Posted on 11/10/2014 11:38:48 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."
In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable "to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas."
Obama wades into a contentious debate that has raged over how to treat Internet traffic, which has only heated up as the FCC works to prepare an official guideline. Those rules were expected to be made available later this year, though reports now claim they may be delayed until early 2015. The debate has centered on whether broadband should be placed under Title II regulation under the Telecommunications Act, which already tightly controls phone services.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnet.com ...
So you think they will not do for internet what they are already doing for television? Who's the gullible one here?
Right
Like anything with the Chicago Mob....follow the money. Which regime affiliate is gonna benefit here?
We always knew it, but hopefully the low-infos are getting the message, seeing as he and his minions are becoming shameless about it.
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 It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.)
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.
Oh. Got it.
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.
ugh
“so it ‘works for everyone’”
In other words, destroy it in the name of redistribution of income.
like the Post office
99% of what you get will be junk mail
What terrible thing do you fear from them that you could not circumvent as a consumer?
Uuuhhhhmmm....If its not broke, don’t fix it.
How are Apple/Google/Yahoo/Netflix/Hulu getting a free ride? They don’t pay their provider?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.