This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"If You Like Your Internet"... Obama Calls For Regulation To Keep "Internet Open"
"An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," begins the President as he explains why the FCC should regulate the internet for Americans' own good:
- *OBAMA CALLS FOR REGULATING INTERNET LIKE PHONE COMPANIES
- *OBAMA ASKS FOR 'STRONGEST POSSIBLE RULES' FOR OPEN INTERNET
"The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known," and that's why Obama feels the need to regulate it to "protect an open, accessible, and free Internet."
In his own words...
Full Statement:
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. 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 in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. 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.
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.
* * *
This is truly the American way of censorship. Figure out how those with the deepest pockets can smother the free speech of those with little or no voice on the one medium in which information flow is still treated equally. The nightmare scenario here would be that status quo companies use their funds to price out everyone else. It would kill innovation on the web before it starts. It’s just another example of the status quo attempting to build a moat around itself that we have already seen in so many other areas of the economy.
The internet really is the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the U.S. economy and this proposal could put that at serious risk. Oh, and to make matters worse, the current FCC is filled to the brim with revolving door industry lobbyists.
- 29636 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


We have to kill it in order to save it.
pods
Good bye internet?
Well gents, it's been fun, but Zerohedge probably won't be on the whitelist of govie-approved sites.
Al Gore is the obvious choice for internet czar.
What a prick. How do you grow up with everything and end up such a asshole?
Rotten bastards!
More and more things will move to the deep web or offshore hosting. They break, we make stronger... same old same old.
The only thing wrong with the Internet is the parasitic NSA hardware.
Bait and switch.
Obamacare is of, by, and for the healthcare insurers. It is designed to remove competition and assure profits for healthcare insurers, exactly as the Federal Reserve Act does for the big banks.
HIPAA was not about privacy for the patient. It is soley to guarantee healthcare insurers access to preexisting conditions.
The Internet Freedom Act will be anything but.
None of this will change until bribery campaign contributions are reformed.
IMPEACH Time...
Here comes the Affordable Internet Act.
In order to make it open we have to tax it.
In Newspeak, Obama is calling for the regulation and control of free speech on the internet... The gubbamint doesn't like it when the little people can discover the truth about their lies to the American people, so they attempt to squash the medium in which this phenomenon takes place...
Arrest the Dictator.
Government motto: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."
Affordable Surfing Sponsors Hillary And Totus
ASSHAT
It's been swell knowing you guys.
But if it's free, I can surf the Obamanet on my Obamaphone...even if it is only at Obama-friendly sites. He's such a swell guy, he is going to give us everything. Nah, he'd never take any of the good free shit away...
I'm beginning to wonder if they will even bother with a 2016 election...it's amazing how this comes out a week after he gets his party's ass kicked in the midterms. Such fortuitous timing...just like that Benghazi thing the night before the vote...and only 60,000 pages to peruse before letting everyone make up their minds the next day. Hell, they should have passed a bill on that shit that same evening. Then Pelosi could vote for it to figure out what was in it.
Yes, I'm a little manic now as I think of all the shit they are about to try on us.
The key phrase in all these types of Internet legislation is "Lawful content" meaning that even if its not explicitly illegal it can still be blocked.
Zero Hedge vs. Fox News
Slow as Hell vs. Fast as Fast can be.
You can't equal me. Now we know how TPTB will kill ZH.
I see you fixed it before I could :D
If you like your Google/Microsoft/Apple/Comcast/Uverse/Facebook NSA-CIA Data Aggregator...
Do not get fooled...
Open internet, only for legal content.... They decide in the end what you may get. That is what this is all about.
Look for the words LEGAL CONTENT.
Al Gore, the internet creator, won't be happy about this.
Mr. President: STOP NOW.
>>I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.
"They can't do that to our Internet. Only we can do that to our Internet."
The Affordable Internet Distribution and Services Act. Aka, AIDS.
Speaking of which, that motherfucker looks more and more like he has AIDS. Not far removed from what Steve Jobs looked like just before he died.
