Utopia Talk / Politics / "Net neutrality is Obamacare for internet"

Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Mon Nov 10 20:14:23 http://onl...WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection President Weighs In as Agency Seeks to Finish Regulations President Barack Obama on Monday called on the Federal Communications Commission to significantly expand its regulatory control over broadband providers, saying the “strongest possible rules” are needed to protect consumers and ensure that the Internet doesn’t become divided into fast and slow lanes. In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization. The statement was his strongest and most specific comment to date on net neutrality, the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Mon Nov 10 20:15:31 Lets see what the usual retards have to say about net neutrality "net neutrality is like obamacare" - ted cruz http://i.imgur.com/PDDJ4TN.jpg House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) called the White House plan “disappointing but not surprising,” and said “an open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.” In a written statement, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) called the president’s plan a “terrible idea,” saying the commission would be wise to reject it. He pointed to a letter several Republican lawmakers sent to the FCC in May raising concerns about any proposal that would apply “monopoly-era Title II regulations to our nation’s competitive and dynamic broadband economy.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) took a slightly different stance, saying the issue should fall back to Congress. “Instead of reclassifying Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, the FCC should allow Congress to update this law,” he said in a statement, saying it should be a top priority of the new Republican-led Congress to clarify the FCC’s role “in the modern communications landscape.”
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 10 20:20:20 cruz is a fucking retard.
Fred Felcher Member	Mon Nov 10 21:13:01 no doubt
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Nov 11 02:04:22 The stupidest tweet ever? Has to be.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Nov 11 02:06:18 Also good on obama for going all the way. Title II ftw
Average Ameriacn Member	Tue Nov 11 03:23:43 Nets neutrality is like political correctness, you have to treat blacks and homos and muslims the same way like you treat whites. Nets neutrality is like taking away all guns so we are all the same: defenseless. Nets neutrality is like paying everyone the same wage regardless how hard he works.
Paramount Member	Tue Nov 11 05:49:30 Net neutrality is also anti-semitic and anti-Israel.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Nov 11 05:52:22 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 07:27:39 Why do you people want to destroy the internet? You must know that if the government starts regulating it it will change into some kind of monstrosity that will no longer be as free as it is today. What we know as the internet today will be lost forever.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Nov 11 07:30:06 Not an issue in many places, but for America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7ix5BwCjk
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 07:34:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7ix5BwCjk
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 11 09:11:53 "What we know as the internet today will be lost forever. " again lying R's manage to convince their sheep of the complete opposite of reality
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Nov 11 09:17:18 How is it that the government has the right to tell a private service what to do with said service?
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Tue Nov 11 09:21:14 The party that believes the internet is like a bunch of tubes is running both houses. God helps us.
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Tue Nov 11 09:26:33 Cause it's the government and net neutrality is good for everyone.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 09:27:28 Ibty, it is the fucking democrats that want to take over and control the internet. Damn it man, pay attention.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Nov 11 09:32:03 I don't really see a winner in this debate. Both ways you go could lead to disastrous results for consumers.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 11 09:44:14 Time Warner Cable [ISP] got the worst rating of all companies by the American Customer Satisfaction Index in 2014... but let's hand them control, because Obama
LazyCommunist Member	Tue Nov 11 09:48:39 Net neutrality gave us the current internet.
Hrothgar Member	Tue Nov 11 10:34:36 "Why do you people want to destroy the internet? You must know that if the government starts regulating it it will change into some kind of monstrosity that will no longer be as free as it is today. What we know as the internet today will be lost forever." I can't tell if HR is just trolling or what. But the internet today is EXACTLY what Obama is attempting to preserve. Otherwise, the Utopia Politics web site will find itself on the slow lane vs. Netflix/Amazon Prime traffic - just as a simple example.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 11:50:26 What Obama is good at is creating a $500 Million website that neither works nor is it secure from the least intelligent hackers. No matter how much you love healthcare for everyone just take a serious look at Obamacare and see how screwed it up it is. Look at the veterans administration and the post office. Look at our nearly $18 Trillion debt. Look at our out of control entitlement programs and all of the stupid Political Correctness that the government is allowing. Everything the government touches they screw up beyond all reason.
