Obama wants to CONTROL the Internet

[madhatter]

One can conjure up arguments on both sides of this issue, but to start off with "Obama wants to CONTROL the Internet" and then continue with such nonsensical comments as these just makes you look absurd.

"Keep the Government OUT of it PERIOD ! Once they get their foot in the door Hold onto your wallet and kiss your freedoms goodbye !"
"Do you not realize "net neutrality" as proposed by Obama is an attempt to limit free speech and increase Gov. control ! Thats all Obama wants !"

________________

The fact of the matter is that there are arguments to be made either way - reasonable, sensible, logical, fact based arguments - not the (shall we say) less than astute BS you're posting.

Arguments for net neutrality include:

The internet is an essential service today and playing favorites based on pricing is inherently discriminatory.
The internet is more and more like a utility service and should be governed as such.

Arguments against net neutrality include:

Regulated utilities earn regulated returns and limited funds will deter further improvements.
Regulated utilities are not innovators and innovation is what the internet is all about.

Personally, I understand the pro but lean more toward the con based on my experience with regulated electric and gas utilities and markets and our 30 year experience with telecom services since the breakup of ATT.

neither of the bolded comments should be construed as "nonsensical" or absurd as both certainly were true about the ACA... it absolutely increased govt power, increased the cost of "insurance" was essentially a tax, encroached upon personal freedoms and was certainly about control...

There are also numerous examples of "freedom of speech" encroachment even if obama has not been directly implicated himself... again the IRS scandal...james rosen scandal... and many more...

so its neither nonsensical nor absurd to distrust govt and the obama administration in particular....In fact it is wise to question the "motive" behind everything and do ones own due diligence in every way possible, that way IF it turns out you were "misled" it was through your own doing...

atomics approach may be a bit on the side of sensationalism but that has kind of been his "style" anyway... as if there aren't numerous examples of "sensationalism" from most posters here at one time or another...

Atomic deserves at least a pass here...

[Bubba]

Bubba your very eloquent in your response and I commend you for it . However how many times have you said " my reasoning is absurd" only to later see both sides as well. Bottom line for me is that I refuse to want to surrender my freedoms to Big Brother . Period.....oh yea it was getting quiet in here so I felt the need to stoke

I assume you post at least half the stuff you do in order to stoke.

[Atomic1]

Thanks Madhatter , If I could afford it I'd like to hire you as my press secretary. !

Bubba , for what other reasons besides tax and control does Obama want to push for This ? Especially after the internet helped send him a message with the mid-term election ?

[Bubba]

Thanks Madhatter , If I could afford it I'd like to hire you as my press secretary. !

Bubba , for what other reasons besides tax and control does Obama want to push for This ? Especially after the internet helped send him a message with the mid-term election ?

As I understand it, net neutrality has to do with faster speed/bandwidth not being provided based on fees paid by those streaming content, i.e. Netflix being able to pay for advantageous treatment. It has nothing to do with control of actual content and taxes. Hell, if taxes were the key, the government would want higher prices. In fact, a political party might want to NOT have net neutrality so that they could pay for faster speeds during election seasons than their election competitors.

[Atomic1]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

[Bubba]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

It's not exactly pushing it and this is not a new issue. The issue has been before the FCC for comment for quite some time and has been an issue of debate for months on the internet as well.

[Atomic1]

Today being Veterans Day let's re-visit how things run under this Administrations Gov. Control .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans ... al_of_2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

http://www.caintv.com/obama-hey-lets-regulate-the-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deadheadskier]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress for about a decade. So, yeah, starting back while Bush was in office.

But somehow this is Obama's agenda? If anything, I'd say it's a low priority for him given he's had plenty of time to present his opinion on this and he largely hasn't.

Now six years into office Obama decides to weigh in on this long running debate, and people like Ted Cruz take it as an opportunity to highly politicize the discussion when this really isn't even a liberal vs conservative or dem vs repub issue. Who exactly has an agenda here?

[madhatter]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress for about a decade. So, yeah, starting back while Bush was in office.

But somehow this is Obama's agenda? If anything, I'd say it's a low priority for him given he's had plenty of time to present his opinion on this and he largely hasn't.

Now six years into office Obama decides to weigh in on this long running debate, and people like Ted Cruz take it as an opportunity to highly politicize the discussion when this really isn't even a liberal vs conservative or dem vs repub issue. Who exactly has an agenda here?

why is obama bothering to blather at all? its simply more divisive politics the republicans would do well to steer clear of...It's fine for a couple to weigh in but it certainly shouldn't be anything they get overly involved with one way or another...

personally I'm for less gov involvement, go figure...I don;t really see any pressing need for this to be visited right now...

[Dickc]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress for about a decade. So, yeah, starting back while Bush was in office.

But somehow this is Obama's agenda? If anything, I'd say it's a low priority for him given he's had plenty of time to present his opinion on this and he largely hasn't.

Now six years into office Obama decides to weigh in on this long running debate, and people like Ted Cruz take it as an opportunity to highly politicize the discussion when this really isn't even a liberal vs conservative or dem vs repub issue. Who exactly has an agenda here?

why is obama bothering to blather at all? its simply more divisive politics the republicans would do well to steer clear of...It's fine for a couple to weigh in but it certainly shouldn't be anything they get overly involved with one way or another...

personally I'm for less gov involvement, go figure...I don;t really see any pressing need for this to be visited right now...

