Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

[HoneyBadger]

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.

[cstone]

The tell for me is that President Obama is in favor of it.

That is a strong indicator for me on which position I should take.

Call me a contrarian when it comes to the President's policies. It has worked pretty well for me so far.

The best government is the smallest government.

Be safe.

[Artema]

If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.

I have no idea why an authoritarian would taken on what appears to be a libertarian cause. I'd have to ask Rand Paul why he does it to get some insight. My guess is for appearance. Plus look at the wedge he's creating. By Obama taking on a good cause he has immediately turned Republicans against it. It sounds like politics, and the good cause is going to be what suffers (see gun safety).

[cstone]

Following that logic, President Obama should propose the repeal of the NFA or oppose abortion.

I believe that the President is co-opting the term you support and will bend it to accomplish what he wants. This has been a favored tactic of the left for decades.

Who doesn't want good healthcare for all citizens?

[Dave_L]

Since when was internet access a guaranteed right? Obamacare was on the principle of "Everyone deserves healthcare!". I can't argue that idea for internet access. We survived a very long time without internet and maybe this would get people into a library more. :shrugs: If a company charges a ton for internet, dont use them. This creates a free market and the people paying dictate what companies will charge. Or it forces a new company to form and offer a more affordable option. Gee, I wonder if that's how Cricket phone service came about?

[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.

[asmo]

Actual censorship can again be fought through other legal means, we don't need more regulations to dictate how to manage a network...
since you're bringing up the extreme example of Comcast fully censoring a website they don't like for political reasons (which is a clear 1st amendment violation), I'll bring up the other extreme-

*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.

[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.

[cstone]

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.

And I needed another reason to dislike this?

[68Charger]

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:

“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/