Hrothgar Member	Tue Nov 11 15:38:43 By your post you obviously know 0 about what the term "net neutrality" even means. I suggest you go read CrownRoyal's link. It's a nice simple description. The government dictating net neutrality is not the same thing as the government running/controlling/maintaining the internet. It is simply making governing rules about how companies can control data transmitted over the internet in order to prevent corporate abuses.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 18:09:25 "I don't really see a winner in this debate." The moment you leave, we all are winners, if ever so slightly.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 18:22:28 Hrothgar, slippery slope. Wait and see.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Tue Nov 11 18:34:45 You need to read what net neutrality is HR
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 18:40:08 No he doesn't, fox told him what it "means."
Hot Stick Member	Tue Nov 11 18:44:19 I suggest *YOU* learn what net neutrality is http://www...ng-obamacare-for-the-internet/ “[Net neutrality] puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers,” Cruz said. Internet providers are opposed regulations that would remove their ability to offer various prices or rates to consumers or customers, essentially arguing that it would turn their broadband infrastructure into mere government-controlled transmission tubes. Cruz took aim at the FCC in May, saying that Congress, not “an unelected commission,” should take the lead on modernizing telecommunications laws.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 18:56:39 Hood, FOX didn't tell me shit. All I had to hear is the government wanted to pass a law. You kids just don't understand how incompetent the government really is. Perhaps the net will be safe under net-neutrality, but just wait till the next law or the one after. Just wait.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 19:08:29 http://www...s-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/ relevant section: "Wheeler’s proposal said that if it does decide to reclassify ISPs, the FCC would likely forbear from applying all but sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255 of Title II." section 201: Don't be a dbag. If you act like an ass (against public interest) it's unlawful and you can be held accountable. section 202: It is illegal to force unjust contracts on people (end users and other businesses alike). Violating this will incur penalties. section 208: the FCC is the arbiter of disputes and has time limitations to settle arbitration. section 222: giant privacy clause. I didn't bother reading it all, but it dealt with protection of privacy for customers and businesses. section 254: service should be available to everyone for reasonable rates. There is nothing specific about what is reasonable. Access for public good services (schools, hospitals, etc.) is required as well. section 255: access for people with disabilities (pointless). --------------- So the only "sky is falling" provision is section 254 and there is nothing specific about that section that is negative. And the sky ain't falling there, either. So basically Cruz is full of shit.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 19:10:03 "You kids just don't understand how incompetent the government really is. Perhaps the net will be safe under net-neutrality, but just wait till the next law or the one after." You mean like how the telephone industry fell apart? Oh, wait. It took an entirely new technology (the internet) to replace it. Seems like the most important invention of the industrial world is still going to be massively successful.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 19:12:54 "section 201: Don't be a dbag. If you act like an ass (against public interest) it's unlawful and you can be held accountable." Free speech restriction?
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 20:22:43 You don't think every telecom in existence would have sued the shit out of the federal government if it was?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 20:28:05 So who is going to act "(against public interest"? )
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 11 20:36:56 the merged Time Warner/Comcast monstrosity would be happy to further act against public interest
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 20:42:11 And the government will break them up into small groups that will charge more.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Tue Nov 11 20:52:44 http://en....eutrality_in_the_United_States
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Nov 11 21:18:48 Net Neutrality is a founding constitutional principle of the internet. Certain large entities are trying to break that covenant, and little guys are fighting it. All Net Neutrality as law does is formalize and clarify the existing obligations of service providers. In HR-speak, this is the 1789 Constitution of the United States replacing the Articles of Confederation. The fact that the GOP is managing to convince retards that Net Neutrality is the opposite of what it is, is telling.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 21:26:48 If the liberals are for it that is enough to cause great worry.
Mirror Hot Rod Member	Tue Nov 11 21:28:32 I am deeply concerned about legalized weed, for example.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 22:22:29 "And the government will break them up into small groups that will charge more." They would have had to approve the merger in the first place. You are an idiot.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 22:35:10 The statement assumes the event. Idiot.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 22:40:58 If they approved the merger, why would they then split them up so quickly?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 22:43:27 You are the only one using the word 'quickly'.
