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 ...
>> The minute it is regulated, the big guys will get their way through lobbying and crony capitalism
That’s right.
We should have learned our lesson, when Obama tells us that the government is going to do something to protect us, he is lying.
We already know that government union employees think that limiting conservatives is social justice. We cannot allow federal employees to control anymore of our freedom.
Netflix isn’t using that bandwidth. I am.
If my ISP has a problem with that, I can always go elsewhere.
What I don’t need is the government between me and that transaction. Why not? Historically, that’s a very excellent way to prevent me from going elsewhere. Once the ISP can leverage the government to remove their competition, then they can charge me what they like. I’ll pay, or do without.
I don’t care what this idea purports to do. The end result of government interference is always to restrict my marketplace choices. Otherwise, why regulate it at all?
How? The cable companies have been given a monopoly.
This is NOT AT ALL what NN is about. Your hypothetical customers could be charged differently for the amount of bandwidth that they use. But NN is about stopping the ISP from charging consumers differently based on WHICH services they use.
Example:
Customer A consumes 4GB/month on Netflix and 1GB/month everywhere else. Customer B consumes 1GB/month on the internet but does not use Netflix. The ISP could charge Customer A more, because they consumed more bandwidth, but COULD NOT charge them extra simply for the right to access Netflix.
I can't imagine a decent outcome to government regulation.
No, it's not. The cable companies want to stand between you and content in the same way they do with television. I'm not in favor of new regulation I just think that if they are being given a monopoly they should not be able to use that as a way to control content.
“I hate to say this but Obama is right on this one.”
As a pretty hard and fast rule, I believe that anything that Obama pushes is wrong. However, The Electronic Frontier Foundation is in favor. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/white-house-gets-it-net-neutrality-will-fcc-0
I don't have a problem with them doing both of those things as long as they are not in charge of the "pipe".
Obola says the stupidest stuff.
None currently but Comcast (the monopoly broadband provider) wants to package internet in the way they package TV content. I have no problem with charging for bandwidth but I have a serious problem with them deciding people cannot access certain sites because they are getting a payment from that site. That is exactly how it works with TV and that is what they want the internet to look like in 10 years.
Want Netflix? Yeah that's extra. Want sports sites. Buy our sports package. Want FR? Sorry, that's only available as part of our extended package".
That's not true and either a deliberate lie or a tell of your gullibility.
The backbone providers want to be able to offer a better class of service to those content providers who are willing to pay for it. This will completely cannibalize the existing phone and cable networks and make the Internet suitable for guaranteed delivery of voice and video services.
However, SOME content providers want to force the backbone providers to do this without recovering their costs of improvement and thereby spread the costs to every user and provider equally.
Even if they do not need the advanced services.
Like Free Republic. Jim's costs for supplying bits to the internet would increase significantly without any benefit...in order to subsidize Google, Hulu and Yahoo and keep their costs down.
Get a clue!
CB radio, anyone?
Yes, eliminate the monopolies.
Well by definition an ISP is in charge of the pipe.
You're wasting your air on the ignorant.
Deliberately ignorant.
All one has to do is develop some quick, pleasant talk which tugs the heart strings and these folks would turn over their liberty to you.
They are ignorant and they intend to stay that way.
Until recently Comcast and Netflix did not have a direct interconnect agreement, yet that did not stop Comcast from extracting a fee from Netflix.
Me too. I get everything just fine. Where is THAT happening?
Think of the days of AOL. They were the ISP but the phone line was the "pipe". That is what I was referring to.
Stinking lying liar. He totally believes in picking winners and losers for society, as long as he does the picking.
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.