keep their property free of snakes and insects. If you want there to be growing internet 20 years from now, then you should support the tiered system. These businesses are in the business of making money. Since many of the ISP's are also the mechanism that leads to much of the entertainment content that ends up online, if they collapse, then so do these parasitic companies. There would be no Big Bang Theory to stream if Cable did not make producing the show a scalable project.
 
Declan said:
I am not confused at all. Companies that suck up bandwidth do not want to have to pay to have their cache servers integrated into the existing ISP infrastructure and are demanding that the ISP's absorb this cost. Vonage forcing Verizon to pay for the cost of them sharking their customers would be like forcing your neighbor to mow your lawn to keep their property free of snakes and insects. If you want there to be growing internet 20 years from now, then you should support the tiered system. These businesses are in the business of making money. Since many of the ISP's are also the mechanism that leads to much of the entertainment content that ends up online, if they collapse, then so do these parasitic companies. There would be no Big Bang Theory to stream if Cable did not make producing the show a scalable project.
Click to expand...

Keeping on speed for all at one price for all. Companies should treat all internet traffic equally. Making sure that your ISP sholudnt be slowed down or blocked or degraded because you did not pay for the "fast lane".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Keeping on speed for all at one price for all. Companies should treat all internet traffic equally. Making sure that your ISP sholudnt be slowed down or blocked or degraded because you did not pay for the "fast lane".
Click to expand...

Without the pigs having to hand over some bacon, then the entire entertainment system gets walmarted. Without high quality fresh entertainment content, then internet becomes in 20 years what Iraq is today--reruns of Knight Rider and you are wrong. If youtube, hulu, netflix, and amazon eat up all the bandwidth they are effectively degrading other traffic and content. It is not just a matter of paying to be in the fast lane, it is a matter of whether there even is a fastlane.
 
Declan said:
The internet is neutral. Just a bunch of hyperbole from cheapskates who do not want to pay their way who sucker the gullible into thinking this is about something it is not. Google made no big deal about this and pays the fees to help ISP's continue to meet the needs of the users. Other companies just want welfare. "Net Neutrality"="Corporate Obamaphones"
Click to expand...

Excuse me but that is not how that is. EVERONE that is on the internet pays for bandwidth or pipe size. Throttling is simply triple dipping by internet companies and quite frankly a violation of contract. They get paid by both the final end user and the content suppler. Throttling for content is bull**** because that pipe which the content flows was already paid for. Twice.
 


TheDemSocialist said:
How anyone who favors the internet as we know it right now is not in favor of this is beyond me! We need to protect the internet! We need to keep the internet neutral.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with what his intent is, it is how he wishes to go about doing it that I oppose.
 
Declan said:
Without the pigs having to hand over some bacon, then the entire entertainment system gets walmarted. Without high quality fresh entertainment content, then internet becomes in 20 years what Iraq is today--reruns of Knight Rider and you are wrong. If youtube, hulu, netflix, and amazon eat up all the bandwidth they are effectively degrading other traffic and content.
Click to expand...

So why arent you in favor of net neutrality?
 
Excon said:



There is nothing wrong with what his intent is, it is how he wishes to go about doing it that I oppose.
Click to expand...


And whats that? What would you do different? And how would you?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So why arent you in favor of net neutrality?
Click to expand...

I am in favor of businesses that rely on other businesses paying their fair share. The market will take care of the rest. This is being sold as a lie on the public by the moocher lobby. AOL's fall from the king of the internet happened precisely because consumers did not like the content walls they put up to favor their own system. In order to evolve to the fiberoptic everywhere system, companies like netflix and facebook need to pay for the privilege too. In addition, as I have already stated, there will be less content to stream if cable falls and the bandwidth hogs drown out competition already. The cloud will also never work well without expensive infrastructure improvements that still need to be built and paid for. You are effectively defending companies that do nothing but evade taxes on ill gotten profits because the idea of "neutrality" blinds you to the practical realities of how what is came to be and what could be will take to happen.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And whats that? What would you do different? And how would you?
Click to expand...
What do you not understand about him wanting the FCC to treat it as a utility? That is not needed to accomplish net neutrality.
 
