Obamacare To Obamanet

[CandiCame]

That's bad? If I can get the same product for less, why not? I currently pay $40.00 a month for mine. I'm not in love with these internet provider companies. What's my bottom line?

Wouldn't it be cool if that's actually what it was?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Wouldn't it be cool if that's actually what it was?

welfare asshole

 

[unregistered]

 

[muffguy]

still waiting for Obama to come out and say "if you like your internet, you can keep your internet"

 

[NeverEndingMe]

still waiting for Obama to come out and say "if you like your internet, you can keep your internet"

that is funny!

obama, biggest criminal man kind has ever known. the cuckold obama could have taught those at Enron a thing or two about highway robbery

 

[mark_j]

Your belief in the term "net neutrality" is a joke. It has nothing to do with neutrality, it has everything to do with censorship of the right for the benefit of the left.

Heard nothing of the sort.. where do you get the censorship crap?

 

[Disgustipated]

Heard nothing of the sort.. where do you get the censorship crap?

From the beams of stupidity received by his tin foil hat.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

From the beams of stupidity received by his tin foil hat.

I've never seen a guy so pressed in my life.

If Vette is the final form of what's waiting for me when I get old, impotent and scared of every shadow casted by the dustballs on my floor, I'm going to request a Kevorkian machine the minute I pass sixty-five!

 

[phrodeau]

Sooo... under-regulated banks created substandard mortgages as allowed by the Bush admin, which led to a long-term recession.

Under-regulated insurance companies created substandard policies which led to overwhelming medical bills and bankruptcies, the Clinton admin tried to rein them in and failed, the Bush admin did squat about it, then the Obama admin came up with Obamacare to stop it.

And under-regulated ISP's are starting to create substandard avenues of service because they can, and the Republicans want to let them. Obama has two short years to rein them in. Seems to me like this is an issue for the future Democratic President to take action on.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your belief in the term "net neutrality" is a joke. It has nothing to do with neutrality, it has everything to do with censorship of the right for the benefit of the left.

You know given who the rich are who could afford to block out the other 99% Vette's not really wrong here. Giving everybody an equal shot fucks his side and who wants a fair fight when you don't have to have one?

 

[Que]

Sooo... under-regulated banks created substandard mortgages as allowed by the Bush admin, which led to a long-term recession.

Under-regulated insurance companies created substandard policies which led to overwhelming medical bills and bankruptcies, the Clinton admin tried to rein them in and failed, the Bush admin did squat about it, then the Obama admin came up with Obamacare to stop it.

And under-regulated ISP's are starting to create substandard avenues of service because they can, and the Republicans want to let them. Obama has two short years to rein them in. Seems to me like this is an issue for the future Democratic President to take action on.

Not at all true and anyone ignorant enough of banking, mortgage lending and bundling guidelines to make such a statement is barely worthy of a response. I have debunked that ad nauseum and if that is what you want to believe, believe it. FWIW the SAME guidelines REQUIREMENTS and conditions that led to the last bubble are being pushed by FNMA in order to give life support to the RE market. Ignore that information at your peril if you have anything invested.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not at all true and anyone ignorant enough of banking, mortgage lending and bundling guidelines to make such a statement is barely worthy of a response. I have debunked that ad nauseum and if that is what you want to believe, believe it. FWIW the SAME guidelines REQUIREMENTS and conditions that led to the last bubble are being pushed by FNMA in order to give life support to the RE market. Ignore that information at your peril if you have anything invested.

IT can't be debunked because it's a fact. And yes, Obama did nothing to unfuck it because he's a not really interested in reigning in capitalism like he should be.

 

[about_average]

Even the left is concerned, KO's ignorance notwithstanding:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

In your own words, what is the EFF concerned about. Not that the EFF is really "the left".

 

[cowslinger64]

Meh.. Changed my mind.

 

[CandiCame]

IT can't be debunked because it's a fact. And yes, Obama did nothing to unfuck it because he's a not really interested in reigning in capitalism like he should be.

He seems kinda not interested in a LOT of stuff that he should be. It's weird, this site in particular, because there are so many valid criticism of the president and the folk here come up with the weirdest shit. And it's like... factory farming is still a thing. Guantanamo Bay is still a thing. Native land rights restrictions are still a thing. Immigration reform is still not a thing. Vet benefit restructuring is still not a thing. Unchecked police brutality is still a thing. There are real things in the real world that aren't just ridiculous scare tactics that folk could be putting that energy toward.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

derp





d





derp



same ole welfare derp

 

[JohnnySavage]

WRT the cause of the recession: There was a confluence of bad things that happened, but the root cause was the large banks, who were not licensed to sell insurance products, were in fact, selling illegal insurance policies backing up the bundled mortgages.