Hood Member	Tue Nov 11 23:30:29 Considering Comcast should probably already be broken up, yes quickly.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 11 23:34:23 When local and regional monopolies are enforced, and municipalities are forbidden from establishing their own ISPs, you cannot then claim that free market forces will allow consumers to dictate the market. One or the other, Rod.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 11 23:40:46 The localities and municipalities are the ones who allowed those monopolies.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 11 23:55:40 Sure. So is it "Obamacare for internet" if legislators at the state or federal level deny municipalities the freedom to price gouge and deny free market competition?
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 12 01:09:28 1) Let's have the government tell a company how to sell their services. 2) Let's have the government get their hands into the internet industry, because what could go wrong there? 3) You are fools if you think the government is going to make the internet better. You don't like your internet service? Go to a different provider. Don't run to the government you faggots.
pillz Member	Wed Nov 12 01:38:25 literally most retarded post in the thread. And you're in competition with Hot Rod in a technology thread. congrats dude.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Nov 12 05:46:31 Just take a close look at the Veterans Hospitals and you will see what is in store for the internet, only much worse. I would laugh because it is you guys that will have to live with it not me. But, it is just too sad.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 12 06:17:25 Why not be optimistic, buddy, taking a look at your existence, made possible only by the grace of several majestically efficient government programs?
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 12 06:26:43 But reading Rod's claptrap, I am thinking that americans really ought to be careful here. This is obviously the same bullshit they peddle on Fox and talk radio, pretending that NN means government running internet, never mind the truth where NN means leaving internet as it is right now, and protecting it from telecom's shitfuckery. Well, maybe not all are pretending, some are just illiterate and some are just against everything omama is for. But since americans are historically susceptible to bullshit, telecoms and republitards just might win.
hood Member	Wed Nov 12 10:04:27 Did mt really say "go to a different provider"? I'd laugh, but it's too depressing that people are truly that retarded.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Nov 12 10:07:53 If there were other providers, I'd think keeping NN away was quite reasonable. But... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7ix5BwCjk
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 12 10:11:12 "You don't like your internet service? Go to a different provider." Only an hour and a half before that... "When local and regional monopolies are enforced, and municipalities are forbidden from establishing their own ISPs, you cannot then claim that free market forces will allow consumers to dictate the market."
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 12 10:30:44 This is so infuriating. They aren't monopolies, to use that is to cheapen the word not unlike when gays whine about their civil rights. You have options. You simply don't like your options and are whining to the government to offer you something better which is both dangerous and idiotic.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 12 10:55:55 Uhh, when only 2-3 ISPs can exist within a given municipality or region, due to governmental regulation, this is a government enforced monopoly. "You have options." Yes, you typically have 2-3 options. If you don't like Comcast, try Cox. http://cdn.bgr.com/2014/03/top-isp-without-twc-1024x731.png "You simply don't like your options and are whining to the government to offer you something better" No. Either A) end governmental regulation that prevents true consumer choice, or B) make sure that our government enforced choices do not assfuck us ala "I'm sorry, but www.utopiaforums.com is not included in your internet package. Please contact your provider to learn how to unlock this website".
Hood Member	Wed Nov 12 16:47:41 "Yes, you typically have 2-3 options" This is actually wrong. Most of the US only has 1 option at the 10 mbps+ internet speed. Your options are either to have real internet or some shitty DSL connection that will be good enough to browse web pages, maybe look at a few youtube videos. And that's all. So, no. There aren't any other reasonable options for people. You have 1, MAYBE 2 options at real internet. Those with 2 options are lucky.
pillz Member	Wed Nov 12 16:50:07 inb4 obaminated or Hot Rod says that if you use those shitty options they will get better because of the free market.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 12 17:23:28 Yeah, I've noticed its especially bad in larger cities. I'm lucky enough to at least be able to choose between Cox and U-Verse, which are both decent. Google is coming soon...if my municipality plays ball, of course.
