obama Wants To Take Over The Internet...

[RETIREDFAN1]

I appreciate your honesty. And that being said, I respect the fact that you generally have your finger on the pulse of current issues, even if you and I may butt heads on them from time to time. So if you aren't familiar with the issue, then I think it's safe to say that many, if not most folks aren't familiar with it either. And this is the whole point of my issue with this article... I don't have a problem with someone having a stance one way or the other on this issue, but I do have a problem with a propaganda site spending this much time and effort into riling up their readers without making ANY effort to actually educate their readers on the issue. This article is fodder for mindless sheep.

So.....just because ONE person is not familiar with the issue, you then ASSume that most people aren't familiar with it.......not very logical.......

 

....and I notice you didn't do anything in your response but denigrate the authors "without making ANY effort to educate" your readers on the issue.....was your post fodder for mindless sheep........ :P

[EnlightenedMessiah]

25 posts in this topic and not one conservative has explained to me what net neutrality means.

Stick to the "Obama bad, conservatives good" talking point because you low informations voters obviously are unable to form your own opinions. My opinion is post #6 in this topic.

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Still waiting for ONE conservative poster here to explain net neutrality. No, you may not use a lifeline and ring up Bamakid or TVC to do your research for you.

So.....just because ONE person is not familiar with the issue, you then ASSume that most people aren't familiar with it.......not very logical.......
 

[LumRaiderFan]

25 posts in this topic and not one conservative has explained to me what net neutrality means.

Stick to the "Obama bad, conservatives good" talking point because you low informations voters obviously are unable to form your own opinions. My opinion is post #6 in this topic.

 

So your opinion is the fed gov MUST step in or the big bad ISPs are going to screw everyone over if they aren't kept in check.

 

You are saying the fed gov is the answer to this problem (not really a problem) right?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Still waiting for ONE conservative poster here to explain net neutrality. No, you may not use a lifeline and ring up Bamakid or TVC to do your research for you.
 

I'm refraining from feeding trolls.......:P

[Englebert]

I've read (skimmed over at best) some articles a few months ago. All I can remember was that internet providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) were against it and content providers (Netflix, Google, etc) were for it. Content providers were for it because IPs could not throttle their speed, and some other reasons I can't remember. IPs were against it because they said it would raise the cost to consumers, and some other reasons I can't remember. None of the articles I skimmed over explained how it would affect the consumer...me. One article said it was good for the consumer and a couple said it was bad for the consumer.

 

 Having said that I really don't know the effect on consumers, I'm still thinking this is a bad idea. Frankly, I don't trust the government at all (and history shows good reason). I would be against this if my own dad were president, so this is not an Obama bashing reason. Many laws are passed with good intentions, then some yahoo congressmen re-interprets the law. So this may be a well-intentioned law designed to help consumers, but will be abused in short order. My assumption is that this law is to get the internet under the FCC banner, i.e. government control. Once under the FCC, then the government can start making regulation laws at will, starting with taxes. Of course, porn will probably be the next target. Then who knows what. But I'm positive I will not like it.

 

In addition to regulation, I'm sure the government will claim that since internet content falls under their banner, they are free to track, store and review all content. I'm guessing that they will threaten to block any internet providers that doesn't give the government full access to all of their data. No search warrants required.

 

Once under FCC regulation, the size of the FCC will have to expand dramatically, or a whole new agency will sprout up. I'm troubled to think about how many more government employees will be hired to regulate the internet. Hell, it will probably reach the size of Homeland Security.

 

This is all speculation on my part, but every time I try to like the government they give 10,000 reasons not to.

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Um, no. I very clearly said the consumer gets the shaft either way. I don't want government involvement OR ISPs charging an arm and a leg.

So your opinion is the fed gov MUST step in or the big bad ISPs are going to screw everyone over if they aren't kept in check.
 
You are saying the fed gov is the answer to this problem (not really a problem) right?

[LumRaiderFan]

Um, no. I very clearly said the consumer gets the shaft either way. I don't want government involvement OR ISPs charging an arm and a leg.

But you do think the ISPs will screw us over if not reigned in by the fed gov...right?

