| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility |
| 2014-11-10 |
|
| Posted by:Ulomons Peacock4299 |
| #32 The root of all evil is money. Email drove the Postal Service into the red by the tune of Billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$. There will be financial blood drawn from everyone in phase II or phase III of the regimes agenda in regards to the mighty WWW. |
| Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2014-11-10 23:15 |
| #31 Last mile should be a utility - same as in Texas. Pay one company as a regulated utility to deliver the power and maintain the last ile and distribution infrastructure. Heavily regulated, etc. Pay another for the actual electricity - or in this case the bandwidth and connectivity. Problem solved. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-11-10 22:07 |
| #30 It is about content. I worked on a telemedicine project to deliver medical services to our troops in Bosnia years ago. At that point we could send (big-big-big) x-ray images through the internet back to doctors in the states, but could not send timely messages to enable robot surgery, because of the teleconference bandwidth needs of the leadership. Net-neutrality is what we had then and have now. There are reasons when some traffic is more important than other traffic (e.g. medicine, utility system management, air traffic control), but netflix vs time-warner isn't one of those. I am not saying that this is a great argument for prioritizing traffic on the public internet, I am saying please think about this problem carefully before forcing critical services onto small localized private networks. |
| Posted by: rammer 2014-11-10 22:05 |
| #29 If Obama likes it - it's all about content, crony payoffs and campaign $, partisan censorship and ideologue tests |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-11-10 22:04 |
| #28 Andy Kessler (link) / Weekly Standard from eight years ago This is not about content, it's precisely not about content! If Washington tries to make it about content, it's not net neutrality (and that legislation must be blocked). |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 21:19 |
| #27 Sure - trust the Obaama Regime: The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee sent a letter to the head of the National Science Foundation (NSF) on Monday, demanding answers about the origins of the nearly $1 million taxpayer-funded project to track “misinformation” on Twitter. The Truthy project, being conducted by researchers at Indiana University, is under investigation for targeting political commentary on Twitter. The project monitors “suspicious memes,” “false and misleading ideas,” and “hate speech,” with a goal of one day being able to automatically detect false rumors on the social media platform. The web service has been used to track tweets using hashtags such as #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter), and was successful in getting accounts associated with conservatives suspended, according to a 2012 book co-authored by the project’s lead researcher, Filippo Menczer, a professor of Informatics and Computer Science at Indiana University. Menczer has also said that Truthy monitored tweets using #p2 (Progressive 2.0), but did not discuss any examples of getting liberal accounts suspended in his book. “The Committee and taxpayers deserve to know how NSF decided to award a large grant for a project that proposed to develop standards for online political speech and to apply those standards through development of a website that targeted conservative political comments,” wrote Chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) in a letter to NSF Director France Cordova. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-11-10 21:15 |
| #26 He certainly can't say he didn't say it. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters. need I go on? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-11-10 20:59 |
| #25 Pay for what you get and get what you pay for. You want guaranteed high bandwidth - pay for it. You need lowest costs - get a discount for throttleability. If this law would DO that, I'd be fine with it. But I don't trust the b@st@rds. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2014-11-10 20:56 |
| #24 Pro: "We applaud both the White House and the FCC's efforts to keep the Internet open and free,” Netflix said in a statement. “Strong net neutrality rules will ensure Internet service providers don't abuse their gatekeeper power by imposing tolls to reach their customers or establishing paid fast lanes. Consumers should decide winners and losers on the Internet, not broadband companies." Netflix has been urging the FCC to pursue “stronger” network neutrality rules following recent paid interconnection deals with Comcast, Verizon Communications, AT&T and Time Warner Cable (Bright House Networks is also benefiting from the TWC/Netflix peering deal). Con: “We feel the actions called for by the White House are inconsistent with decades of legal precedent as well as Congressional intent," said Cicconi [AT&T] in a statement. "Moreover, if the government were going to make such a momentous decision as regulating the entire Internet like a public utility, that decision is more properly made by the Congress and not by unelected regulators without any public record to support the change in regulation. If the FCC puts such rules in place, we would expect to participate in a legal challenge to such action.” |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 20:54 |
| #23 These are the stupidest people on the earth. You don't grant them powers to fix problems that just are not there. I assure you, they will fuck it up and tax you for it. Screw this and any other bright idea champ has. It is a FRAUD. |
| Posted by: newc 2014-11-10 20:49 |
| #22 Right now the common carrier rules apply to servers hardware and the network hardware. Net Neutrality proposes to apply the same rules for content or for a product offered by the ISPs. Making the software and content subject to regulation is a violation of the first amendment; it is prior restraint written in bold black letters. Net Neutrality also concerns the "last mile", whether ISPs can dictate what goes on in their own networks. Right now, ISPs do throttle network traffic because they oversell their services. Net neutrality will dictate how ISPs deal with their customers, and will likely raise internet access for everyone. |