Hood Member	Wed Nov 12 17:41:03 Just looked into AT&T. I could get "high speed DSL" at up to 6mbps internet. Under current rulings, this counts as broadband service (4mbps). However, a proposed change to 10mbps broadband definition would put me back into only 1 option. Looks like I only have 1 option for real internet.
TJ Member	Wed Nov 12 17:51:52 Anyone who wants to see their options in the States. http://www...lid=CLX4odOe9sECFQcSMwodcGkAYA
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 12 19:38:09 Let's see, I can choose from time warner, Uverse or Fios in my market. Why is that? Because my market is fucking profitable. It isn't the government's job to force a company to invest in an area where there simply isn't much profit to it. Besides, as shitty as it would be, having a 5mbps download speed is not the end of the fucking world. The internet is a luxury, not a right.
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 12 19:40:37 There's also smaller companies I can choose from like Cox.
Hood Member	Wed Nov 12 19:58:23 "The internet is a luxury, not a right." If telephone is worthy of title II consideration, internet is infinitely more worthy.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 12 20:17:45 "It isn't the government's job to force a company to invest in an area where there simply isn't much profit to it." Who the fuck argued that? The problem is government exclusion, not a lack of government coercion.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Nov 13 00:33:13 >>Let's see, I can choose from time warner, Uverse or Fios in my market. Why is that? Because my market is fucking profitable. It isn't the government's job to force a company to invest in an area where there simply isn't much profit to it. Besides, as shitty as it would be, having a 5mbps download speed is not the end of the fucking world<< In your own words, what do you think net neutrality actually is?
Hood Member	Thu Nov 13 00:35:11 "Who the fuck argued that?" Nobody. However... The companies themselves get paid + tax incentives when they make promises to build into unprofitable areas. And then those companies don't deliver anyway. And still get their money/incentives. But, you know, it's the government that we need to worry about!
earthpig GTFO HOer	Fri Nov 14 13:25:40 "You are fools if you think the government is going to make the internet better." The internet wouldn't exist if not for government. You are just trying to copy/paste anti-Obamacare arguments without actually thinking things through or giving any consideration to context.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Nov 15 02:45:38 Yeah, they've gone. If they do return, I wouldn't mind an explanation of what the internet would be like today without government intervention.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Jan 15 20:00:10 GOP makes U-turn on net neutrality By KATE TUMMARELLO 1/15/15 3:55 PM EST Updated 1/15/15 6:40 PM EST Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. Story Continued Below But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. When a federal appeals court last year threw out the FCC’s previous attempt at net neutrality rules, Walden and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) called the court decision “a victory for jobs and innovation … by keeping the government’s hands off the Internet” and preventing the government “from playing the role of traffic cop.” Even those furthest to the right on net neutrality appear to be open to working on legislation. In an interview last week, Thune said all his committee members are ready to work on a measure. “Obviously, not everybody is in lock step, and we haven’t shown a bill yet, but in terms of general principles, I think everybody is pretty much in the same place,” he said. Thune’s committee includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who in November called net neutrality “Obamacare for the Internet.” Now, Cruz “looks forward to having a vigorous discussion on how we can best ensure the Internet remains a forum for freedom and innovation” as the FCC eyes stricter regulations, according to a Cruz spokesman. Read more: http://www...-fcc-114296.html#ixzz3OwggJGfu
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Jan 15 20:00:36 "Thune’s committee includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who in November called net neutrality “Obamacare for the Internet.” Now, Cruz “looks forward to having a vigorous discussion on how we can best ensure the Internet remains a forum for freedom and innovation” as the FCC eyes stricter regulations, according to a Cruz spokesman. " What a moron
crownRoyal Member	Wed Feb 04 11:47:49 http://www...79/fcc-net-neutrality-proposal Obamacare for the Internet is coming! FCC ftw
Hot Stick Member	Wed Feb 04 15:52:06 Why do you people want the government to control the internet?
roland Member	Wed Feb 04 16:28:52 Do you even understand what net neutrality is, Roddy?