I live in hope....
Obama to announce the "Department of Open Thought" or "DOT" next week.
haha.. your tax dollars have already been going towards that for years under Obama:
http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan
It used to be called "Broadband.gov"
haha.. your tax dollars have already been going towards that for years under Obama:
http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan
It used to be called "Broadband.gov"
Them's might soft words. Maybe the "merican public will finally stop masturbating and put the bigmac and coke down and send the whole lot of cocksuckers packin', and nuttin' bout no impeachin. Pack'n at the end of loaded barrels. Pack'n with lead hot on their heels.
Maybe, just maybe?
Sigh...
"Neutrality" means all web sites will be equally liberal
Oh great! Here comes another 2400 page bill loaded with shit nobody will see that will include anything but protecting the internet
SO LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE BARRY AND GO AWAY ALREADY!
there won't be a "bill"....it will be a regulation, done by the unelected by fiat....we're foooked
Chief Roberts will declare Barry's Affordable Internet Act as a 'tax bill' and let it stand.
chief roberts should be removed by force, because he obviously is "owned" and not free to think clearly. such a sad state of affairs this nation has evolved too! just fuckin sad...
I suspect that will be what happens. You have to pass it to see what's in it... except it enables censorship, so once you pass it, we won't let you see what's in it.
But - on the face of it, so far - isn't the whole net neutrality thing an improvement over allowing Comcast to decide how to treat packets depending on the source? That is surely a far greater enabler of censorship.
Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see God visit Obola with an incurable case of Herod's Evil for all the other shit that he and the other DC puppets daily impose on us - but I don't think this 'net neutrality' is necessarily a bad thing per se.
His 'the content is legal' caveat bothers me, though - is there any law at the moment preventing people visiting 'illegal' sites?
Dumb fuck. Take a wild guess at who will decide what is "legal". Hint: it won't be you. Another hint: "terrorism" definitions might get expanded a little.
Welcome to the USSA. Welcome to the Sheeple. "But it seemed all right, on the surface, you know...what went wrong?".
Wake up big fella.
some how, some how, some how GOTTA LIMIT DIS GOVERNMENT, SOMEHOW...
money, like russia has said, pull the fiat rug right out from under uncle sam and watch the whole fucking shebang crumble to anarchy. then maybe out of the chaos a adam/jeffersonian rule of law(liberty) will evolve... fucking dreaming...
Australian politician accidentally tells the truth:
'The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence', says Australian senator Glenn Lazarus - video
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/26/internet-threat-existence-video
Australian politicians are particularly dumb and dissingenuous. They only get away with it because the populace is not much different.
"SO LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE BARRY AND GO AWAY ALREADY!
(Talk about a guy who can't take a hint.)
Unless they are trying to enforce common carrier status on ISP's (backbone providers) then they are trying to kill it.
I have two years to rape and pillage without having to worry about being re-elected!
It's going to be a looooooooooooong 24 months
This is interesting... of course.... you have to regulate the internet to make it free..... WOW...
I'm wondering how this will affect cloud computing in the future.... providers are ramping cloud services to make it easier and somewhat cheaper for business to run it's IT via cloud services as a utility, pay as you go service. The entire future of business computing is going to the cloud eventually.... ( or it could be ) Of course, it's all via the internet... you make connections to virtual servers and services your business uses via the internet and pay for the compute, storage and database cycles you use.
I see why the government wants to make the rules now... You vote or contribute the wrong way and the big bad FCC will regulate you to death.
.
The only thing worse than Obola and the Dems is the stupi f**ktard liberals, progressive, transgendered Dem voters who voted for him. The NeoCon scum and amnesty RINO scum like McCain is just as bad.
DemTards and Progressive = f***ing retards.
Its a pre requisite.
You have to be full of shit to become an asshole.
...grasping at straws, grasping at straws.
Internet in America will be like freedom in America.
'Growing up with everything' is the primary ingredient in 'asshole'.
Al Gore is the obvious choice for internet czar.
