Frazzled supports Obama's Evilz Internetz Power Grabb

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/10/obama-wants-ban-on-internet-fast-lane-deals/

Obama calls for more regulation of Internet providers, industry fires back
Published November 10, 2014 • FoxNews.comFacebook0 Twitter0 Email Print
This Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2014 photo shows an AT&T store on New York's Madison Avenue and President Barack Obama on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2014, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. (AP)
President Obama threw down the gauntlet Monday with cable companies and Internet providers by declaring they shouldn’t be allowed to cut deals with online services like YouTube to move their content faster.

It was his most definitive statement to date on so-called “net neutrality,” and escalates a battle that has been simmering for years between industry groups and Internet activists who warn against the creation of Internet “fast lanes.” The president’s statement swiftly drew an aggressive response from trade groups, which are fighting against additional regulation.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

"We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme" regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry.

Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

"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," Obama said in his statement. "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."

Obama's statement puts him in the middle of a debate between industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission, which is under public pressure – now from Obama as well -- to prevent broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes.”

The FCC is nearing a decision on how far to go to protect Internet consumers from deals between broadband providers like Verizon and AT&T and content companies like Netflix or YouTube.

But industry groups pushed back, with Powell arguing that such regulation would slow Internet growth.

This "tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results," Powell said, claiming only Congress should make a policy change of this magnitude.”

Likewise, CTIA-The Wireless Association called Obama's proposal a "gross overreaction" that would ignore other viewpoints.

Last January, a federal court overturned key portions of an open Internet regulation put in place by the FCC in 2010. The court said the FCC had "failed to cite any statutory authority" to keep broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against content.

That ruling sent the FCC back to the drawing board. Until the FCC can agree on new regulations that satisfy the court's requirements, Internet service providers could block or discriminate against content moving across their networks with impunity.

Internet activists say the FCC should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act to ensure it has enough power to regulate the Internet effectively. That's exactly what industry doesn't want to happen. Industry officials say they are committed to an open Internet in general but want flexibility to think up new ways to package and sell Internet services.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he is open to using a "hybrid" approach that would draw from both Title II and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But Wheeler said Monday that so far, those options have presented "substantive legal questions."

"We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

**whembly**

Nope.

He just got spanked last Tuesday, and is trying to "throw a bone" to his base.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Nope.

He just got spanked last Tuesday, and is trying to "throw a bone" to his base.

Yeah, let's pretend that this wasn't something being investigated at all prior to last Tuesday...

**LordofHats**

Every day this debate becomes more and more brain dead and my faith in human intelligence sinks to further lows.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Every day this debate becomes more and more brain dead and my faith in human intelligence sinks to further lows.

See the Stupid Virus is spreading!

**nomotog**

And you know if he wants to throw me a bone, we can use better access to the net. It's a nice bone.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Every day this debate becomes more and more brain dead and my faith in human intelligence sinks to further lows.

Really?

I get the optics of the public's general favorability toward a "message of free and open access to the internet"...

But, I believe that most of us have little faith in the ability of the federal government to regulate online communications technology or internet service providers.

If we were to reclassify these entities as "Utilities"... just wait for the next round of mergers & acquisitions to shake up the industry.

**LordofHats**

I'd settle for keeping our access as it is. Giving the providers what they want will not end well for any of us. This isn't about government power it's about rights of the consumer. This will open a very very nasty door in an industry that already lives to shaft us;

Posted yet again, because it's still so true its scary.

And now Comcast owns Time Warner. "Hello, consumer? Yes. See we had this monopoly on your cable and turns out it just got bigger and better so we'll be raising your prices."

^Exactly what just happened to Kansas City.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

But, I believe that most of us have little faith in the ability of the federal government to regulate online communications technology or internet service providers.

You drink too much of the kool-aid.

**Prestor Jon**

Why can't provider's control content? Isn't it similar to subscription tv channels? I pay HBO for their channel and they control want I can watch on their channel and since it's a subscription then the FCC doesn't interfere so there can be nudity and cussing.

If I pay a company for internet, that's a subscription service, why does the FCC get to dictate the provider's ability or inability to determine content that flows through their internet connection?

I'm not advocating for or against a new law. Since the key issue appears to be whether or not the FCC has the power to enforce whatever may be passed that seems to be key issue, the definitions of the FCC's power. It's not should the govt allow the regulation content, it's can the govt regulate content control in the first place?