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Feb 04 16:34:23 On the one hand, that's hot stick, not hot rod. On the other hand, I'm fairly certain the answer is still no.
roland Member	Wed Feb 04 16:37:38 no, I just didnt realise it was an old post. I doubt Rod has learn anything though
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 03:56:55 It's doubtful. I've seen they seem to be making it explicitly about paying to prioritise/avoid being deprioritised. Good. For a while I was concerned they might outright ban traffic management. (Too valuable. Particularly when it comes to time-sensitive protocols)
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 04:32:13 That's where government involvement starts. Where exactly does it end?
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 04:43:01 Where would the internet be today without government involvement?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 05:01:05 There is a law that was created back in Carter's day called The Community Reinvestment Act. It allows poor folks to buy houses hey cannot afford. Here is a history of The Act. 2 History 2.1 Original act 2.2 Legislative revision history 2.3 Legislative changes 1989 2.4 Legislative changes 1991 2.5 Legislative changes 1992 2.6 Legislative changes 1994 2.7 Regulatory changes 1995 2.8 Legislative changes 1999 2.9 Regulatory changes 2005 2.10 Regulatory changes 2007 2.11 Legislative changes 2008 2.12 CRA reform proposals Once the government starts regulating their next step is to start regulating more. They fail at almost everything they get involved in.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 05:06:57 Cool. So anyway, where would the internet be today without government involvement?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 05:11:59 Some enterprising private company or individual would very likely have discovered it anyway. Your comment is like asking where would the telephone industry be without Alex Bell.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 05:17:32 Discovered? The internet wasn't discovered it was built from nothing. It was also a bit more than just a single communications device. Designed and built from nothing on government funds and with government control from day one. An Internet without government involvement has never existed.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 05:28:38 But it would have. Someone else would have "discovered" how to put those pieces together. Where would the personal computer be without Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak? Any invention that we currently enjoy would have been invented by someone else were it not for those who did invent it.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 07:08:39 >>But it would have. << Probably. But when? Would we have one today? Or would it be something our children thought was awesome? We definitely wouldn't have had something as advanced as we do today. >>Where would the personal computer be without Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak? << They didn't invent the personal computer. They made the PC more convenient, but that's entirely different. >>Any invention that we currently enjoy would have been invented by someone else were it not for those who did invent it. << What made what we've got today inevitable? You can say what might have been, what we've got is what was. And what we've got is an internet that was formed as a government project, built as a government project, run as a government project and opened from beginnings as a government project. And again: The internet has never been something that existed without government involvement. Right from its earliest beginnings, there was government.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 07:24:33 It was a military project wasn't it? So they could have direct contact with a few universities that the needed info from? Which is neither here nor there. What it boils down to is you have more faith in the government than I do.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 07:38:33 >>It was a military project wasn't it? So they could have direct contact with a few universities that the needed info from? << It became a military project. >>Which is neither here nor there. What it boils down to is you have more faith in the government than I do. << What it boils down to is that there has never, at any point in the internet's history, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, been a time when the government wasn't involved in the internet. If there was, please give the year.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 07:41:38 Adding onto this: Considering how far it's gone, at least the US government involvement in the internet has been pretty fantastic. Obviously not perfect, nothing is. However, there's been a shitload of very smart decisions made and relatively few mis-steps.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 07:42:44 Most of the mis-steps I can think of revolved around a lack of foresight on just how universal the Internet would become. (And ignoring that not everyone is entirely trustworthy)
roland Member	Fri Feb 06 08:12:54 "What it boils down to is you have more faith in the government than I do. " Well you certainly have faith in the government when we are talking about starting wars and killing people. So, you dont even believe in what you said. On net neutrality, you may not like some of the things they do, but let's not mix different things together. Net neutrality is an important concept if you want the internet to remain as open as possible like it is now, an open network that everyone can communicate with others without being discriminated, and with low amount of censorship,restrictions, etc. The alternative would be your internet works like your cable channels. It works fine if you are sticking with the companies that has close association with your ISP, but otherwise, you will have a poor experience unless you pay more money to your ISP.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Feb 06 13:35:27 By 1990, ARPANET had been overtaken and replaced by newer networking technologies and the project came to a close. New network service providers including PSINet, Alternet, CERFNet, ANS CO+RE, and many others were offering network access to commercial customers. NSFNET was no longer the de facto backbone and exchange point for Internet. The Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX), Metropolitan Area Exchanges (MAEs), and later Network Access Points (NAPs) were becoming the primary interconnections between many networks. The final restrictions on carrying commercial traffic ended on April 30, 1995 when the National Science Foundation ended its sponsorship of the NSFNET Backbone Service and the service ended.[51][52] NSF provided initial support for the NAPs and interim support to help the regional research and education networks transition to commercial ISPs. NSF also sponsored the very high speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS) which continued to provide support for the supercomputing centers and research and education in the United States.[53] Is this what you mean? BTW, I really don't care anymore. But, when the government starts controlling and limiting the internet you might remember this conversation.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 06 13:39:41 >>Is this what you mean? << In relation to which comment? >>BTW, I really don't care anymore. But, when the government starts controlling and limiting the internet you might remember this conversation. << As opposed to ISPs accepting cash and using monopolistic positions to start controlling and limiting the internet? Given the US government's track record on managing the net, I'm going to trust them first. Not perfect, but a shitload better than purely commercial alternatives.