Well I would have guessed he would be the Czar, since he did invent it..
sarc needed?
Unlike Ron Klain. Gore's orginization skills blow...
Albert Gobbels Jr. the right man for the job
I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I’ve seen during that experience is an emerging future that’s very exciting about which I’m very optimistic and toward which I want to lead.
You should be very afraid of anybody who believes his existence is that important.
You should be very afraid of anybody who believes his existence is that important.
Shame on the American people for electing this psychopath to second terms when they knew he was one and kept telling themselves it couldn't get worse!
If it moves Tax It
If it keeps moving Regulate It
When it stops moving Subsidize It
If you thought these fecal loafs were spying on you before, just wait for this to take effect..
Kind of like prison, where the warden reads all mail before fowarding it to you..
Take THAT you "I aint got nothing to hide" peons, don't forget to add in the legion of monitoring .gov douch-bag fees that will be attached..
Get your self ready for the chip implant announcement, its coming...
The chip is iPhone 7.
First, we all get a mandatory iPhone 6.
Here is an early proof of concept...
You can clearly see how they have taken the rounded edges to the next level.
Im sorry..
That's unacceptable, as pink is not my color...
The black one only comes in the larger size, and is therefore considered an iPad, not an iPhone.
I am betting that Tim Cook will be very pleased by the design.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be
violated?
Really?
All evidence to the contrary.
Our government can already force us to buy health insurance, and invade our privacy without a warrant or probable cause, so what is to stop them from mandating that we stick an iPhone up our ass?
It will vibrate when there is a RAINBOW ALERT (domestic terrorism threat), and it is therefore for our safety and security.
People will line-up around the block to have the bigger one with a longer battery life.
What me worry? besides he will assure the sheep that "if you like your current butt plug, you can keep your current butt plug"
..that ought to settle the herd.
As long as your current butt plug can transmit your rectal temperature to your Obamacare EHR in realtime then you can keep it.
Otherwise, you will be required to upgrade.
The wireless remote is a handy addition for the handcuff crowd.
The 'on' light is a rather puzzling unnecessary feature you would think?
we have hired Chinese monitoring professionals to help us write the legislation...
The election's over, time for BHO to come out with the stuff he wants but was too afraid to come out with while it still had a real chance to hurt him. Next few weeks should be telling.
Key text = "If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it."
Q1: What is 'legal'? Define it.
Q2: Who defines it? WeThePeople.org, BigBroBigHo.Gov, iProfit.com, or the ChosenFew.net?
Q3: Will the definition be a static or moving target?
Q4: At what point is it used as a Foreign Policy Tool/Weapon to beat up governments that the US/NATO does not like? IOW... when the US/NATO countries deem something illegal, it's "legitimate", but when our competitors or adversaries deem something illegal or obscene, will be labeled "discriminatory and oppressive"?
Q5: Knowing that everything they touch, turns to sh!t (becomes Complex, inefficient, expensive, taxable), if it ain't broke, why have the Government "fix" it?
“Government is not reason; it’s not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it’s a dangerous servant and a fearful master…” — George Washington
If there are two words in the English language that we need to understand, they are the words “police power.”
Government is police power. Government by definition, by nature, by history and by practical existence is police power. Government would not and could not exist without police power. When governments lose their police power, they collapse.
Every act of government and its politicians is motivated by its police power. Government police power is awesome, and it is a hush-hush subject.
Let’s look at the sixth edition of “Black’s Law Dictionary,” which defines police power as: “The power of the state to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions, and especially to the requirements of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government.” Marshall v. Kansas City, MO. 355 SW 2nd 877,883.
Government’s promotion of “order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare” is the essence of its “public policy.” The term “public policy” is a very innocent and disarming term which in reality is the very opposite of the public impression.
“Public policy” is actually the police power in action. It is the manifestation of police power the implementation of government force. Back to “Black’s Law Dictionary” on public policy: “That principle of the law which holds that no subject (that’s you) can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term ‘policy,’ as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state…”
There you have it: a police state. Do not be deceived by Black’s mention of “limitations of the federal and state constitutions…” Police power is not limited and does not come about by due process but by usurpation and wrongful seizure of your mind and body through deception.
