Obama seeks broad government control over internet

[NightHawkeye]

President Obama Thinks The Internet Should Be A Utility - Business Insider

President Barack Obama wants to reclassify the internet as a utility, he said in a new statement released by the White House on Monday.​

Obama Urges FCC to Seize Sweeping New Internet Powers to Save Net Neutrality | National Journal

Under his plan, the FCC would classify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, a provision the agency already uses to regulate telephone companies.​

It's for the common good of the internet ... or the administration.

 

[trunks2k]

This has to do with Net Neutrality. If it's classified as a utility, they can enforce net neutrality, which is a good thing.

 

[NightHawkeye]

“In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet,” the Texas Republican and possible 2016 presidential contender said in a statement distributed by his office. “It puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices for consumers. The Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”​

Ted Cruz: Net neutrality is 'Obamacare for the Internet' - Washington Times

 

[jamesrwright3]

I am a conservative, but this is one thing I agree with Obama on and disagree with Cruz. In today's world the internet is just as important as other standard utilities. I would want the winners and losers on the internet to be determined by ideas/demand and not by someone with deep pockets boxing out the little guys i.e. upstarts. For example, how would a competitor to Netflix ever have a reasonable chance of success if Netflix could use it's resources to essentially shut the upstart out or at least put it at a competitive disadvantage. Dont' want to have an era of monopolies where the first movers will have a perpertual advantage in certain areas. Net neutrality is more about market fairness.

 

[PureTruth7]

Why not? After all, the more control Satan has of everything through using the governments, the better they can enforce the mark of the beast.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am a conservative, but this is one thing I agree with Obama on and disagree with Cruz. In today's world the internet is just as important as other standard utilities. I would want the winners and losers on the internet to be determined by ideas/demand and not by someone with deep pockets boxing out the little guys i.e. upstarts. For example, how would a competitor to Netflix ever have a reasonable chance of success if Netflix could use it's resources to essentially shut the upstart out or at least put it at a competitive disadvantage. Dont' want to have an era of monopolies where the first movers will have a perpertual advantage in certain areas. Net neutrality is more about market fairness.

Market forces have so far kept the internet open and competitive ... despite government attempts to subvert that.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. (You won't like Obamanet. )

 

[jamesrwright3]

Why not? After all, the more control Satan has of everything through using the governments, the better they can enforce the mark of the beast.

ApplePay is just the beginning

 

[Maynard Keenan]

There wouldn't be much of any "government control" over the internet. It would mean that one packet of information would have to be treated the same as any other packet of information.

 

[NightHawkeye]

ApplePay is just the beginning

Noting that Apple is likely the single most restrictive and monopolistic practitioner on the internet.

 

[Metal Minister]

I am a conservative, but this is one thing I agree with Obama on and disagree with Cruz. In today's world the internet is just as important as other standard utilities. I would want the winners and losers on the internet to be determined by ideas/demand and not by someone with deep pockets boxing out the little guys i.e. upstarts. For example, how would a competitor to Netflix ever have a reasonable chance of success if Netflix could use it's resources to essentially shut the upstart out or at least put it at a competitive disadvantage. Dont' want to have an era of monopolies where the first movers will have a perpertual advantage in certain areas. Net neutrality is more about market fairness.

I would disagree with your assessment of companies like Netflix. I've found several of the "smaller" sites that offer basically the same content for less money. There are also major competitors like Amazon and iTunes as well. I'd prefer the government keeps it's mitts off the internet. I'd hate to see a "fairness doctrine" take hold in cyberspace. I don't want to be China....

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I would disagree with your assessment of companies like Netflix. I've found several of the "smaller" sites that offer basically the same content for less money. There are also major competitors like Amazon and iTunes as well. I'd prefer the government keeps it's mitts off the internet. I'd hate to see a "fairness doctrine" take hold in cyberspace. I don't want to be China....

Unlike TV or radio, there isn't a finite amount of airtime to distribute, so any notion of a "fairness doctrine" is comparing apples to sardines. And this regulation would be quite the opposite of China. Whereas China controls content, censors information, etc. a net neutrality provision would ban such censorship and controls, ensuring that all information gets passed through the pipes without prejudice as to its content or its source. Conservatives like to rail against big liberal media companies. This regulation would prevent, say, a big liberal media company who owns an ISP from throttling down content from conservative sources, or from demanding a fee from conservative sources to get their information through their gates.