Tail wags the dog. He just sent more troops to the Mideast. How better to hush the news cycle than to bring up something domestic that gets everyone in a kerfuffle.

[madhatter]

But let's not forget who is pushing this objective ! The LIAR and want to be KING in D.C..So until proven wrong about this presidents agenda I'm going to stick with my view of the situation .

Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything,

Im gonna go out tonight
and find out what I got..........

Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress for about a decade. So, yeah, starting back while Bush was in office.

But somehow this is Obama's agenda? If anything, I'd say it's a low priority for him given he's had plenty of time to present his opinion on this and he largely hasn't.

Now six years into office Obama decides to weigh in on this long running debate, and people like Ted Cruz take it as an opportunity to highly politicize the discussion when this really isn't even a liberal vs conservative or dem vs repub issue. Who exactly has an agenda here?

why is obama bothering to blather at all? its simply more divisive politics the republicans would do well to steer clear of...It's fine for a couple to weigh in but it certainly shouldn't be anything they get overly involved with one way or another...

personally I'm for less gov involvement, go figure...I don;t really see any pressing need for this to be visited right now...

Tail wags the dog. He just sent more troops to the Mideast. How better to hush the news cycle than to bring up something domestic that gets everyone in a kerfuffle.

EXACTLY, more politics of division from the divider in chief...republicans would do well to not take the bait and try to turn this back on the increasingly irrelevant obama...

[Atomic1]

So in closing let me reiterate the reason Obama took up the whole "Net Neutrality issue " . The pounding the Dem's took in the midterms can be traced back to the pounding they took on the internet via social media which is the one media they don't yet CONTROL !

[madhatter]

Google, which started as an online search engine, is so profitable now that it sits on $50 billion. That’s a lot of cash. Google needs no “help.”

EDITORIAL: The ‘net neutrality’ online power grab

President Obama’s plan is anything but neutral

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ower-grab/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Obama wants to put the Internet firmly under his control. He announced Monday that he would apply to the Internet centralized rules written for the age of the telegraph. For the Internet’s own good, of course.

“Net neutrality,” says Mr. Obama, will preserve “a free and open Internet.” The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will apply endless spools of red tape to the Internet, pulling tightly until the Internet is “more free.” Net neutrality sounds good, until you see that “neutrality” is just another government abuse of language. It’s not neutral at all.

“To put these protections in place,” the president says, “I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.” That much is true, but the president doesn’t want to leave it alone.

Democrats recoil at the idea of life without the scrutiny, regulation and taxation of government. Telephone service serves as the model of a highly regulated utility, and the administration proposes that everyone pretend that getting information on the World Wide Web is no different from dialing grandma on a landline. Internet companies, he says, must fall under the thumb of regulators as if they were public utilities or common carriers.

This is already prohibited by law. Through the Telecommunications Act, Congress has explicitly rejected attempts to regulate the Internet. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rebuked Julius Genachowski, Mr. Obama’s previous FCC chairman, for attempting to do what Mr. Obama proposes to do now, saying it was “obvious” that the FCC would “violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers.”

Democrats and Republicans were emphatic in 1996 in exempting the Internet from regulation — the final bill passed 414 to 16 in the House and 91 to 5 in the Senate. The legislators anticipated that one day there would be bureaucrats knocking on the Internet’s door, saying, “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” The Internet, a wondrous invention that has indeed changed everyone’s lives, owes its success to having never answered that door. Google, which started as an online search engine, is so profitable now that it sits on $50 billion. That’s a lot of cash. Google needs no “help.”

Mr. Obama is more interested in getting his hands on those billions than in protecting online content. If the Internet is subject to FCC regulation, the next step would apply the Universal Service Fund regulations. These regulations tax cellphone service so that the administration can give away Obamaphones. Taxing the Internet would introduce many more wealth-redistribution schemes.

Tom Wheeler, the current chairman of the FCC, is also trying to apply antiquated television rules to online video services. His scheme would designate one type of streaming service as “multichannel video programming distributors,” or MVPDs, which subjects them to “must-carry” rules and regulations. It’s an effort to enable Aereo, an online television company, to overcome a Supreme Court ruling that its business model is a violation of copyright law.

Taxes and regulations won’t “save” the Internet. Complaints about the quality of broadband service derive from the government-granted monopoly status given to cable franchises. Cities and counties scare away potential competitors by charging outrageous fees for companies to lay new cables to take on the local cable provider, which has cut deals with local government officials.

Cable companies can ignore the complaints because customers often have no other options. The best opportunity for reform would be to eliminate such cable-franchise arrangements and the artificial monopolies that government “help” has created.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3ItLF7oav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

seems atomic isn't the only one concerned...

[Bubba]

seems atomic isn't the only one concerned...

Concern is one thing; sensationalist, hyperbolic, vitriolic expression is another. But, I'll cut Atomic1 some slack. He always has to shout above the sound of chopper blades when he writes.