If you read this “Black’s Law Dictionary” definition closely, you will see that the interest of the state in all matters prevails over you, the individual.
When politicians and bureaucrats talk about democracy and public policy, they speak with a forked tongue. They want you to believe that these terms refer to personal liberty. They do not, and the politician knows that they do not. They know that they refer to the police power and enforcement of state authority over the individual. They are code words for government force.
Police power is physical force. If you fail to file and pay your income tax, you will be introduced to the police power of the government.
But it is no longer even necessary to “break the law” to see the police power of government. Now your assets can be seized simply because the state does not like the way you are depositing your own funds into your own bank accounts. The IRS is now seizing the bank accounts of businesses and individuals because they regularly made deposits of less than $10,000, which is a perfectly legal practice.
Under U.S. civil asset forfeiture laws, IRS agents can seize property they suspect of being tied to a crime even if no charges are filed, and the agency can keep a share of the property whether a crime is proven or not.
Police power goes far beyond the definition given above from “Black’s Law Dictionary.” We speak of the subtle and hidden power of government to persuade the public mind.
Government persuasion is the indoctrination of the individual through his church, his public school, his fraternities and the media to sacrifice his person, his individuality and his property for the “greater good” of the group. Group is translated as government authority.
Once we yield our minds to government force under the pretense of “the greater good” or “the national interest,” there is no need to concern ourselves with our rights, for we have surrendered them to the state. Police power is sovereignty of the state over mind, body and soul. To believe otherwise is to live by illusion.
During our public (non)education indoctrination, we learned about the abolition of slavery in America. However, we learned nothing about the nationalization of slavery with police power as outlined above. Statutory freedom shackled with mental marriage to the beast is a study in the pathology of the public mind. This means that we are guaranteed certain freedoms by way of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on one hand and brainwashed into servitude on the other.
Such a thought process creates what I call a “double-minded” person. By definition, double-mindedness is the mental state of believing or attempting to believe two opposing thoughts at the same time.
This simple and brief teaching of James 1:8 in the Bible on the double-minded man is most profound. The teaching is limited to this one sentence. There is no description or revelation as to what exactly a double-minded man is, but describes him as unstable. The above definition of double-mindedness is our definition.
The scriptural charge of being unstable is of serious importance. The “American Heritage Dictionary” defines “unstable” as “fickle” and “lacking control of one’s emotions; marked by unpredictable behavior.”
Double-mindedness is a recognizable psychological phenomenon and it is used to neutralize human thought and action. It is very subtle because it almost defies description. Herein lies its power to deceive and control human emotions.
There is both collective and individual double-mindedness. Almost all politicians are aware of this phenomenon and use it to deceive the electorate.
An example of collective double-mindedness is last week’s national elections. Every American who voted would tell you, if asked, that he or she believed in life, liberty and property. Yet regardless of how he or she voted, he or she voted for a political cabal that is progressively undermining basic liberty and transferring property to the state without payment. The only reason that people could be seduced into destroying their own liberty is because, over time, they have unknowingly adopted the morality of the state. Their double-mindedness has numbed their senses so that they do not know that political oratory is an appeal for sanction of their own plunder. The electorate never knew the real issues and none were ever stated.
The individual or group is double-minded when it clings to a philosophy that denies and is contradictory to reality, regardless of its name or label. Political parties were never intended to be different in substance, only in name and oratory. Before any third and fourth party devotees smugly agree, the same applies to all political parties. A rose under any name is still a rose.
No, there is no difference. That hope is based on illusion and illusion on double-mindedness. The great deception goes on.
The double-minded man forever seeks liberty under party labels. There are two illusions here. The first is that political parties appear different simply because they have different names. The second great illusion is that political parties lead to political freedom. The opposite is true. Collective plunder does not lead to human liberty, but to human conformity.
