First thing Obama has said I agree with

[jackmob5225]

Obama Comes Out Strong for Net Neutrality, Says FCC Should Treat Internet Like a Public Utility. "free and open Internet" rules that would ensure that no service is stuck in a "slow lane" without paying a fee. Before you know it we will be paying a fee for everything.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/obama-comes-out-strong-for-net-neutrality-says-fcc-102276271679.html

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

100% agree.

 

[wisemaniac]

I'm a cynic (or a realist) but Obama has to have some sort of reason for supporting net neutrality that isn't currently known.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Jule Huffman is my real father]

Originally posted by wisemaniac:
I'm a cynic (or a realist) but Obama has to have some sort of reason for supporting net neutrality that isn't currently known.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

It's obvious. It's anti-capitalism.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Anticapitalist my ass.

You must support the stiffling of competition.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Clinton-backed think tank disagrees with Obama...

Link

 

[HerdandHokies]

Originally posted by wisemaniac:
I'm a cynic (or a realist) but Obama has to have some sort of reason for supporting net neutrality that isn't currently known.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

There's a bunch of people with a bunch of money that want net neutrality and they typically fall on the liberal end of other issues as well.

That's about it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

So the current bureaucratically/govt/ rate controlled utility industry is "capitalistic" and "competitive"?

The same govt/bureaucratically/rate controlled utility industry that is supposedly over charging for service, under-developing newer technologies and overall outdated???

Yep. That's exactly what we need controlling the internet............

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Yep. That's exactly what we need controlling the internet............

The internet doesn't need control.

Which is a big part of the argument of net neutrality. Providers and governments WANT to control it.

This issue goes beyond artificially degrading services to some users.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Which political party do you think is more interested in control?

Nanny-State Dems or libertarian-leaning Republicans?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Obama Comes Out Strong for Net Neutrality, Says FCC Should Treat Internet Like a Public Utility. "free and open Internet"


So Obummer thinks public utilities are "free and open"?? And some on this board seem to think so too???

All I can do is laugh at such nonsense.

Exactly....how FREE....do you think it will be if a governing commission starts establishing set rates ISPs can charge for the service they provide? Never mind. This argument is lost at the outset when some cant understand what Obummer is actually proposing here would limit future competition and virtually guarantee higher fees and poorer service being the best option.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
Which political party do you think is more interested in control?

Nanny-State Dems or libertarian-leaning Republicans?

Libertarian leaning Republicans or a libertarian leaning Republican Party? Because while the former exists that latter does not.

Also lets not mix different issues. Net neutrality is a different issue than government oversight of Internet as a utility. You can be for one and against the other.

 

[Penn2moss]

If you picked up your phone to order a pizza from Geno's and your phone replied, "sorry, Papa John's is the only place you can order pizza from.", would you be ok with that?

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
Which political party do you think is more interested in control?

Nanny-State Dems or libertarian-leaning Republicans?

Libertarian leaning Republicans or a libertarian leaning Republican Party? Because while the former exists that latter does not.

Also lets not mix different issues. Net neutrality is a different issue than government oversight of Internet as a utility. You can be for one and against the other.

Much like gamergate I have a feeling "Net Neutrality" means whatever one wants it to mean.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
Which political party do you think is more interested in control?

Nanny-State Dems or libertarian-leaning Republicans?

Libertarian leaning Republicans or a libertarian leaning Republican Party? Because while the former exists that latter does not.

Also lets not mix different issues. Net neutrality is a different issue than government oversight of Internet as a utility. You can be for one and against the other.

I'll just accept what Obumma said and take it at face value. "Free utility".........This will go along with his "free healthcare", "free mortgage forgiveness", "free groceries", "free mobile phones". Throw in a free turkey dinner before Tgiving and the mooch society will line up in drooling masses believing they will be protected. Just look at this thread, we already have liberals concerned about where they can probably go get their "free" pizza......

He is a few weeks too late rolling this thing out. A couple weeks earlier putting out this kind press release and maybe his constituents could have set their alarm clock before 3pm and actually made it to the polls to vote a couple times and snagged a "free" break...ehh...lunc....ehh...late brunch.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
Which political party do you think is more interested in control?

Nanny-State Dems or libertarian-leaning Republicans?

Libertarian leaning Republicans or a libertarian leaning Republican Party? Because while the former exists that latter does not.

Also lets not mix different issues. Net neutrality is a different issue than government oversight of Internet as a utility. You can be for one and against the other.

Much like gamergate I have a feeling "Net Neutrality" means whatever one wants it to mean.

No. Net Neutrality means not letting the provider put some data through the 'last mile' to your house faster than other data. Not having net neutrality means that Comcast could slow down Netflix for its subscribers unless Netflix paid extra money, or unless you paid extra money. That's precisely what it means.

And since most consumers the option of one major company or "go **** yourself" as ISPs this is exactly the sort of situation that the free market is not going to work itself out of.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Net neutrality is the government stepping in to enshrine the externalization of some companies' costs at the expense of others.