| Posted by: badanov 2014-11-10 20:36 |
| #21 Snowy, I copied them right off the White House letterhead. He certainly can't say he didn't say it. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 20:36 |
| #20 Snowy, I agree any legislation has to be watched carefully, so it doesn't overreach. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 20:32 |
| #19 The last four places I lived in had one choice, not counting satellite service. But that's not scalable for internet. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 20:30 |
| #18 KBK: Part of the problem is, I'm not sure those are even Obama's bullets, nor that Obama really agrees with them if they are, or even if he did, that he would not abuse the power to enforce them. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-11-10 20:30 |
| #17 But internet is not a monopoly. I have had two services for a number of years, and recently dropped one for poor performance. And there are at least two more that I could contract to provide my service were I so inclined. |
| Posted by: rammer 2014-11-10 20:20 |
| #16 Here are Obama's bullets. Do you guys disagree? 1. No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business. 2. No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences. 3. Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet. 4. No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. 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. ===== I haven't been able to run a mail server at my house for years - I have to run it on a remote server, because my ISP views me as just a consumer, and blocks it. That's an example of non-net neutrality. Laws that regulate monopolies do work. Let the ISPs charge by the packet and force them to open their systems to all comers, just as the common carrier regulations forced AT&T to open their lines to smaller competitors and ISPs. That's how the internet got going in the first place. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 20:15 |
| #15 Besides the tax they will just cut out what they want too like China, pakistain and turkey |
| Posted by: chris 2014-11-10 20:03 |
| #14 I predict an 'email stamp' for just .0001 cents but you must have one or email will not be sent. Nah, Airandee. Sending will be free. Recipients will pay .0001 cents. Whether they open it or not, if it hits their in-box they pay. .0003 cents for political e-mail. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2014-11-10 19:35 |
| #13 Hardware Perspective Business that have a web server (at the moment private property) will have to allow federal goons access to that property in order to go with the flow. Hardware and Software ISP's will not be free to innovate, hardware or software, without government approval. Obamacare Web Site Controlled by the bastard that cant even get his crap right. |
| Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2014-11-10 18:02 |
| #12 Let the fees, surcharges, and taxes begin. I predict an 'email stamp' for just .0001 cents but you must have one or email will not be sent. How about a picture posting fee again just .0001 unless it is a picture of gun then it will be .10. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2014-11-10 17:12 |
| #11 KBK, a simple law would suffice for what you say, I understand they are in the process of creating beaurocracy to enforce. That means ongoing meddling. I suspect there will be a lot of questions and hassling for conservative leaning websites come 2016 if this goes through. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2014-11-10 15:19 |
| #10 "I would like to hear substantive, non-ideological reasons why you guys think that net neutrality is a bad idea." Challenge accepted: Because attempts to nullify the law of supply and demand never work. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2014-11-10 15:16 |
| #9 Cause we all don't like neutrality in any form? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-11-10 14:14 |
| #8 "I would like to hear substantive, non-ideological reasons why you guys think that net neutrality is a bad idea." The DemoncRats (particularly Bambi) are all for it. That means they intend to screw up the internet and use it to control us. Can't get more non-ideological than that. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2014-11-10 14:13 |
| #7 Well, crap. That cements it as a partisan issue. Net neutrality should not be a partisan issue! The only people who are against it are the ISPs and large organizations who can cut good deals with them. Net neutrality means that Comcast can't charge Netflix more for their movie packets, thereby favoring their own offerings. Classifying the ISPs as common carriers recognizes that they hold a de facto monopoly in most areas and should not be able to use that advantage to the detriment of the consumers. It means that they cannot do deep packet inspection and charge more for certain types of traffic. I would like to hear substantive, non-ideological reasons why you guys think that net neutrality is a bad idea. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-11-10 14:03 |
| #6 Also, I just noticed we got a new Obean pic. |
| Posted by: gorb 2014-11-10 12:34 |
| #5 The objectives of Net Neutrality and the USPS are the same, and we can expect the same result. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2014-11-10 12:24 |
| #4 I haven't paid a lot of attention to the net neutrality issue but remember reading some very negative things years ago. By nature I am very skeptical of gov't. intervention/regulation of anything. One of my main concerns is the hand-off of net regulation to the UN via the FCC. What is the 'burgerian view on NN and the FCC position? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2014-11-10 12:06 |
| #3 Oh, and I can't resist: You didn't build that! |
| Posted by: gorb 2014-11-10 12:05 |
| #2 Meaning he figures the Republican takeover is temporary. |
| Posted by: gorb 2014-11-10 11:33 |
| #1 Net neutrality isn't worth it. Obaba just wants his socialist government to have total control over everything. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2014-11-10 11:17 |