When Americans had freedom, there were no political parties.
"Well gents, it's been fun, but Zerohedge probably won't be on the whitelist of govie-approved sites."
Unfortunately AC, you are more than likely correct. Enabling the peasants to have free and unadultered discourse is too dangerous to the TPTB and they will not allow it much longer. I have always held the belief that if the TPTB could turn back the hands of time, there is no way the internet would be available or available in its current form. It simply is beyond their control.
Let's give the bastards hell while we still can.
Time for someone to invent the Alternet. Aside from spam and evil doers I didn't notice anything needed supervising.
Probably need to create more paperwork for the small web providing companies like the one I use. They use Verizon lines. You know Verizon would like to shut them down to get their customers.
No, not goodbye Internet... the "If You Like It" means the price the price will just keep going up 25% year over year...
camel nose, meet tent.
Camel toes are always welcome that are under the weight requirements.
Better download this and others like it while you still can...
https://www.perpetualassets.com/news/2014/10/24/were-in-the-end-game-now...
fuck you Barry! or whatever your name is
Damien
Obama W Bush
You get what you vote for.
I know. I was just thinking: Romney would have done just the opposite. There would have been no worries of net censorship.
I better add the <sarc> for you.
you get what you vote for... even if your guy loses
Where are all the internet liberals in SillyShit Spy-Valley, CA who were fainting over him? All the shithead libs at Apple, Google, Yelp, FaceBook, et al who loved the messiah. They still love him as much as the coming iPhony 7 and Steve Jobs.
ZH even has Demtards and Libturds posting who still love him like the f***king retards that they are.
These kinds of rules will largely be written by or at least approved by all those companies you mention, which is why you won't hear any complaining out of them, just like the insurance companies with obamacare. This will be a big win for them. Anything that stifles competiton and descent will benefit the status quo, and those companies are a big part of that.
"You get what you vote for"
That is one of the essential big lies that many still believe.
The absence of any regulation whatsoever is the definition of freedom. You of course see the way in. I can hear it now: "Those writings infringe on the freedom of the internet, we can't permit them to be published". WTF.
Most things that are regulate results in less competition, higher prices and restrictions for end users.
Obamacare was a disaster. ObamaNeti s gonna be just as bad.
Mencken was right when he noted that most men choose to live in a well run penitentiary than freedom, they will organize to assist the loading of the cattle cars if asked.
The incompetent corrupt arrogant narcissistic illegal indonesian kenyan alien muslim sociopathic pathological liar in chief fudge packer needs its flapping lips sutured & crazy glued shut.
Is this some sort of joke? Yeah, sure you want transparency in government. Deception + Illusion = Delusion. That's what we are living in.
This is why we should support https://supporters.eff.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=807, if possible.
The mainstream media is dead and an open internet is the only transparency that exists. Politicos and banksters are deathly afraid of the internet and its transparency.
America!
May I welcome you to the last two years of the Obama Republican Administration.
And may I kindly introduce you to the next decade of right wing Neo Con extremism!
Congradulations! jim Morrison could not have put it better. This is the end...
Impeach the traitor.
No, that is not good enough!
Internet regulations coming.
Makes sense.
If we are to head back to the dark ages, then we dont need internet or any source of information.
Holy mother of God! Did the golfer give this speech with a teleprompter?
Close: the teleprompter gave the speech, then went golfing.
It's like with the US dollar: in order to have it, we need FED to keep it free!!! Fuck
Well, if its going to be considered a "Utility", regulated by the FCC, it will also be TAXED.
He didnt mean that kind of "Free".
(The FED and Obama knows what they are doing.)
Also, considering the brainpower of the FCC, expect speed to be even slower once they start enforcing their regulations.
The most transparent regime there never was.
The most transGENDER administration evah!
really?
Is this kind of punching down really necessary?
Something tells me that no, it's not the very tiny minority of people who are/feel transgendered and spend their lives getting harassed and often assaulted setting up these tyrannical policies.