Hood Member	Fri Feb 06 18:01:58 http://ars...influence-over-net-neutrality/ -facepalm- fucking republicans. they'll grasp at anything. ------------------ Congressional Republicans are accusing the White House of having "an improper influence" over the Federal Communications Commission's decision on net neutrality, and are launching an investigation. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler today demanding documentation of all communication between FCC personnel and the White House, as well as calendar appointments, visitor logs, and meeting minutes related to meetings with the White House, and all internal documents discussing the views and recommendations of the White House. "Reports indicate that the views expressed by the White House potentially had an improper influence on the development of the draft Open Internet Order circulated internally at the Commission on February 5, 2015," the letter from committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said. "Specifically, there are questions regarding the FCC's decision to promote the reclassification of broadband services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934." The committee's document request had several other components, including "all documents in the possession of FCC personnel working in the Office of Chairman Wheeler and the Office of General Counsel." President Obama in November called upon the FCC to reclassify broadband Internet access as a common carrier service, and to impose net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers from interfering with Web traffic. Despite making his opinion known, Obama said at the time that the FCC is an independent agency and can do as it wishes. This week, Wheeler issued his proposal to reclassify broadband as Obama suggested. Chaffetz has some big donors from the technology industry. Comcast, a staunch opponent of Title II classification, accounted for $15,100 in donations in the most recent election cycle through the company's political action committee and employees, according to OpenSecrets.org. An even bigger donor for Chaffetz was Google, which gave $21,000. Google told the FCC that Title II could provide some advantages to its Google Fiber service, yet Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt also urged White House officials to avoid Title II reclassification, according to The Wall Street Journal. Chaffetz asked Wheeler to make staff available for a briefing and provide all documents by February 20. He reminded Wheeler that the committee "has authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time.'"
McKobb Member	Fri Feb 06 18:16:30 The only rule needed is 'no blocking'.
Hood Member	Fri Feb 06 18:36:03 "The only rule needed is 'no blocking'." Just wrong.
pillz Member	Fri Feb 06 23:38:37 Oh, but you think Amazon should be allowed to pay Comcast to slow Netflix to a crawl.
roland Member	Sat Feb 07 01:46:37 "But, when the government starts controlling and limiting the internet you might remember this conversation. " But they have been in controlled and so far, they have maintain a relatively open internet. If they step out of it, it doesnt mean freedom for all, it only mean someone will step in like the large ISPs.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Feb 07 02:40:30 >>The only rule needed is 'no blocking'.<< From a usability perspective, there's no difference between blocking and deprioritising the transfer speed (as well as a bit of shaping) until something comes in at <1kbps. From a technical perspective, there's all the difference in the world. >>But they have been in controlled and so far, they have maintain a relatively open internet. If they step out of it, it doesnt mean freedom for all, it only mean someone will step in like the large ISPs.<< Pretty much. I haven't really seen any evidence of any understanding that goes beyond "Obama is president and this is happening under him"
	show deleted posts