Name one thing the government has become involved with that has led to lower costs for the consumers and did not also lead to Trillions in subsidies for corporations.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

No. Net Neutrality means not letting the provider put some data through the 'last mile' to your house faster than other data. Not having net neutrality means that Comcast could slow down Netflix for its subscribers unless Netflix paid extra money, or unless you paid extra money. That's precisely what it means.

And since most consumers the option of one major company or "go **** yourself" as ISPs this is exactly the sort of situation that the free market is not going to work itself out of.

And who exactly should pay for the investment that is needed in producing more capacity, higher speeds, improved service and expanded technology as the demand grows for such expansion? Its exactly what a free market can figure out when the govt does not lock in the monopolies that you end up pointing too (ISPs).

Amazing that somehow "smart" people turn to a govt to protect them; which ultimately locks out free market solutions, eliminates real competition resulting in higher prices and companies who know they don't need to give a f***; because the govt has locked them in to their powerbroker monopoly status. What obummer has suggested here would be an AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, wet fvcking dream.

Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with "competition" from a liberal bureaucratic perspective. Its about more control sold to the zombie voters as protection. And it has nothing to do with (ignorant) consumers worried about company monopolies; but everything to do with the fact a consumer getting pissed that they may have to pay a little more for a better product or higher service they demand (probably for their online gaming while living in their mothers basement).

I have learned yet another thing from this thread. I no longer need to listen to people bitch about their high utility bills, a dilapidated power grid, or public water works infrastructure ever again. The govt controlled public utility system created by the takeover in the 30's and the protection guaranteed by the takeover has given us what we now have. An updated utility system that is "free", completely open to new competition, thriving new companies and technology.

 

[Jule Huffman is my real father]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:

Anticapitalist my ass.

Well, it damn sure is.

 

[HerdandHokies]

We gave them tons of money to build the infrastructure and they didn't. Now they've got monopolies and want to exploit those to protect their own services (Hulu) and whoever will pay them while stifling new development of online businesses because they're terrified that they'll have to pay a fee they can't afford just to get data to people's homes.

This is the same as if the water company charged you more for water you used in the dishwasher than water you showered with. It's none of their damn business.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:
We gave them tons of money to build the infrastructure and they didn't. Now they've got monopolies and want to exploit those to protect their own services (Hulu) and whoever will pay them while stifling new development of online businesses because they're terrified that they'll have to pay a fee they can't afford just to get data to people's homes.

This is the same as if the water company charged you more for water you used in the dishwasher than water you showered with. It's none of their damn business.



What do you think utility "smart meter" technology is all about? As more and more utilities take up these meters it will inevitably move to charging you more/less/more for usage at certain times or for certain purposes. Its already in the works.

HH. How much could you be "fined" in California for using water for watering your yard at non permitted times?????? Its completely their business. The govt controls and owns the water.

I couldn't disagree with you more on your suggestion that online business is being "stifled". Netflix wouldn't exist if shit was being stifled. The number of businesses going online are too countless to number. And the more that come up, the more users will be on it. AT&T and Verizon have been expanding their infrastructure for years. Hell they all have. Billions of $$ in new capacity has been added. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Like I said, doing what Obummer is suggesting he wants to see happen would be the monopoly maker.

By the way........If Obummer was so concerned about "free" internet he could start by proposing the removal of the "Federal Universal Surcharge" I pay on both by AT&T and Verizon bills.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

15m15 minutes ago
Competition in Internet access working well. Great investment, price pressure. No need to increase #NetNeutrality

 

[Penn2moss]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

No. Net Neutrality means not letting the provider put some data through the 'last mile' to your house faster than other data. Not having net neutrality means that Comcast could slow down Netflix for its subscribers unless Netflix paid extra money, or unless you paid extra money. That's precisely what it means.

And since most consumers the option of one major company or "go **** yourself" as ISPs this is exactly the sort of situation that the free market is not going to work itself out of.

And who exactly should pay for the investment that is needed in producing more capacity, higher speeds, improved service and expanded technology as the demand grows for such expansion? Its exactly what a free market can figure out when the govt does not lock in the monopolies that you end up pointing too (ISPs).

Amazing that somehow "smart" people turn to a govt to protect them; which ultimately locks out free market solutions, eliminates real competition resulting in higher prices and companies who know they don't need to give a f***; because the govt has locked them in to their powerbroker monopoly status. What obummer has suggested here would be an AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, wet fvcking dream.

Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with "competition" from a liberal bureaucratic perspective. Its about more control sold to the zombie voters as protection. And it has nothing to do with (ignorant) consumers worried about company monopolies; but everything to do with the fact a consumer getting pissed that they may have to pay a little more for a better product or higher service they demand (probably for their online gaming while living in their mothers basement).

I have learned yet another thing from this thread. I no longer need to listen to people bitch about their high utility bills, a dilapidated power grid, or public water works infrastructure ever again. The govt controlled public utility system created by the takeover in the 30's and the protection guaranteed by the takeover has given us what we now have. An updated utility system that is "free", completely open to new competition, thriving new companies and technology.

