Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

Oh. One last thing..

Comcast (and others like them) are fully supportive of the Obama plan to reclassify service providers under Title II. Comcast's lobbyists wrote most of the proposed bill language.

---

Then they've either changed their mind, or they're dividied:

Quote:

---

“Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation”-Verizon official statement

“Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests”-Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs

“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper”-David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

---

source: http://wearelibertarians.com/net-neu...new-dark-ages/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

Net Neutrality Lets lay this to rest -or- You guys keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Having ISPs being reclassified as a Common Carrier (what Obama is talking about) != Net Neutrality (what we in the ISP/Telcom industry have been discussing for 10 years).

Being changed to a CC/Title II is a backdoor way to change the regulation mechanism to increase tax revenue and footprint. It allows for things like "Universal Access"/USF to be mandated for low income and the like and is way to put major regulations on the industry - those regulations are *not* a bad thing for many of the major incumbent carriers since it very much cements their footprint and effectively blocks a bunch of competition.

Where the two cross over, and why there is confusion, is because there are some in the ISP community wanting the Gov't to intervene to ensure that the way we have always done things will be the way it will be done in the future (e.g. traffic will not be denied/delayed/destroyed based on content). But that is like playing with atomic weapons - It sounds like a lot of fun, but in the end, you will probably end up fucking yourself and everyone around you.

I am leaving this thread since all it does it move my blood pressure up. 99.999% of you have no clue what your talking about and are only repeating what you have heard on TV/News/Twitter.

Lets go back to talking about guns.

---

Fine, you're even saying they're related... I know they're not the same thing- and that it means different things to different people.

I guess that's the difference- I'm not upset, I thought we were having a civil discussion (mostly)... I may have an idea why it's making you upset, but I'll let it go. have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

*Leave out the personal attacks* -- foxtrot

Reworded at the suggestion of foxtrot
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with the speech between two private parties. You might need to brush up on your legal understandings before posting.

---

There are a >FEW< more people than 2 on this board... but now I'm just trolling, so I'll stop.[Beer]