Excon said:
What do you not understand about him wanting the FCC to treat it as a utility? That is not needed to accomplish net neutrality.
Click to expand...

What is then? How do we achieve net neutrality?
 
Declan said:
I am in favor of businesses that rely on other businesses paying their fair share. The market will take care of the rest. This is being sold as a lie on the public by the moocher lobby. AOL's fall from the king of the internet happened precisely because consumers did not like the content walls they put up to favor their own system. In order to evolve to the fiberoptic everywhere system, companies like netflix and facebook need to pay for the privilege too. In addition, as I have already stated, there will be less content to stream if cable falls and the bandwidth hogs drown out competition already. The cloud will also never work well without expensive infrastructure improvements that still need to be built and paid for. You are effectively defending companies that do nothing but evade taxes on ill gotten profits because the idea of "neutrality" blinds you to the practical realities of how what is came to be and what could be will take to happen.
Click to expand...

Except one quick thing, if we dont let this happen they will essentially tell us what websites we can or cannot access, they can slow down various sites, they will literally dictate what sites we can or cannot visit. The (always) "invisible hand of the free market" will not dictat that, just like it has failed to dicate many things in the past.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't opposing net neutrality aimed squarely at Netflix, Hulu and YouTube for their bandwidth demands which far exceed all others.....now if you don't draw a line there we have a problem but I thought the left always wanted to soak the elites for us little guys?
 
Ted Cruz Lashes Out Against Net Neutrality, Calls It 'Obamacare For The Internet'

Earlier Monday, Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to "implement the strongest possible rules" to protect a free and open Internet in a video message and written statement.

Cruz, who has openly opposed the FCC's role in modernizing telecommunications laws, responded to the president's statement on Twitter: "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government. Cruz spokeswoman Amanda Carpenter echoed the senator in her own tweet, writing, "Net neutrality puts gov't in charge of determining pricing, terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare much?"

The comparison isn't unprecedented, as a May opinion piece featured in the Wall Street Journal included the analogy. The author hammered down on the FCC's vote to open net neutrality rules for debate, saying the FCC would have to go to great lengths to "prevent chaos" in the new Internet market.....snip~

Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality


This is BO peep also letting Comcast know he is putting a stop to their deal and goal to take over cable.....the FCC wont do it. The Repubs wont do it. Do you think it is a BO deflection to get eyes elsewhere other than on his screw ups and his Amnesty for Immigrants?
 
CalGun said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't opposing net neutrality aimed squarely at Netflix, Hulu and YouTube for their bandwidth demands which far exceed all others.....now if you don't draw a line there we have a problem but I thought the left always wanted to soak the elites for us little guys?
Click to expand...

It's almost like you turn every issue into a right/left thing even though this really concerns us all in the way that having safe drinking water concerns us all. It's almost like half the time you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just making it up as you go but only looking right or left on an issue. Net neutrality has nothing to do with Netflix, Hulu and YouTube. It has to do with advertisers treating all internet content the same way and not gouging their customer based on subjective notions of what they should pay for the actual content. So say for example whomever your provider is decides that they'll start charging for a "social package". Internet forums, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, instantly get bundled up in a neat little package and added to your internet bill for an extra $5 bucks. Why? No reason. Oh you don't use those websites? Fine. Say you use you use internet to purchase movies/music on iTunes. That needs to be downloaded. Great! That now becomes part of another bundle called "Entertainment". Say you play video games and use a service like Steam. That gets bundled up too and you get to pay more for using the same amount of data you were before.

If nothing being said here makes you be a supporter of net neutrality, may I refer you to this idiot:

View attachment 67175732

I'm sure you'll enjoy his talking points.
 
Hatuey said:
If nothing being said here makes you be a supporter of net neutrality, may I refer you to this idiot:

View attachment 67175732

I'm sure you'll enjoy his talking points.
Click to expand...
Maybe the internet shouldn't operate at the speed of government - be damn slow if it did.