Punch up - punch at government. Don't pick on the people who are already non-stop dumped on.
czarangelus
Ok, let's tell that to some of the people he's drone-murdered.
We are already something like number 34 on the world broadband league table. We suck both at access and speed.
May as well kill it completely before the cable companies and the FCC do.
When we were in Singapore earlier this year, the Internet was the fastest I ever had, PLUS it was FREE everywhere!
I thought it was faster in mexico where wires were everywhere tangled with electric lines.
Can't wait to get back to dial up days. Oh AOL stock will skyrocket, again!!!!
Face forward with ass backwards.
Might as well just get ready for the Hunger Games
Palestinians break through West Bank barrier to mark Berlin Wall anniversary
I guess my internet service provider fees are going to get a lot more expensive lulz
Somebody stop this stupid lying motherfucker. Now.
Sandpaper its skin off then bury it in salt.
Don't say that too loud.... I said something similar as a joke once.... except my comment had him flayed with a potato peeler.... I got a visit from the SS and they searched my home.
Did they find your peeler?
LOL.... yeah... they found it....
They spent 2hrs and about 30 pages of report.
"No blocking.If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business."
Who determines what is legal content?
If it's critical of the borg collective then it's not legal content.
Jackpot!
Pelosi, Reid and the Attorney General will make the determination for us
Well no. They will ask their handlers and lobbyists what should and shouldn't be visible.
That would be the FCC.
And there it is.... Who?... you know who....
Who determines what is legal content?
Not you.
You missed something though, two little words:
Who determines what is legal content right now?
One thing you can count on, like fiat devaluaing, is that the definitions of legal will change until everything is illegal, then the law will be selectively applied.
.."Who determines what is legal content?".. quick answer, same guy that counts elections..
Why am I thinking this is somehow going to end up costing me more for internet service?
No shit.
No regulations necessary. Just let honest competition between everyone and customers will leave providers that do all the stuff that Obama wants to stop. Prices will go down too. With these regs, prices will go up and most likely the shenanigans will continue. Like the mental retards in government would ever be able to monitor something like throttling. Right.
It's going to cost you a lot more than that...
Why the hell 'muricans are so fucking ignorant and lazy to protect their freedoms?
If the internet will be restricted (more) we are all doomed.
Follows loss of Habeas corpus, freedom of congregation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rule of law, private property rights, presumption of innocence, etc.. What can you expect when you hire a Marxist to run the outfit?
Of course, some folks are going to lose their right to free speach. [comrade]
Net Neutrality=Netflix neutrality.
That is what this boils down to. Streaming Netflix eat up an ungodly amount of bandwith which Netflix is paying zilch for. So the cable companies have to eat this cost? Nope, they pass it on to their customers. So basically those of us who DON'T do Netflix pay for those who do. Lovely.
At my house we could stream anything during peak hours (3 minute youtube video) as it is choppy as hell. Netflix has all the bandwidth. Had to upgrade to the biggest pipe to even use the net for time sensitive data transfer during the evening.
pods
Good point. With Direct TV, each month the bill is higher but at least you are not sucking up more bandwidth than you should be.
That is the cost of being a backbone provider. Netflix DOES pay their bandwidth bill to THEIR ISP. So does the customer who buys netflix services pay their ISP for bandwidth.
I don't see what the issue is here. Bandwidth is not some scarce resource (except in the US where the backbone providers collude to make it so).
If your bandwidth sucks from your provider, then that is between you and your provider. How is it Netflix's fault that your ISP sucks?
The phone companies had common carrier status, they had to carry the calls or the system wouldn't work. Do you think it will be different with internet? We gave these companies billions in the 90's to upgrade the infrastructure. They didn't do it. That is the fault of the providers and not of any one company.
For the record, I don't like or use Netflix. There is fuck all on there to watch anyways...
Well the cost of being a backbone provider just went right the hell up if you have to build out to pay for an enormous amount of pipe being used by 1 company. I saw estimations around 30% during peak times a year or so ago.
