|
Post by Rain on Nov 10, 2014 18:25:04 GMT -5
WASHINGTON — President Obama voiced support Monday for “free and open Internet” rules that would ensure that no service is stuck in a “slow lane” if it doesn’t pay a fee. In a statement, Obama said he wants the Federal Communications Commission to “implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality,” a principle that bars broadband providers from blocking or throttling certain services. Obama’s comment comes amid heated debate among online industry sectors as the FCC seeks to draft new rules to replace those struck down this year by a U.S. appeals court, which said the agency lacked authority to regulate Internet service firms as it does telephone carriers. “ ‘Net neutrality’ has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted,” Obama said in a statement. “We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” Obama said that while the FCC is an independent agency, he wants the regulatory body to maintain key principles of net neutrality. He said the rules should ensure “no block” of any legal content, to ensure that an Internet firm does not block one service such as Netflix to promote a rival one. Another key principle endorsed by Obama would prohibit “paid prioritization” that would allow one service to get into a faster lane by paying extra. “No service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee,” Obama said. “That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.” Obama also said he wants the rules to bar any “throttling” or slowing of content at the discretion of the service provider. He also said he wants the same rules to apply to mobile broadband, which was not included in the earlier regulations. To accomplish this, Obama said the rules should reclassify consumer broadband service as a public utility — a move that has been fiercely opposed by the companies that would be affected. Obama’s statement places him squarely in the camp of many consumer activists and online services and against industry sectors involved in Internet delivery. The FCC is redrafting its rules after the court decision struck down its regulations in a case brought by U.S. broadband giant Verizon. Verizon and its allies have argued that the FCC lacks authority to interfere with their businesses, and that Congress never decided these companies were regulated utilities or “common carriers.” Others say that overturning the rule could give a handful of companies that dominate broadband the ability to control services and limit innovative online services. Gene Kimmelman, president of the consumer activist group Public Knowledge, hailed Obama’s statement. “Today the Obama Administration expanded its leadership to promote an open Internet by supporting the strongest tools to prevent blocking or throttling of Internet traffic, and by also supporting the strongest tools to deter fast lanes and prioritized traffic on the public’s most essential communications platform of the 21st century,” he said in a statement.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Nov 12, 2014 20:30:16 GMT -5
He made Tom Wheeler the FCC chairman, so I'm just going to call shenanigans on this.
If he really cares about net neutrality, he wouldn't have made a former Comcast executive as the FCC's chairman.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Nov 12, 2014 20:48:42 GMT -5
"Net neutrality" is another nickname for putting the Internet under Obama's control--like the rest of the American media.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Nov 14, 2014 12:28:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 16, 2014 12:03:32 GMT -5
The free market. A concept Obama will never believe in.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Nov 18, 2014 15:24:48 GMT -5
The free market. A concept Obama will never believe in. That doesn't make sense. Net neutrality is pro-free market. How can someone be against the free market while pushing to free it up in the telecommunications industry?
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Nov 25, 2014 2:36:37 GMT -5
The free market. A concept Obama will never believe in. That doesn't make sense. Net neutrality is pro-free market. How can someone be against the free market while pushing to free it up in the telecommunications industry? It's like that idiot Ted Cruz comparing it to Obama care. I love when people prefer big businesses rights to consumers. People won't care until their Netflix bill goes up because they have to pay more to Comcast so they have faster speeds and other websites are slowed down because they don't pay.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Nov 25, 2014 2:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 25, 2014 10:27:03 GMT -5
The free market. A concept Obama will never believe in. That doesn't make sense. Net neutrality is pro-free market. How can someone be against the free market while pushing to free it up in the telecommunications industry? No. Ultimately, the free market will rule without government intervention - it's simply supply/demand economics. It's so simple, actually, that I don't understand why everyone is throwing a hissy fit and fail to see that: When - 1. Comcast decides to slow down service to several popular sites, and decides to not offer service and blocks Netflix (these are just hypoothetials, as I don't know which sites the ISPs lean towards, nor does it matter for the example); and,2. Verizon, then, does the same by slowing other popular sites, and decides to offer no service to Hulu. happen, then3. The American consumer (i.e., you, me) becomes annoyed and aggrieved leading eventually to,
4. ISP Company "XYZ" to be established, in order to take advantage of the discontent. Company "XYZ" understands why the American consumers are unhappy, so Company "XYZ" reopens the internet, knowing that by doing so EVERYONE will flock to their company, leaving Comcast and Verizon to flounder into Bankruptcy. SUPPLY/DEMAND. In a truly free market system, the consumer decides. If consumers don't like it, the market will adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 25, 2014 10:33:48 GMT -5
Also, I find a glaring comparison with the Televizon companies. Different media and thus different implications, to be sure, but the concept is THE EXACT SAME FUCKING DAMN THING:
1. Verizon offers channels and packages that Comcast doesn't
2. Comcast offers channels and packages Verizon doesn't
3. And to maximize your entertainment viewing for either company, you'd have to pay extra channels that you had no say in indivdually picking, but rather came bundled as a package (Sports, HBO/STARZ, etc), essentially making you pay for included channels that you really didn't want.