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

But, I believe that most of us have little faith in the ability of the federal government to regulate online communications technology or internet service providers.

You drink too much of the kool-aid.

Whatever man...

I'm "pro-consumer" in this... just not "your way".

I'm all for making sure they don't get too big (Comcast truly does need to be broken down) or that their conflict of interest don't curb stomp consumers.

But with the increased regulation by the FCC... the government is not going to create more competition.

It’s going to turn these service providers into arms of the government implementing government policy.

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Why can't provider's control content? Isn't it similar to subscription tv channels? I pay HBO for their channel and they control want I can watch on their channel and since it's a subscription then the FCC doesn't interfere so there can be nudity and cussing.

It's not an issue of the FCC blocking content. It's a sad case of corporations playing the public for fools. The cable companies want to block content behind pay walls. The FCC meanwhile has become the only way to prevent this by turning internet service into a public utility (and thus, the providers can't block content behind pay walls), which increasingly seems to be the only option we're going to get, because all parties involved seem unwilling to consider any more nuanced possibilities.

**nomotog**

whembly wrote:
LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

But, I believe that most of us have little faith in the ability of the federal government to regulate online communications technology or internet service providers.

You drink too much of the kool-aid.

Whatever man...

I'm "pro-consumer" in this... just not "your way".

I'm all for making sure they don't get too big (Comcast truly does need to be broken down) or that their conflict of interest don't curb stomp consumers.

But with the increased regulation by the FCC... the government is not going to create more competition.

It’s going to turn these service providers into arms of the government implementing government policy.

It's not really a big thing I don't think. The problem seems to be that you almost never have two companies operating in the same place at the same time, so you know no competition.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Why can't provider's control content? Isn't it similar to subscription tv channels? I pay HBO for their channel and they control want I can watch on their channel and since it's a subscription then the FCC doesn't interfere so there can be nudity and cussing.

It's not an issue of the FCC blocking content. It's a sad case of corporations playing the public for fools. The cable companies want to block content behind pay walls. The FCC meanwhile has become the only way to prevent this by turning internet service into a public utility (and thus, the providers can't block content behind pay walls), which increasingly seems to be the only option we're going to get, because all parties involved seem unwilling to consider any more nuanced possibilities.

That's true...

Keep in mind that the courts have rule TWICE that the FCC has NO AUTHORITY to regulate the internet.

It will have to take an act of Congress via new legislation to re-categorize these entities as a public utility.

Otherwise, it's politicking by Obama to mollify his base.

**Prestor Jon**

LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Why can't provider's control content? Isn't it similar to subscription tv channels? I pay HBO for their channel and they control want I can watch on their channel and since it's a subscription then the FCC doesn't interfere so there can be nudity and cussing.

It's not an issue of the FCC blocking content. It's a sad case of corporations playing the public for fools. The cable companies want to block content behind pay walls. The FCC meanwhile has become the only way to prevent this by turning internet service into a public utility (and thus, the providers can't block content behind pay walls), which increasingly seems to be the only option we're going to get, because all parties involved seem unwilling to consider any more nuanced possibilities.

So is the article Frazzled posted wrong when it states:

Last January, a federal court overturned key portions of an open Internet regulation put in place by the FCC in 2010. The court said the FCC had "failed to cite any statutory authority" to keep broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against content.

That ruling sent the FCC back to the drawing board. Until the FCC can agree on new regulations that satisfy the court's requirements, Internet service providers could block or discriminate against content moving across their networks with impunity.

Because that summation seems to be pretty clear about the FCC not being able to stop providers from blocking content even if Congress/POTUS/whomever wanted the FCC to stop providers from blocking content.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

I'm "pro-consumer" in this... just not "your way".

You can't call yourself pro-consumer while advocating a position that will literally bends consumers over and get them violated with a wine bottle.

But with the increased regulation by the FCC... the government is not going to create more competition.

Again, what regulation? You throw that word out like it's the devil, but what regulations? How does ensuring the continuation of Net Neutrality, make it harder to create competition? Net Neutrality has allowed companies like YouTube, Google, Amazon, and Netflix to rise completely out of the woodwork (two of them becoming the most profitable in the world). Creating a fast lane is going to kill competition.

We could have handled this intelligently, but the internet companies have masterfully made it impossible for any other solution to be passed. It's FCC Net Neutrality, or the wine bottle up your rectum.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

So is the article Frazzled posted wrong when it states:

It wears its bias on it's coat to obscure the reality of what is happening. This has nothing to do with regulation. Net Neutrality is a standard that all data must be treated equally, and is the foundation on which a free and open internet rests. A certain group of companies want that rule removed so they can increase their profit margin at everyone else's expense, and now the only way to keep Net Neutrality going has become to reclassify these companies as common carriers.

I would have preferred Obama stay out of the issue. Now it's going to become Republicans vs Democrats.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
[
I would have preferred Obama stay out of the issue. Now it's going to become Republicans vs Democrats.

Agreed 100%.

You and will disagree that having "a fast lane" would curtail competition.

But, this issue is overly politicised.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:
You and will disagree that having "a fast lane" would curtail competition.

Yeah. Go find that world where an increased cost of entering a market places increases competition. I wish you luck in finding Imagination Land (I'm just gonna keep making South Park references

).

But, this issue is overly politicised.

This we can also agree on. Now that Obama has said something, all the Republicans are going to have to jump on the bandwagon, and this mess is going to become as banal as the immigration debate.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:
You and will disagree that having "a fast lane" would curtail competition.

Yeah. Go find that world where an increased cost of entering a market places increases competition. I wish you luck in finding Imagination Land (I'm just gonna keep making South Park references ).

I have to re-read that last FCC proposal, but if memory serves, as long as the "not-fastlane" isn't impacted to current standards, they're open for a dedicated fast lanes for additional fees.

Now how that works in practice? Remains to be seen...

But, this issue is overly politicised.

This we can also agree on. Now that Obama has said something, all the Republicans are going to have to jump on the bandwagon, and this mess is going to become as banal as the immigration debate.

Yeah... that's going to suck big time. To me, it's another "LOOK, squirrel!" event.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:
Now how that works in practice? Remains to be seen...

Yeah. Like this gun. I mean, I haven't shot it yet. Who knows what could happen when I point it at that deer over there!

There is no 'remains to be seen.' If you increase the cost of entry, then the competition in a market will decrease. I have no idea how anyone can even buy into that line of BS. Fast Lanes might have some pros behind them, but increased competition is not one of them.

**Easy E**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Because that summation seems to be pretty clear about the FCC not being able to stop providers from blocking content even if Congress/POTUS/whomever wanted the FCC to stop providers from blocking content.

Unless Congress passes a law that says otherwise.

**d-usa**

And it begins:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/politics/republicans-net-neutrality/index.html?c=politics

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
And it begins:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/politics/republicans-net-neutrality/index.html?c=politics

Yep. There it is. As if the debate wasn't dishonest enough to begin with.

Never has 'Thanks Obama' been more appropriate.

**whembly**

Okay... that was funny Cruz...

"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the internets. -Cruz"

Not even close.

*sigh*

**Frazzled**

Thats why I will never vote for that guy again.

**Ahtman**

(Some language so NSFW)

Dear Senator Cruz...

**daedalus**

I'm starting to think there's a thing about politicians named Ted and impressively stupid analogies about the Internet.

**d-usa**

Politicians being the mouth piece for whatever group donated money to then? Shocking!

Of course that's why I'm still in favor of campaign finance reform that requires politicians to wear NASCAR style sponsor suits, that way it's always obvious who they are talking for.

**LordofHats**

I actually think that would be kind of Bad Ass. Those suits would be slick.

**d-usa**

Edit: holy giant picture!

Spoiler:

Just go all out with sponsors!

"turn in tonight for the Keystone XL filibuster, brought to you by Shell!"

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Nope.

He just got spanked last Tuesday, and is trying to "throw a bone" to his base.

Yeah, it's not like he said he would do this in 2007, FFS.

I mean, Jesus Christ. When you say stuff like this it really makes people call into question your intellectual honest in pretty much anything else you write in the thread.

Anyway, we've danced this dance before and we're not going to convince each other, but I'm strongly in favor of network neutrality. I loathe the double dipping that Comcast et al have been getting into with Netflix and such shenanigans need to come to a stop.

Ultimately I agree that the internet is a public utility just like sewage and water.