[tomder55]

What do you think about that ? Not being content with a gvt takeover of healthcare ,he now wants to turn the internet into a public utility . He sees a problem in the internet and as usual thinks only the government can fix it . Oh and btw ...he won't wait for Congressional action. He instead will reclassify the net as a utility subject to the regulatory control of the FCC. Not to worry . The emperor assures us that if we like our internet provider we can keep our ISP .

[ScottGem]

Not a valid interpretation of what he did. In fact, his announcement was to protect the freedom of the Internet. He took this action to prevent cable companies from giving preference to certain content. The idea being that a 500mg file from site A would take approximately the same time to download as a 500mg file from Site B. The regulation that he asked of the FCC was to insure that this "Net Neutrality" is maintained and no content providers given preference over others.

[paraclete]

It's OK Tom there isn't a red under every bed. Obama is correct to prevent the use of monopolistic power and keep the internet open, there should be more of it

[cdad]

The FCC has no business in regulating the internet other then the frequecies that are used to transmit the product over the airwaves. If the FCC gets its fingers into it then look out because they will seek to censor the internet.

[talaniman]

That's the whole point of net neutrality!

[tomder55]

the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.The emperor lusts for the power over the net that the Chinese have.

[talaniman]

The whole point is to prevent censorship by large monopolies that provide internet service.

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia Universitymedia law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.^[1][2][3][4]Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.^[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.

Of course it doesn't help the debate if you have a mistrust of government, which while I can understand, I wouldn't trust the large cable providers to play by the rules either. Didn't the banks, and oil companies teach you that?

A number of net neutrality interest groups have emerged, including SaveTheInternet.com which frames net neutrality as an absence of discrimination, saying it ensures Internet providers cannot block, speed up, or slow down content on the basis of who owns it, where it came from, or where it's going. It helps create the situation where any site on the Internet could potentially reach an audience as large as that of a TV or radio station, and its loss would mean the end for this level of freedom of expression.^[30]

So if you are defending the rights of providers to discriminate and limit access of data, then that's a form of censorship wouldn't you agree?

Chairman Wheeler's Stmt on President Obama's Stmt On Open Internet | FCC.gov

[paraclete]

Tom trusts corporations, he doesn't trust government. He has made it abundantly clear he thinks money should rule and make our decisions for us, after all capitalists have brought us the benefit and dignity of unemployment, the export of industries, the collapse of the financial system

[cdad]

Thats not the whole point of net neutrality. The point of net neutrality is a busines model. It is not about censorship. It is about trying to take over what is suppose to be equal and segment it into a captive audiance.

This is something that should be handled by the internet commision and not the government. They have the power to revoke the IP slots for major ISP's and if they do that the whole ISP goes down. Most ISP's wouldnt chance it. It would mean the end for them if their online access is revoked. By allowing the FCC into it you will shut it down.

[Fr_Chuck]

It works great here in China. There is no porn, there is no complaints about the government, so all we read is how wonderful and happy life is here.

[paraclete]

Marvellous you live in a socialist utopia and like it and are bored out of your brain

[tomder55]

in the emperor's perfect world that is exactly how it would work. They have already floated the "fairness doctrine " as a threat to any regular media that doesn't toe the line . They have in a few cases went to direct intimidation of individual reporters .

Take away the threat of free speech from "pajama people" and life is good.

The added bonus is that it opens a whole new avenue for the taxing authority for the leviathan .

Tal you are being disengenuous . Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .

[NeedKarma]

the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.

The complete opposite. Where the hell do you get your news from??
Obama is on the right track here.

[ScottGem]

Para, I saw the sarcasm in Chuck's response, didn't you?

Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .

There is a reason for this. Wiring an area is expensive. If the cable companies were not assured of a virtual monopoly, they would not have made the investment. The other way to go would have been for government to fund the wiring and lease it to content providers. In your ideal of a free market, companies would only invest where there is the opportunity for profit. In the case of cable, the opportunity for profit only exists if there is a control on competition.

[paraclete]

Of course I understand irony amd sarcasm, but either way China is not a shinning example of anything. Look they have agreed to cap their emissions by 2030 which basically means they expect their economy to downturn around about then, it is a nothing promise and all this idea that capitalists have to have a monopoly to invest is a nothing promise too. Utilities in any form compete and they will make investments it is just that they are not going to rush in the less profitable markets unless government makes it convenient. Either you have a market mechanism or you don't. Sooner or later the poles and wires business will go the way of the dinosaur, it is just a matter of time and in the case of cable a question of available spectrum

[tomder55]

Scott that was the same excuse they used for decades of monopoly by Ma Bell. We suffered over priced services for years until the market was opened up.

[NeedKarma]

That's right tom, it was a natural monopoly. The government came to the rescue of the consumer by allowing interconnection. That was before big biz started owning politicians.

[tomder55]

I get it that you love government sanctioned monopolies.

[NeedKarma]

I said the exact opposite. I like that the government broke up the monopoly. In the same vein that I like the fact that the government is preventing the wire owners from screwing the consumers in this net neutrality issue.

[ScottGem]

Scott that was the same excuse they used for decades of monopoly by Ma Bell. We suffered over priced services for years until the market was opened up.

Its not an excuse, it's a fact of life. The monopoly was broken up because the investment had been recouped by that time. In the case of cable entertainment, technology advances have allowed for competition (i.e. Satellite, use of already installed phone lines).

So let me ask you. Lets say you have a product to sell. But for consumers to use that product, you have to make a significant investment in infrastructure. Would you make that investment if others could use your infrastructure to sell their competing product without compensating you?