Bandwith is not scarce on the internet, but the last mile it certainly is and at certain times as well.
If cable companies (or phones) had to build capacity to deal with this huge increase then the bill will skyrocket.
And if the cable company cannot bill the bandwitdh hog, nor can they throttle or charger the end user, they have to charge everyone.
Voila. Net Neutrality=Netflix Neutrality.
pods
How is it that only Netflix benefits? Broadband gaming and other future services as well as Netflix's competitors benefit. I mean are you REALLY standing up for TW and Comcast dude??? If they took a small profit hit for one year they could build out all they need. If you really wanna get pissed at something it should be the insane prices for sports channels that are driving up everyone's bill whether you're a fan or not. That is the single biggest driver of increasing cable bills. If they took one year of what they pay your local sports club ND did infrastructure improvements they could probably triple your bandwidth.
What I am saying is that TW and Comcast are NOT going to take a profit hit. They are gong to pass on the charges.
So that means that I will pay for someone else's Netflix streaming, and since I already pay for enough of other people's stuff I am tired of it.
I am not standing UP for them. I am standing against someone earning their living at my expense. Netflix and all the other unbalanced data hogs do exactly this.
I don't watch sports and rarely watch TV save for a documentary or two so that doesn't bother me. They still have $15 cable if I want it.
pods
You have already been doing it for years. Unless you never had a land line to your house... That is what the USF was for. To upgrade all the infrastructure. Except they didn't do it. I get the frustration but I think you are aiming at the wrong target. Even people that didn't use any internet at all paid the fee every month on their phone bill.
The USF was to build out service (internet and phone) to rural places. The price of that tax was not to give people gigabit connections everywhere in america at $15 a month all day long.
The real problem is government, but to have them try and solve a problem with more control is asinine. I hate TW, and don't have a phone, but I saw it firsthand how clogged my node was in that dinner to bedtime timeframe. Blazing fast in off peak times, but peak, forget it. There is no way they can eat the cost (USF or not) to build out 10x more pipe than is needed for 90% of the day.
pods
Do you remember the Universal Service Fund on your phone bill? Those last mile problems were paid for a decade ago or more. They took massive bonuses and changed the definition of boradband instead of fixing things like they promised. Yes there is a last mile problem. Cable particularly is a problem because it is a shared resource. That is a whole other problem that I don't want to get into.
Not that I am a Google fan or anything but AT&T are starting to shit themselves as google is bringing FTTH in more cities for significantly less than the big guys charge. Unfortunately it is taking a company like Google to solve the last mile issues that were solved in the 90's.
Are you seriously trying to compare the last-mile problem of twisted-pair POTS to the last-mile problem of Internet-grade service?? There are orders of magnitude of difference between the two.
That's really inaccurate pods. The problem is not Netflix but video and multimedia content in general. Netflix and others already pay the backbone fees for their enormous bandwidth and they pay Amazon servers for storage. What Comcast and TW want to do is have THEIR video fast and in HD on the "last mile" while throttling Netflix and others out of business. Considering the telcoms try to squash all competition, including public utility style municipal services which are the cheapest and most efficient, some type of Net Neutrality implementation HAS to happen or any net innovations in the future will ultimately fall under the control of the big telcoms by default. Short of breaking them up and introducing a true free market in broadband I don't see any other way to avoid the aforementioned outcome.
They have already started down the path. With old DSL the big players had to lease lines to smaller ISP's. That went away with the new upgrades like U-Verse. They changed th laws to get all the competition out. That competition and those smaller ISP's were the only thing helping to keep costs down and the internet open.
I fear whatever they are cooking up now might actually be what kills it for good.
It will cost more for slower speeds and if you want to access that service from the competitor ISP then we will charge you an additional $7 per month. Imagine if you had to pay extra per month to use yahoo search instead of google. This is what they want and where things are headed.
Our Enemy-Of-My-Enemy-Is-My-Friend could be Google. I read somewhere an estimate that Google could build out every major Metro are in the US for a couple of billion. The very idea that one private entity can afford to bring Fiber to EVERYONE'S door is a good threat to have. Which brings up another point...
