Obamacare To Obamanet

[Sean Renaud]

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

We won't benefit, we'll keep everything the same. That's the goal here miles, not to come out a head but not to get fucked.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We won't benefit, we'll keep everything the same. That's the goal here miles, not to come out a head but not to get fucked.

Please don't quote miles. Just iggy it.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

We won't benefit, we'll keep everything the same. That's the goal here miles, not to come out a head but not to get fucked.

put down the obama juice ...

this hijacking of our freedom by the obama kind, will only result in higher prices

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Liberals will applaud Obama's iron hand takeover of the Net. Imagine a complaint by MSNBC that Fox News has more hits on their web site than there are at MSNBC, the government will order Fox's Internet speed cut in fairness to MSNBC.

Vetty doesn't understand the Net Neutrality proposal, does he?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Everything won't be the same, you don't write 330 pages of regulatory bullshit to keep everything the same. As has been suggested, this could lead to UN control of the Internet, and a loss of freedom here at home.

Sometimes you do and in this case you do. I know you're a rock,paper, scissors kind of guy because tic-tac-toe is too complicated for you and checkers is right out but I'm a chess guy. Simple does not mean better and when you're attempting to prevent very smart people from finding loopholes in your system you have to be very, very specific and write out pages and pages because if you don't they'll exploit what you didn't write in there specifically.

I'm uncertain what UN control of the internet would look like, what problem it would be or what loss of freedom it would entail. Care to elaborate?

Liberals will applaud Obama's iron hand takeover of the Net. Imagine a complaint by MSNBC that Fox News has more hits on their web site than there are at MSNBC, the government will order Fox's Internet speed cut in fairness to MSNBC.

Except that's not how net neutrality works.

You haven't seen the rule, so you don't know. I know liberals however. I know how to interpret the political terms they use, like "neutrality" and "fairness" in the same context.

Well while that makes sense it's also stupid. The Patriot Act was about taking away the freedoms of patriots. These people just name things. Read the intention of the bill not the title.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Here's a shocker. The FCC controls which frequencies the wireless modem in your home can operate with. In your own house!

Here's another shocker. There is a free ISP that anybody can use. http://store.netzero.net/account/showService.do?serviceId=nz-dialup

 

[KingOrfeo]

As has been suggested, this could lead to UN control of the Internet . . .

How, exactly?

 

[miles]

These people are in love with government.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I predict tears of court challenges and future congressional action to reverse Obama's lawlessness.

"Lawlessness"? How does anything about this overstep the FCC's statutory authority?

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you like the way the government manages your utilities, read your bill sometime, you'll love the new rules. I predict tears of court challenges and future congressional action to reverse Obama's lawlessness.

I have little problem with the way the government manages my utilities. And having been a Californian when the government stopped and let private industry take over I HATE how they handle my utilities.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Everything won't be the same, you don't write 330 pages of regulatory bullshit to keep everything the same. As has been suggested, this could lead to UN control of the Internet, and a loss of freedom here at home.

wow, these obama slaves are pretty stupid. Of course things are going to change and of course uncle obama will come out with a new federal free internet program just like they have for the iphone ...

this is another sad day, but hey, there is free obama juice for party members

only sad thing is, one has to turn in his member to join

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Net neutrality wins!

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

The commissioner says it is . . .

Who, Pai? I skimmed the article you linked; I don't see him questioning the legality anywhere.

. . . and the Internet is not a utility.

Of course it is, as surely as the telephone system.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, the White House instructed the two Democrats on the FCC to push this through, despite the FCC being an independent agency. Another attempt at power grabbing by Obama. The court actions will now ensue. Meanwhile the Internet will not be the same and your costs are going to go up as well as a bevy of new taxes, and police state controls.

So the White House isn't allowed to ask people to do things? Let the court actions ensue, I welcome your petty pleas that the rich should be allowed to rule everything.

When do you expect prices to go up and taxes to arrive? 2016? 2018? 2020? When will these controls arrive? 2025? 2030? Long after Obama's an after thought?

 

[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]

Yes, the White House instructed the two Democrats on the FCC to push this through, despite the FCC being an independent agency. Another attempt at power grabbing by Obama. The court actions will now ensue. Meanwhile the Internet will not be the same and your costs are going to go up as well as a bevy of new taxes, and police state controls.

remember, kingofAssTards is one of the mentally broken kind. hell, that welfare asshole is happy being a slave as uncle obama has given his kind a iphone, free rent, free utilities (which now includes internet)

its good to be his kind, a slave

 

[Disgustipated]

Everything won't be the same, you don't write 330 pages of regulatory bullshit to keep everything the same. As has been suggested, this could lead to UN control of the Internet, and a loss of freedom here at home.

Funny, your fellow birther Ish disagrees with this statement.

 

[mark_j]

The commissioner says it is, and the Internet is not a utility. It wasn't even in existence when the FCC's mission statement and authority was written. This requires congressional action.

Niether was TV. Yet the FCC regulates that.

 

[dan_c00000]

Vette this actually a win for free speech. Do you even know what net neutrality is? Do you know that you had a lot of cyber sex with a dude?