Except all of those companies have spent 10s of millions of dollars lobbying against it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by Penn2moss:

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

No. Net Neutrality means not letting the provider put some data through the 'last mile' to your house faster than other data. Not having net neutrality means that Comcast could slow down Netflix for its subscribers unless Netflix paid extra money, or unless you paid extra money. That's precisely what it means.

And since most consumers the option of one major company or "go **** yourself" as ISPs this is exactly the sort of situation that the free market is not going to work itself out of.

And who exactly should pay for the investment that is needed in producing more capacity, higher speeds, improved service and expanded technology as the demand grows for such expansion? Its exactly what a free market can figure out when the govt does not lock in the monopolies that you end up pointing too (ISPs).

Amazing that somehow "smart" people turn to a govt to protect them; which ultimately locks out free market solutions, eliminates real competition resulting in higher prices and companies who know they don't need to give a f***; because the govt has locked them in to their powerbroker monopoly status. What obummer has suggested here would be an AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, wet fvcking dream.

Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with "competition" from a liberal bureaucratic perspective. Its about more control sold to the zombie voters as protection. And it has nothing to do with (ignorant) consumers worried about company monopolies; but everything to do with the fact a consumer getting pissed that they may have to pay a little more for a better product or higher service they demand (probably for their online gaming while living in their mothers basement).

I have learned yet another thing from this thread. I no longer need to listen to people bitch about their high utility bills, a dilapidated power grid, or public water works infrastructure ever again. The govt controlled public utility system created by the takeover in the 30's and the protection guaranteed by the takeover has given us what we now have. An updated utility system that is "free", completely open to new competition, thriving new companies and technology.

Except all of those companies have spent 10s of millions of dollars lobbying against it.

You mean they have spent 10s of millions (a puny # considering the 10s of Billions in revenue they earn) helping to craft the rules and legislation that will insure their power over everyone else in their industry. Lobbying is never a pure play of "against" anything. It keeps you in the room when the decisions are made.

Don't worry though. You will still get your pizza.

 

[herdfan06]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:
We gave them tons of money to build the infrastructure and they didn't. Now they've got monopolies and want to exploit those to protect their own services (Hulu) and whoever will pay them while stifling new development of online businesses because they're terrified that they'll have to pay a fee they can't afford just to get data to people's homes.

This is the same as if the water company charged you more for water you used in the dishwasher than water you showered with. It's none of their damn business.



What do you think utility "smart meter" technology is all about? As more and more utilities take up these meters it will inevitably move to charging you more/less/more for usage at certain times or for certain purposes. Its already in the works.

HH. How much could you be "fined" in California for using water for watering your yard at non permitted times?????? Its completely their business. The govt controls and owns the water.

I couldn't disagree with you more on your suggestion that online business is being "stifled". Netflix wouldn't exist if shit was being stifled. The number of businesses going online are too countless to number. And the more that come up, the more users will be on it. AT&T and Verizon have been expanding their infrastructure for years. Hell they all have. Billions of $$ in new capacity has been added. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Like I said, doing what Obummer is suggesting he wants to see happen would be the monopoly maker.

By the way........If Obummer was so concerned about "free" internet he could start by proposing the removal of the "Federal Universal Surcharge" I pay on both by AT&T and Verizon bills.

Verizon and AT&T have actually been scaling back the expansion of the infrastructure for the past several years.

 

[Penn2moss]

Imagine being a new upcoming business starting a website and immediately going out of business because your competitor paid Comcast to block you.

Let freedom ring.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by herdfan06:

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:
We gave them tons of money to build the infrastructure and they didn't. Now they've got monopolies and want to exploit those to protect their own services (Hulu) and whoever will pay them while stifling new development of online businesses because they're terrified that they'll have to pay a fee they can't afford just to get data to people's homes.

This is the same as if the water company charged you more for water you used in the dishwasher than water you showered with. It's none of their damn business.





What do you think utility "smart meter" technology is all about? As more and more utilities take up these meters it will inevitably move to charging you more/less/more for usage at certain times or for certain purposes. Its already in the works.

HH. How much could you be "fined" in California for using water for watering your yard at non permitted times?????? Its completely their business. The govt controls and owns the water.

I couldn't disagree with you more on your suggestion that online business is being "stifled". Netflix wouldn't exist if shit was being stifled. The number of businesses going online are too countless to number. And the more that come up, the more users will be on it. AT&T and Verizon have been expanding their infrastructure for years. Hell they all have. Billions of $$ in new capacity has been added. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Like I said, doing what Obummer is suggesting he wants to see happen would be the monopoly maker.

By the way........If Obummer was so concerned about "free" internet he could start by proposing the removal of the "Federal Universal Surcharge" I pay on both by AT&T and Verizon bills.

Verizon and AT&T have actually been scaling back the expansion of the infrastructure for the past several years.

So their annual reports are lying??