 

[Joykins]

Net neutrality is something nearly everyone is for except for large telecomms and apparently, Sen. Ted Cruz.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Net neutrality is something nearly everyone is for except for large telecomms and apparently, Sen. Ted Cruz.

In the same way EVERYONE was for Obamacare?

 

[Joykins]

In the same way EVERYONE was for Obamacare?

No, it pretty much is the big telecomms and their shills who are against net neutrality.

Everyone else likes it.

The FCC Was Hacked After John Oliver Called for Net Neutrality Trolls | Motherboard

Netflix Joins Sept. 10 'Internet Slowdown' Event | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Joykins]

I would disagree with your assessment of companies like Netflix. I've found several of the "smaller" sites that offer basically the same content for less money. There are also major competitors like Amazon and iTunes as well. I'd prefer the government keeps it's mitts off the internet. I'd hate to see a "fairness doctrine" take hold in cyberspace. I don't want to be China....

What would happen without net neutrality is that smaller competitors would be at a disadvantage compared to big companies like Netflix--both financially and potentially in the quality of service they could deliver. Because a big company would have more resources to pay for better and faster access, and shut out the little guys.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

What would happen without net neutrality is that smaller competitors would be at a disadvantage compared to big companies like Netflix--both financially and potentially in the quality of service they could deliver. Because a big company would have more resources to pay for better and faster access, and shut out the little guys.

There's also a huge threat from one company owning both an ISP and a content delivery service. ATT can be the service provider and allow their streaming service through for free, but require either Netflix or customers who want to receive Netflix to pay an additional fee to ATT to get it.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I would disagree with your assessment of companies like Netflix. I've found several of the "smaller" sites that offer basically the same content for less money. There are also major competitors like Amazon and iTunes as well. I'd prefer the government keeps it's mitts off the internet. I'd hate to see a "fairness doctrine" take hold in cyberspace. I don't want to be China....

I am not saying there can't be alternatives to those services. I know there are already. I just don't want them to have a qualitative advantage over upstarts. For example 4k streaming is going to be coming soon. Netflix might pay Comcast a ton of money to make sure their bandwith gets priority to make sure the experience is smooth. An upstart maybe couldn't pay that fee...and likely couldn't stream the same type of content without issues.

I think there does need to be more research into this to see how much of a competitive advantage this would have. What may be more concerning than the bandwith issue is the data cap issue. For example in some cities Comcast has data cap. A company like Netflix might be able to pay Comcast a ton of money to make sure their content doesn't count against a customer's data cap so a customer could stream to their heart's content, but an upstart might not be able to pay that so their streaming efforts could he hampered.

 

[Joykins]

Net non-neutrality is anti-consumer because it basically means that the high-speed internet traffic that reaches you are the companies that pay off the big ISPs. Slow speeds for everyone else. This is bad for businesses, it's anti-competitive--and it's also bad for consumers--be sure, even if we don't pay directly, we'll pay indirectly when these fees are applied to companies we do business with.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Net non-neutrality is anti-consumer because it basically means that the high-speed internet traffic that reaches you are the companies that pay off the big ISPs. Slow speeds for everyone else. This is bad for businesses, it's anti-competitive--and it's also bad for consumers--be sure, even if we don't pay directly, we'll pay indirectly when these fees are applied to companies we do business with.

Actually, it isn't a "payoff" by the content suppliers, it is a valid charge by the ISPs for the draw-down on bandwidth those companies cause. Net neutrality is a bogus claim that the putting a halt to those fees would "free up the Internet." In reality, it would bog it down.

Take Netflix, for example. Netflix has customers all over the world, but the company only accesses the 'Net at certain nodes, causing a draw-down on data speed traffic in the neighborhood of that node. To make up the difference, Comcast or TWC or whoever has to spend money to upgrade the gateways around that node so as to make up for the draw-down caused by the content provider, Netflix in this case.

It is only reasonable that if a company is forcing the ISP to upgrade service points because of high bandwidth usage, the ISP has the right to charge that company for its access, in order to keep bandwidth available for all customers, not just the high-end content provider. Net neutrality is a bad idea.

 

[rambot]

Why not? After all, the more control Satan has of everything through using the governments, the better they can enforce the mark of the beast.

Satan has control? Well, you better let God know because God was the one who instituted this particular government.