When housing values began to fall, which was normal and predicted, a snowball effect began, which ended with those same big banks receiving billions of tax-payer dollars, interest free, which they then loaned to the same Proles they took the houses from, at 30% interest on credit cards, used to pay the bills they couldn't pay because of the illegal actions of those same banks.


The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. It's the American dream!

 

[NeverEndingMe]

WRT the cause of the recession: There was a confluence of bad things that happened, but the root cause was the large banks, who were not licensed to sell insurance products, were in fact, selling illegal insurance policies backing up the bundled mortgages.

When housing values began to fall, which was normal and predicted, a snowball effect began, which ended with those same big banks receiving billions of tax-payer dollars, interest free, which they then loaned to the same Proles they took the houses from, at 30% interest on credit cards, used to pay the bills they couldn't pay because of the illegal actions of those same banks.


The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. It's the American dream!

what does your derp rant have to do with the internet?

are you saying, today you are eating a rock because it looks like an apple?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nobody is dumber than you, shit for brains.

Please stop posting this kind of content-free snark, forever. It's embarrassing, mainly to you but also to all of us. If that's all you have to say, don't say it.

 

[dan_c00000]

It's so easy to disprove every word in that "article". Here's a real source.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? Not by a long stretch, but that's not stopping political banter in the "net neutrality" debate.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the "public interest" when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are "just and reasonable."

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet "fast lanes" and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it's a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it'll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren't telling the whole story.

Here's a look at some of the questionable rhetoric in the "net neutrality" debate:

___

THE CLAIM: "President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet." — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It's a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn't proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don't block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it's a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president's call.

___

THE CLAIM: FCC Chairman "Wheeler has chosen to ignore the unprecedented Internet innovation, investment and job creation that have all thrived without government intervention and regulation." -- Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Feb. 19 statement.

THE FACTS: It is true that the Internet has flourished and is lightly regulated compared with other industries. It's also true that this exponential growth occurred under a system in which broadband providers mostly agreed not to discriminate against Web traffic.

Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet rules. Those rules were in effect until early 2014, when a federal court struck them down. So it's not true that there hasn't been any government regulation.

___

The CLAIM: "There will be no rate regulation" of Internet service. — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Under Wheeler's plan, broadband providers won't have to get their rates approved ahead of time by the FCC. But the law would allow the FCC to step in if charges were "unjust or unreasonable." The law also allows the FCC to investigate consumer complaints.

So it's possible that consumers can claim price gouging and regulators will get involved. Mobile voice services have been under similar rules for years, and the FCC points out that it has never regulated those prices.

___

THE CLAIM: "No tariffs or new taxes." — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Wheeler's plan won't apply new fees or taxes. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet service, and that law should still apply even if the FCC reclassifies the Internet as a telecommunications service under Title II.

What Wheeler doesn't mention is that the tax ban expires again in October. Unless Congress passes a permanent bill, as some lawmakers want, state governments are likely to start pushing back on this temporary relief bill, especially as landline revenues decline. It's a legitimate question to ask — how long the Internet will remain insulated from higher state fees after being declared a vital public utility.

___

THE CLAIM: The FCC plan "represents a stunning reversal of the policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations." It will backtrack on "decades of bipartisan agreement to limit Internet regulation." — Former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell in an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

THE FACTS: The question of Internet "fast lanes" is far more pressing for Obama than it ever was for Clinton or Bush. In 2000, only 3 percent of American households had broadband access, compared with 70 percent by 2013, according to the Pew Research Center.

It wasn't until President George W. Bush's second term, in 2005, that YouTube became available and video services like Netflix became more popular. By the time the FCC voted in 2008 against Comcast for throttling Web traffic, Bush was nearing the end of his presidency.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

well I would say you are retarded


but you are one of the slave kind ... sad.

I'm sure you are already standing in line for the free interweb. how many free cuckold obaNa iphone's do you have?

It's so easy to disprove every word in that "article". Here's a real source.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? Not by a long stretch, but that's not stopping political banter in the "net neutrality" debate.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the "public interest" when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are "just and reasonable."

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet "fast lanes" and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it's a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it'll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren't telling the whole story.

Here's a look at some of the questionable rhetoric in the "net neutrality" debate:

___

THE CLAIM: "President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet." — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It's a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn't proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don't block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it's a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president's call.

___

THE CLAIM: FCC Chairman "Wheeler has chosen to ignore the unprecedented Internet innovation, investment and job creation that have all thrived without government intervention and regulation." -- Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Feb. 19 statement.