But for DAMN sure it shouldn't operate at the speed a big corporation thinks it should, either.
 
MMC said:
Ted Cruz Lashes Out Against Net Neutrality, Calls It 'Obamacare For The Internet'

Earlier Monday, Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to "implement the strongest possible rules" to protect a free and open Internet in a video message and written statement.

Cruz, who has openly opposed the FCC's role in modernizing telecommunications laws, responded to the president's statement on Twitter: "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government. Cruz spokeswoman Amanda Carpenter echoed the senator in her own tweet, writing, "Net neutrality puts gov't in charge of determining pricing, terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare much?"

The comparison isn't unprecedented, as a May opinion piece featured in the Wall Street Journal included the analogy. The author hammered down on the FCC's vote to open net neutrality rules for debate, saying the FCC would have to go to great lengths to "prevent chaos" in the new Internet market.....snip~

Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality


This is BO peep also letting Comcast know he is putting a stop to their deal and goal to take over cable.....the FCC wont do it. The Repubs wont do it. Do you think it is a BO deflection to get eyes elsewhere other than on his screw ups and his Amnesty for Immigrants?
Click to expand...

Net neutrality while technically a correct term is very misleading. It boils down to ISP's wanting to not only charge for pipe size and or volume of content (buckets) which they do now, they want to charge for content as well though that content is being delivered by their customers. ALL of their customers pay for their access to the internet, there no free riders. Basically whats going on is Netflix and the rest of the video providers are being extorted. Netflix, et al should be suing their ISP for violation of contract further so should their customers who are paying ISP's as well for the service to receive the content.
 
Why would anyone expect that if the government regulated the internet like a utility, that this would be a good thing for the internet? For any of us? The less the government is involved on a day to day basis, the better off we are.
 
Hatuey said:
It's almost like you turn every issue into a right/left thing even though this really concerns us all in the way that having safe drinking water concerns us all. It's almost like half the time you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just making it up as you go but only looking right or left on an issue. Net neutrality has nothing to do with Netflix, Hulu and YouTube. It has to do with advertisers treating all internet content the same way and not gouging their customer based on subjective notions of what they should pay for the actual content. So say for example whomever your provider is decides that they'll start charging for a "social package". Internet forums, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, instantly get bundled up in a neat little package and added to your internet bill for an extra $5 bucks. Why? No reason. Oh you don't use those websites? Fine. Say you use you use internet to purchase movies/music on iTunes. That needs to be downloaded. Great! That now becomes part of another bundle called "Entertainment". Say you play video games and use a service like Steam. That gets bundled up too and you get to pay more for using the same amount of data you were before.

If nothing being said here makes you be a supporter of net neutrality, may I refer you to this idiot:

View attachment 67175732

I'm sure you'll enjoy his talking points.
Click to expand...

Actually the ISP's are currently violating their contracts with the content providers and their customers and should be sued class action for that violation.
 
The Mark said:
Maybe the internet shouldn't operate at the speed of government - be damn slow if it did.

But for DAMN sure it shouldn't operate at the speed a big corporation thinks it should, either.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is really an issue that isn't right or left. It's kind of like saying whether or not we should all have access to clean water is a leftist/rightwing issue. It really isn't. It's a matter of one group of people supporting what is pretty much the death of freedom to navigate the internet without restrictions on content.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Why would anyone expect that if the government regulated the internet like a utility, that this would be a good thing for the internet? For any of us? The less the government is involved on a day to day basis, the better off we are.
Click to expand...

....What you're arguing is essentially that:

- you don't want the government restricting ISPs from charging you extra depending on content
- that you're fine with ISPs having the power to charge consumers twice, once for the pipeline and then the content

Am I getting that right?

- You don't want the government to ensure that water suppliers are providing clean water
- You're fine with being charged for water use
- and then charging you again drinking it.

You realize that yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom