Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:
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.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Okay, I'll play this game. Given that he had six years so far as President, the first two with total Democrat control of Congress, why hasn't he done it already? Not like it would have taken as much effort as the ACA did.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Okay, I'll play this game. Given that he had six years so far as President, the first two with total Democrat control of Congress, why hasn't he done it already? Not like it would have taken as much effort as the ACA did.

The FCC did do it already. In 2010. It was knocked down by the court. There remains a different route that the FCC can take - reclassifying as a public service - which is the next avenue to explore.

 Breotan wrote:
And why hasn't the FCC done this reclassification already, then?

Spoiler:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Okay, I'll play this game. Given that he had six years so far as President, the first two with total Democrat control of Congress, why hasn't he done it already? Not like it would have taken as much effort as the ACA did.

The FCC did do it already. In 2010. It was knocked down by the court. There remains a different route that the FCC can take - reclassifying as a public service - which is the next avenue to explore.

And why hasn't the FCC done this reclassification already, then? I don't really know if they have the authority, anyway. Still, while the FCC didn't have the authority to implement Net Neutrality, Congress + President did. So back to the original query, what exactly did the President do to keep his promise in those six years? I'm not seeing any evidence that he did anything. It wasn't an urgent issue when the Democrats had all three branches of Government under their control. It certainly wasn't very urgent before the Republicans took the Senate, so why is it urgent now? Why threaten executive action before the Republicans have taken Congress except to cause drama?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Okay, I'll play this game. Given that he had six years so far as President, the first two with total Democrat control of Congress, why hasn't he done it already? Not like it would have taken as much effort as the ACA did.

The FCC did do it already. In 2010. It was knocked down by the court. There remains a different route that the FCC can take - reclassifying as a public service - which is the next avenue to explore.

And why hasn't the FCC done this reclassification already, then? I don't really know if they have the authority, anyway. Still, while the FCC didn't have the authority to implement Net Neutrality, Congress + President did. So back to the original query, what exactly did the President do to keep his promise in those six years? I'm not seeing any evidence that he did anything. It wasn't an urgent issue when the Democrats had all three branches of Government under their control. It certainly wasn't very urgent before the Republicans took the Senate, so why is it urgent now? Why threaten executive action before the Republicans have taken Congress except to cause drama?

It wasn't an issue up until a few months ago.

 whembly wrote:


Why is this a surprise? Obama is ever in "campaign mode".

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Okay, I'll play this game. Given that he had six years so far as President, the first two with total Democrat control of Congress, why hasn't he done it already? Not like it would have taken as much effort as the ACA did.

The FCC did do it already. In 2010. It was knocked down by the court. There remains a different route that the FCC can take - reclassifying as a public service - which is the next avenue to explore.

And why hasn't the FCC done this reclassification already, then? I don't really know if they have the authority, anyway. Still, while the FCC didn't have the authority to implement Net Neutrality, Congress + President did. So back to the original query, what exactly did the President do to keep his promise in those six years? I'm not seeing any evidence that he did anything. It wasn't an urgent issue when the Democrats had all three branches of Government under their control. It certainly wasn't very urgent before the Republicans took the Senate, so why is it urgent now? Why threaten executive action before the Republicans have taken Congress except to cause drama?

It wasn't an issue up until a few months ago.

You're missing the point. It's been hotly debated for years.

But, what is undeniable is that this push from the WH is a signal that they are focused on mollifying the president’s progressive base... even if it invites more conflict with the incoming Republican-dominated Congress.

Why is this a surprise? Obama is ever in "campaign mode".

 Bromsy wrote:
Man, I am a fairly conservative dude, but I cannot see an upside to fighting net neutrality. Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but come on. This isn't a neat ideological split between conservatives and liberals, it's a split between corporate shills and everyone else.

I mean, aside from the general feeling that the government should never do anything, what is the gain here? I cannot wrap my head around that.

I really hope the Republicans don't go after this.

And if they do, they are going to shoot themselves right in the foot for 2016. All the partisan nonsense on big button issues doesn't even compare to what will happen if you marginally inconvenience people on a daily basis.

 Bromsy wrote:
All the partisan nonsense on big button issues doesn't even compare to what will happen if you marginally inconvenience people on a daily basis.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
All the partisan nonsense on big button issues doesn't even compare to what will happen if you marginally inconvenience people on a daily basis.

There is a reason that the Cable and Electric companies top the list of worst companies in America. Every. Damn. Year.

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space.

The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?

I Want More Privacy

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign manner?

I Want More Freedom

“
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. '– James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The first two are easily dismissed, lack of net neutrality means this big companies can continue to gain more influence, not less, and a more monopilised system, and the second makes no sense, the FCC gets most if not all it's information from reports of violations from the people.

The third is purely opinion based, and thus can't be proven or disproven. It's just the blanket government=bad thing so many people are stuck on.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The first two are easily dismissed, lack of net neutrality means this big companies can continue to gain more influence, not less, and a more monopilised system, and the second makes no sense, the FCC gets most if not all it's information from reports of violations from the people.

The third is purely opinion based, and thus can't be proven or disproven. It's just the blanket government=bad thing so many people are stuck on.

If the govt wants to prevent too much restriction of ISPs and content then it should pass anti trust legislation to break up existing monopolies in the private sector. Having the Federal govt control ISP rates, service and content is still a monopoly and is the biggest most powerful monopoly in the country. Why do you think the FCC would get you better rates and service than Comcast? It would be better for the govt to ensure that Comcast was a smaller company that had to compete with other companies of similar size to provide consumers with the best internet service at the most competitive price. Having the FCC dictate X service costs Y dollars doesn't create that environment and prevents such competition from ever occurring.

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

Because of misinformation galore.

However, the idea that creating a "fast lane" is going to be a bad thing is crazy pants imo.

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

Because of misinformation galore.

However, the idea that creating a "fast lane" is going to be a bad thing is crazy pants imo.

It's crazy pants to think that things that have already happened are going to happen?

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

Because govnment is bad bro.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How the feth does "the government says there can't be separate internets" become "the government will set rates and control the infrastructure and content of the Internet"?

Because of misinformation galore.

However, the idea that creating a "fast lane" is going to be a bad thing is crazy pants imo.

It's crazy pants to think that things that have already happened are going to happen?

You're conflating the two.

You're talking about the Netflix thing?

For years a lineup of phone and cable industry spokespeople has called Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem.”

The principle that protects free speech and innovation online is irrelevant, they claim, as blocking has never, ever happened. And if it did, they add, market forces would compel Internet service providers to correct course and re-open their networks.

In reality, many providers both in the U.S. and abroad have violated the principles of Net Neutrality — and they plan to continue doing so in the future.

This history of abuse reveals a problem that only real Net Neutrality protections could solve:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-Internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest Internet provider, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s Open Internet Order, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow it to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept an Internet user’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT & VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affect at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hotspots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s Open Internet Order. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

The court struck down the FCC’s rules in January 2014 — and in May FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a proposal that would allow discrimination online.

Since then millions have urged the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers. This is the only approach that would enable the agency to create and enforce strong Net Neutrality protections.

In the absence of any rules, violations of the open Internet will become more and more common.

Don’t believe me? Let history be the guide.

Prestor Jon wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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!