One of the many reasons I have a boiling blood rage against Bernanke and his masters is that for all that money creation we didn't get a complete building out of Fiber internet and a fixing of the roads nation wide. The job creation and economic activity it could have u leashed would have been epic. Wouldn't have been inflationary in the least and the lower cost access to internet services and improved transportation corridors would have lead to a LOWERING of consumer prices. I hate them so fucking much...
WTF? And deny the banksters their bonuses. No way!
Anytime you think that Google is the solution to ANY problem, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
"Don't, be evil!"
The threat of Google Fiber helps fight the problem. The solution is municipal, local controlled and non-profit broadband. The libertards will decry this "public" solution but their is simply no sound argument against it. A city with direct funding from and accountability to it's residents is a better provider of last mile access than any third party.
It certainly is streaming hi def video, but Netflix is the largest provider of uninterrupted video. Not a 3 minute youtube video. Netflix requires seamless streaming of a shit ton of data, without hiccup. That necessitates a lot of bandwidth.
Denninger had a good letter to the FCC about this. He should know, he ran an ISP company.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3355222
The last mile ownership is a huge problem. I am all for competition, but having one company being such a drag that causes huge infrastructure build out at my expense is just thievery, no matter who is charging me.
pods
But pods if it's not Netflix it's going to be someone else bro. Cloud gaming is the next thing as it's a subscription model where the systems will be dirt cheap because the graphics processing is done in the cloud. 4K resolution Call of Duty frames will suck up more bandwidth than Netflix and multiple game companies will be providing services. The telecoms knew this was coming they manufactured this "crisis" to increase there monopoly power. Netflix is a pariah in all this. You're a smart dude man, you gotta see what's going on.
So I will have to pay for the pipes to handle this type of gaming as well?
Netflix is an easy target, but anyone who sucks up that much of my shared bandwith forcing me to pay for more is skimming, plain and simple.
Same reason I am pissed that I cannot get a la carte channels on cable. I have to pay for the money making channels while trying to watch the loss leaders.
Allow the last mile providers to charge those who use the bandwidth.
The price of that gaming might be dirt cheap to the end user, but the cost is not.
pods
Allow the last mile providers to charge those who use the bandwidth.
They can do that now but they don't want to. Just like you mentioned with the ala cart programming. The same reason they force the sports packages on everyone. Getting everyone in at a flat fee helps THEIR bottom line. So now were back to the original subject. in the absence of a true free market the only solution is with some form of regulation. Even shit-head GOP douche John McCain is in support of "regualtion" with his ala cart cable legislation.
It is much easier for them to charge everyone for this current level of data usuage than go after high hog individuals.
Like I said, I have no love for TW.
But them going after individuals would be like charging fat people at a buffet by how much they weigh. Lots of lawsuits.
If they cannot get it from NFLX, then they are going to get it from somewhere.
The system is broken. I will give you that. I just don't see this being solved by more government stepping in. Especially if they see the internet as THEIR internet.
pods
It is much easier for them to charge everyone for this current level of data usuage than go after high hog individuals.
I'll leave you with one last point. Within a few years 90% of users are going to be "hogs". Streaming is the present and future of the internet. So going full circle back to the thread topic, unless you break up the telcoms there is no other option than SOME form of regulation. The alternative is an even greater Monopoly of services by Verizon, ATT, etc. You live in an ATT neighborhoods, a third of the shows and data stream great and the rest suck. In TW neighborhoods it's a different third. I know the very idea of regulation is anathema to many, but really if ever their is a case for .gov playing the referee it's in the space of roads and utilities. If .gov is a legitimate thing at all it must acknowledge there are some (very few) things that are among the commons and it must maintain those things.
You have no jobs, so close your bacnk account, shut down the internet and go working your acre or slaving.
If it is regulated, expect strange 37% and 29% out of the blue in the middle of a fracking revolution cost increases from those like Nat Grid and NSTAR...