Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it 'works for everyone'

c/net ^ | November 10, 2014 | Don Reisinger

[Slyfox]

How long before he is gone for good? Let us count the minutes.

[Straight Vermonter]

That's not true and either a deliberate lie or a tell of your gullibility.

So you think they will not do for internet what they are already doing for television? Who's the gullible one here?

[onyx]

Right

[nascarnation]

Like anything with the Chicago Mob....follow the money. Which regime affiliate is gonna benefit here?

[mrsmel]

We always knew it, but hopefully the low-infos are getting the message, seeing as he and his minions are becoming shameless about it.

[abb]

What Obama proposes isn’t new. When the printing press was invented, government didn’t like that at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.

Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.

[GeronL]

this dovetails with Obama’s FEC or was it the FCC wanting to ban or control unpaid political speech on the internet. Which is pretty much all political speech on the internet.

[mrsmel]

Me either. More regulation, more government, is never the answer to a free market, especially when the commies like Obola are involved. Does anyone really believe that the man who instigated government takeover of healthcare, and lied to do it, has any but nefarious intentions in anything he does? That’s all I need to know-that he wants it.

[roamer_1]

How? The cable companies have been given a monopoly.

There is Satellite and DSL... There was once only one ISP serving my town (the phone company) Then up came several ISPs that bought curb service from the phone company, and provided infinitely better service... Then cable got in the deal and pretty much took over (because of cheap and superior bandwidth)...

I am content to let the market work it out. Every time I have seen anyone get a lock on it, the tech changes, or the hardware changes, and it blows it out again. Right now, we are on the cusp of DSL providing very close to cable bandwidth - within a year they will be competing with cable again. That's what competition does.

[catnipman]

Essentially, “net-neutrality” is a highly anti-competitive measure preventing innovation such as offering premium Internet services, with the result that all Internet traffic is reduced to the lowest common denominator, that is, all Internet traffic remains equally as slow, which of course is the heart of all socialistic schemes.

If “net-neutrality” were to be applied to the telephone system, then unlimited calls to anywhere in the world would all cost the same as a call to your next door neighbor. Of course, the quality of all those calls would suddenly become equally as bad. Likewise, cell phones would never have been allowed to be used under “net-neutrality”, since these represent a premium calling mechanism for which people pay a premium price.

So-called net neutrality amounts to nothing more than applying communist principles to the Internet: “To each according to his need, from each according to their ability”.

It’s no wonder Obama whole-heartedly endorses “net-neutrality”(assuming he even understands what it means in the first place, and isn’t endorsing it just because it sounds “fair”.)

[Mariner]

"Be wary of bull feces spread by the internet providers. I personally know one of the people who was one of the designers of the internet, and they designed it to be content neutral and strenuously opposed what the carriers want to do. The end of net neutrality will just cost YOU more."

You are exposing your politically motivated POV.

The ONLY people who will pay more are the content providers that want to use the internet for voice and video and charge the recipient for their cost of delivery.

But I'm sure you're fallacious relationship with Vinton Cerf won't allow you to believe that.

[Ray76]

Oh. Got it.

[Mariner]

ATT blocked Facetime because it would squeeze out other, important services on the backbone...like banking, utilities, Public Safety etc. without a general upgrade of bandwidth and further bandwidth limiting.

ATT position is that companies who wish to use the internet for real-time voice and video should be allowed the option to pay for upgrades on the backbone that will allow for the delivery of these services without affecting others.

But you would prevent that and force everyone to subsidize that which they are not going to use.

So that Apple/Google/Yahoo/Netflix/Hulu can have a free ride.

That's a political redistribution of private resources...and you fancy yourself as a champion of conservative values?

Laughable.

Oh, and your ignorant on how the internet business works too.

[abb]

Here’s their model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service

[GeronL]

ugh

[I want the USA back]

“so it ‘works for everyone’”

In other words, destroy it in the name of redistribution of income.

[GeronL]

like the Post office

99% of what you get will be junk mail

[Mariner]

"So you think they will not do for internet what they are already doing for television? Who's the gullible one here? "

What terrible thing do you fear from them that you could not circumvent as a consumer?

[SisterK]

Uuuhhhhmmm....If its not broke, don’t fix it.

[Ray76]

How are Apple/Google/Yahoo/Netflix/Hulu getting a free ride? They don’t pay their provider?