[smitty]

FCC Chairman refused to testify before congress ahead of the vote.  If it was so wonderful, why not testify?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414380/fcc-chair-refuses-testify-congress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson

[smitty]

25 posts in this topic and not one conservative has explained to me what net neutrality means.

Stick to the "Obama bad, conservatives good" talking point because you low informations voters obviously are unable to form your own opinions. My opinion is post #6 in this topic.

Not one liberal has explained it either.   ;)

PS -- they've tried this before and it was struck down.  This too will be struck down!

[SKINS]

But you do think the ISPs will screw us over if not reigned in by the fed gov...right?

ISPs have been screwing us since day one.

[bullets13]

So.....just because ONE person is not familiar with the issue, you then ASSume that most people aren't familiar with it.......not very logical.......
 
....and I notice you didn't do anything in your response but denigrate the authors "without making ANY effort to educate" your readers on the issue.....was your post fodder for mindless sheep........ :P

We're 36 comments in and i've only seen one conservative out of maybe 10 that has displayed any knowledge on the subject at all. I pointed out that a very conservative, and generally very "in the know" commenter on this site admits to not knowing about it as validation that it's obviously not common knowledge for all conservatives as you'd have us believe. He's the type of guy who knows all the issues, and has strong opinions about them. If he's unfamiliar with this one, then there are a LOT of folks unfamiliar with it. As for the authors of this "newspiece", they spent 1000 words talking about how terrible Obama is for supporting this issue, but spend ZERO words explaining what the issue is. Riling up the readers without informing the readers. That's mindless sheep fodder. and speaking of ASSuming...
 

99% of Conservatives reading the article already KNOW what net neutrality is and disagree with it wholeheartedly........the only inaccuracy in the thread's title is that "obama" should be changed to "out of control federal tyrants".......He's not doing this alone......... :)

Please tell me where you came up with the ASSumption that 99% of conservatives already know what net neutrality is. If they're getting their knowledge from articles like the one posted in this thread, they won't know a single thing about it.  It seems highly unlikely that 99% of the conservatives on this thread know what it is... a few have expressed questions, one admitted ignorance on the topic, and only ONE has displayed any obviously knowledge on the subject at all.

[LumRaiderFan]

ISPs have been screwing us since day one.

 

How so?

[SKINS]

How so?

Many ways,throttling speeds is probably the most famous. They often lie about available speeds, most can't even come close to providing what they offer to most customers.

They have refused for years to convert to IPv6, which would make internet for customers much better.

I can personally tell you they don't keep their rental equipment up to date with security.

They sell information to third party vendors, legally by the way since that information flows through their equipment.

They play off the fact that 95% of their customers have no idea how the internet really works and rob people blind.

[LumRaiderFan]

Many ways,throttling speeds is probably the most famous. They often lie about available speeds, most can't even come close to providing what they offer to most customers.
They have refused for years to convert to IPv6, which would make internet for customers much better.
I can personally tell you they don't keep their rental equipment up to date with security.
They sell information to third party vendors, legally by the way since that information flows through their equipment.
They play off the fact that 95% of their customers have no idea how the internet really works and rob people blind.

You obviously know a lot more about this than me but I also know the last thing I would want is the fed gov involve themselves so they can "fix" the problems.

[SKINS]

You obviously know a lot more about this than me but I also know the last thing I would want is the fed gov involve themselves so they can "fix" the problems.

I agree, but sadly it was the only feasable way to solve the problem.

[LumRaiderFan]

I agree, but sadly it was the only feasable way to solve the problem.

That's what "they" said about healthcare.

[RETIREDFAN1]

We're 36 comments in and i've only seen one conservative out of maybe 10 that has displayed any knowledge on the subject at all. I pointed out that a very conservative, and generally very "in the know" commenter on this site admits to not knowing about it as validation that it's obviously not common knowledge for all conservatives as you'd have us believe. He's the type of guy who knows all the issues, and has strong opinions about them. If he's unfamiliar with this one, then there are a LOT of folks unfamiliar with it. As for the authors of this "newspiece", they spent 1000 words talking about how terrible Obama is for supporting this issue, but spend ZERO words explaining what the issue is. Riling up the readers without informing the readers. That's mindless sheep fodder. and speaking of ASSuming...
 