Believe me, I was literally in tears of frustration as a youngster when I couldn't get the then called Fox Sports World for my Arsenal games, and had to rely on the shoddy Pay-Per-View concept - if even that. It was unfair, I screamed. Why could my next door neighbor, who had regular cable, the only difference being the cable carrier company (Verizon vs. Comcast) just the same as me, paying the exact same price as me, get to see it but I couldn't?
Which leads me to:
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY A SYSTEM WORKS, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT SHOULD BE DEEMED ILLEGAL OR REGULATED.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Nov 25, 2014 21:16:22 GMT -5
That doesn't make sense. Net neutrality is pro-free market. How can someone be against the free market while pushing to free it up in the telecommunications industry? No. Ultimately, the free market will rule without government intervention - it's simply supply/demand economics. It's so simple, actually, that I don't understand why everyone is throwing a hissy fit and fail to see that: When - 1. Comcast decides to slow down service to several popular sites, and decides to not offer service and blocks Netflix (these are just hypoothetials, as I don't know which sites the ISPs lean towards, nor does it matter for the example); and,2. Verizon, then, does the same by slowing other popular sites, and decides to offer no service to Hulu. happen, then3. The American consumer (i.e., you, me) becomes annoyed and aggrieved leading eventually to,
4. ISP Company "XYZ" to be established, in order to take advantage of the discontent. Company "XYZ" understands why the American consumers are unhappy, so Company "XYZ" reopens the internet, knowing that by doing so EVERYONE will flock to their company, leaving Comcast and Verizon to flounder into Bankruptcy. SUPPLY/DEMAND. In a truly free market system, the consumer decides. If consumers don't like it, the market will adjust accordingly. The problem w/ your argument is that in many areas, especially rural ones, their is no choice of ISPs. So when your isp starts "annoying and aggravating" their consumers the only choice you have as a consumer is to grin and bear it or go w/ out internet which is not a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Nov 26, 2014 20:36:30 GMT -5
L4E, I don't think you actually know what Net Neutrality is. Instead of just linking to The Oatmeal's fantastic article about the issue, I'll just point out key info for you. Imagine if Comcast created a search engine that nobody liked. (Like Bing.) If you try to access another search engine such as Google without Net Neutrality, they could slow down your internet, interrupt it with advertisements or just block access to anything but their own Comcast website. And you already mentioned when Comcast throttled bandwidth to Netflix, so don't you dare think they wouldn't do it again if and when it fits their business needs. Companies like Verizon and Comcast have openly discussed package plans for internet access, like TV channels. For example, a basic plan would allow access to Google, Facebook and Twitter, but you'd have to pay more to access a website such as Live4ever. This is just a mockup of what it could look like. This is also bad for small businesses, who would have to bribe pay providers in order for their websites to be accessed. That would kill most tech startups. Net Neutrality is about a fair, equal and open internet. If you really think this is a supply and demand issue, call yourself Jon Snow since you really know nothing. It'd be great if there was competition like you think there is, but 96% of Americans don't have more than two choices of internet or television providers. Companies like Time Warner (who Comcast are trying to merge with, at the moment), Cablevision, Cox, and Comcast work together to make sure there's no collusion or competition between them. This lack of competition is a cooperative monopoly within the industry, which is great for them, but bad for all of us. Or, you can just watch this video.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Dec 7, 2014 10:39:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 12, 2014 3:54:37 GMT -5
Aaaaaaaaand the MPAA is planning to bring site blocking to the USA. "A large meeting consisting of.more than two dozen studio executives took place in October to discuss all aspects of site blocking. A senior engineer from Comcast was also invited." Beady’s Here Now, would you care to rethink your position on net neutrality, or do you think allowing whatever sites your providers want to be completely blocked and censoring what citizens can see or read is a step in the right direction? torrentfreak.com/mpaa-prepares-to-bring-pirate-site-blocking-to-the-u-s-141211
|
|