THE FACTS: It is true that the Internet has flourished and is lightly regulated compared with other industries. It's also true that this exponential growth occurred under a system in which broadband providers mostly agreed not to discriminate against Web traffic.

Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet rules. Those rules were in effect until early 2014, when a federal court struck them down. So it's not true that there hasn't been any government regulation.

___

The CLAIM: "There will be no rate regulation" of Internet service. — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Under Wheeler's plan, broadband providers won't have to get their rates approved ahead of time by the FCC. But the law would allow the FCC to step in if charges were "unjust or unreasonable." The law also allows the FCC to investigate consumer complaints.

So it's possible that consumers can claim price gouging and regulators will get involved. Mobile voice services have been under similar rules for years, and the FCC points out that it has never regulated those prices.

___

THE CLAIM: "No tariffs or new taxes." — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Wheeler's plan won't apply new fees or taxes. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet service, and that law should still apply even if the FCC reclassifies the Internet as a telecommunications service under Title II.

What Wheeler doesn't mention is that the tax ban expires again in October. Unless Congress passes a permanent bill, as some lawmakers want, state governments are likely to start pushing back on this temporary relief bill, especially as landline revenues decline. It's a legitimate question to ask — how long the Internet will remain insulated from higher state fees after being declared a vital public utility.

___

THE CLAIM: The FCC plan "represents a stunning reversal of the policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations." It will backtrack on "decades of bipartisan agreement to limit Internet regulation." — Former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell in an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

THE FACTS: The question of Internet "fast lanes" is far more pressing for Obama than it ever was for Clinton or Bush. In 2000, only 3 percent of American households had broadband access, compared with 70 percent by 2013, according to the Pew Research Center.

It wasn't until President George W. Bush's second term, in 2005, that YouTube became available and video services like Netflix became more popular. By the time the FCC voted in 2008 against Comcast for throttling Web traffic, Bush was nearing the end of his presidency.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's so easy to disprove every word in that "article". Here's a real source.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? Not by a long stretch, but that's not stopping political banter in the "net neutrality" debate.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the "public interest" when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are "just and reasonable."

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet "fast lanes" and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it's a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it'll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren't telling the whole story.

Here's a look at some of the questionable rhetoric in the "net neutrality" debate:

___

THE CLAIM: "President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet." — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It's a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn't proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don't block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it's a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president's call.

___

THE CLAIM: FCC Chairman "Wheeler has chosen to ignore the unprecedented Internet innovation, investment and job creation that have all thrived without government intervention and regulation." -- Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Feb. 19 statement.

THE FACTS: It is true that the Internet has flourished and is lightly regulated compared with other industries. It's also true that this exponential growth occurred under a system in which broadband providers mostly agreed not to discriminate against Web traffic.

Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet rules. Those rules were in effect until early 2014, when a federal court struck them down. So it's not true that there hasn't been any government regulation.

___

The CLAIM: "There will be no rate regulation" of Internet service. — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Under Wheeler's plan, broadband providers won't have to get their rates approved ahead of time by the FCC. But the law would allow the FCC to step in if charges were "unjust or unreasonable." The law also allows the FCC to investigate consumer complaints.

So it's possible that consumers can claim price gouging and regulators will get involved. Mobile voice services have been under similar rules for years, and the FCC points out that it has never regulated those prices.

___

THE CLAIM: "No tariffs or new taxes." — FCC Chairman Wheeler.

THE FACTS: Wheeler's plan won't apply new fees or taxes. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet service, and that law should still apply even if the FCC reclassifies the Internet as a telecommunications service under Title II.

What Wheeler doesn't mention is that the tax ban expires again in October. Unless Congress passes a permanent bill, as some lawmakers want, state governments are likely to start pushing back on this temporary relief bill, especially as landline revenues decline. It's a legitimate question to ask — how long the Internet will remain insulated from higher state fees after being declared a vital public utility.

___

THE CLAIM: The FCC plan "represents a stunning reversal of the policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations." It will backtrack on "decades of bipartisan agreement to limit Internet regulation." — Former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell in an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

THE FACTS: The question of Internet "fast lanes" is far more pressing for Obama than it ever was for Clinton or Bush. In 2000, only 3 percent of American households had broadband access, compared with 70 percent by 2013, according to the Pew Research Center.

It wasn't until President George W. Bush's second term, in 2005, that YouTube became available and video services like Netflix became more popular. By the time the FCC voted in 2008 against Comcast for throttling Web traffic, Bush was nearing the end of his presidency.

Well, vette?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we need more welfare

 

[miles]

Anyone who thinks this will benefit consumers needs their head examined.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the slaves need more tax money