Please tell me where you came up with the ASSumption that 99% of conservatives already know what net neutrality is. If they're getting their knowledge from articles like the one posted in this thread, they won't know a single thing about it.  It seems highly unlikely that 99% of the conservatives on this thread know what it is... a few have expressed questions, one admitted ignorance on the topic, and only ONE has displayed any obviously knowledge on the subject at all.

My 99% came from the same place your "since one doesn't understand that means most don't understand" comment.....:p

[RETIREDFAN1]

I agree, but sadly it was the only feasable way to solve the problem.

There is no problem that needs fixed.....

[CraigS]

OK. .. here goes. .. from a non IT minded perspective.

I've read several things. .. up to and including the who is in favor and why. .. and who is against and why. ...

my early disclaimer is. .. there is a ton on info. .. not necessarily written in English. ... or easily understood by the non IT people. ...

in short. ... it seems like a socialist approach. ... insures "fairness".... as providers are currently able to charge higher or lower for various speeds. .... ... some claim only the rich will have the best available whereas others have slower service. .... it also seems to add more control to what you can and can't access....

at least from what I've read. ... and the way I understood. ...I would be against it. ...

anyone care to explain it differently. ... or explain why I "should" welcome this change. ...

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Net neutrality is the principal that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, instead of ISPs deciding to limit your bandwidth usage for a certain website or service (because that website hasn't paid some arbitrary cost or whatever), despite you already paying out the ass for your internet connection.

It's somewhat of an overexagerion, but Internet package will eventually turn into this without net neutrality.[attachment=349:image.jpg]

I'm on the fence about this topic.

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Also look at it from a monopolistic perspective. Say TWC/Comcast start up their own video streaming service and decide to charge current customers $200 extra to access Netflix. Guess who becomes the next top dog in the online tv/movie streaming business? TWC/Comcast since they essentially create a barrier to entry for Netflix since they are not an ISP. Or maybe one day google decides to pay an ISP $1 billion dollars for the ISP to block access to Fox News or yahoo, etc.

[SKINS]

OK. .. here goes. .. from a non IT minded perspective.

I've read several things. .. up to and including the who is in favor and why. .. and who is against and why. ...

my early disclaimer is. .. there is a ton on info. .. not necessarily written in English. ... or easily understood by the non IT people. ...

in short. ... it seems like a socialist approach. ... insures "fairness".... as providers are currently able to charge higher or lower for various speeds. .... ... some claim only the rich will have the best available whereas others have slower service. .... it also seems to add more control to what you can and can't access....

at least from what I've read. ... and the way I understood. ...I would be against it. ...

anyone care to explain it differently. ... or explain why I "should" welcome this change. ...

So quick version. ISPs are also the primary cable providers. With the rise of companies like Netflix, the cable providers started to lose cash. So they were throttling back inteback speeds when people were using stuff like Netflix. People were paying for a specific product and receiving a product considerably lower. For example, you would pay for 50GB speed, but only receive 5GB when you were using Netflix.

ISPs essentially charged Netflix and the like bribary charges for their customers not to be throttled back.

The new rules do not allow ISPs to charge Netflix for customers to receive the speeds they already pay for.

[CraigS]

Net neutrality is the principal that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, instead of ISPs deciding to limit your bandwidth usage for a certain website or service (because that website hasn't paid some arbitrary cost or whatever), despite you already paying out the ass for your internet connection.

It's somewhat of an overexagerion, but Internet package will eventually turn into this without net neutrality. image.jpg

I'm on the fence about this topic.

I'm not a fan of equal. .. just to be equal. I don't mind paying for what I get/have and don't think in the name of fairness that others. ...who can't afford. ... for whatever reason. ... should be able to. .. just get. ... what I've worked hard and made good choices to have....I do understand that sometimes it means I pay what some think is outrageous for these privileges. .... but that's OK with me. ...but I can see. .. and understand why Obama is a supporter of this. ... and why conservatives are not. .. not to mention just the fact that government is getting involved. .... like someone else said. ... even in the name of good. ... government involvement will turn out bad.

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Everyone on here should check out speedtest.net to check their current download/upload speeds, then compare it to what speeds they're actually paying for (ie. 20mb down/2mb up). I'm willing to bet it's maybe half.