Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet.

[Pulsar]

Only Obama wants it. Because he's a dictator.

No one else wants these regulations.

Dude. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here is a better analysis:

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/04/the-fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-is-awesome-but-has-a-loophole/

Please let this stop the Comcast/Time Warner merger.

 

[Sonikku]

We should be letting Warner/Cast define the laws. They understand net neutrality better than politicians do. (Except Ted Cruz, love that guy) Who better to define the laws than the businesses that that are to be subjected to them?

 

[CPA]

Except the big joke is having the government step in and say you can't regulate it is what is necessary to prevent it. I'm pretty sure the company that wants me to spend and extra $50 a month to be able to watch The Walking Dead isn't going to be that generous if net neutrality isn't protected. I'm not sure why people on the right believe in the benevolence of corporations so much.

I don't believe in the benevolence of corporations, well because they aren't set up to be benevolent. I also don't believe you have a right to cheap max speed access either.

 

[Subyman]

Hold on, I need some pundits to explain this freely available document to me.

 

[K1052]

I don't believe in the benevolence of corporations, well because they aren't set up to be benevolent. I also don't believe you have a right to cheap max speed access either.

I don't think anyone is contending that people have a "right" to cheap broadband. The service providers also don't have the "right" to operate as defacto monopolies and try to squeeze everybody's nuts to increase their bottom line. They ultimately brought this on themselves because they (particularly Verizon) got greedy by taking the FCC to court and very effectively mobilized public opinion against the industry.

 

[werepossum]

Only a kid believes that.

There are so many legitimate business reasons that the internet is necessary for communication it's unreal.

Who pays for digital content? The people with morals. Is this a trick question? Wait.. I know... you thought the right answer was 'suckers'....

Thank you. It very much needed to be said, and I don't think I could have said it without calling him something that didn't need to be said. The idea that something should be stolen because it can be stolen baffles and saddens me.

I don't think anyone is contending that people have a "right" to cheap broadband. The service providers also don't have the "right" to operate as defacto monopolies and try to squeeze everybody's nuts to increase their bottom line. They ultimately brought this on themselves because they (particularly Verizon) got greedy by taking the FCC to court and very effectively mobilized public opinion against the industry.

Actually rather a lot of people are contending that people have a right (not even in scare quotes) to cheap broadband, or even free broadband. Assuming this goes through, the bureaucracy will be free to charge productive people extra to give it free to non-productive people. 'Cause it's a right. The government will also be free to charge the Gore taxes as they do on telephone service. So everyone who has to pay for broadband will likely be paying more within a few years.

That doesn't make it all bad, of course. There are definitely good things about regulating Internet access under Title II, such as banning throttling, banning fast lanes (except where it's deemed to be in the public interest), and preventing companies from charging outrageous rates where they have the infrastructure and the lobbying power to maintain that monopoly or duopoly. Almost nothing government does is wholly good or wholly bad.

For those too stupid to find the link to the Digital Trends story, here it is. http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/fcc-reclassify-broadband-title-ii-explained/

I suspect that if one really wanted, one could also find the text on the proposal online.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

People have a right to broadband in the same way as they have a right to electricity or water.



If you live in a city where the network infrastructure is available, it should be available at a reasonable price.

 

[K1052]

Actually rather a lot of people are contending that people have a right (not even in scare quotes) to cheap broadband, or even free broadband. Assuming this goes through, the bureaucracy will be free to charge productive people extra to give it free to non-productive people. 'Cause it's a right. The government will also be free to charge the Gore taxes as they do on telephone service. So everyone who has to pay for broadband will likely be paying more within a few years.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the "right" to cheap broadband and the availability of competitively priced services (where no competition presently exists). If anything addressing the last mile monopoly enjoyed by many ISPs is even more important to competition/consumer cost than what the FCC has thus far proposed.

 

[BoberFett]

We should be letting Warner/Cast define the laws. They understand net neutrality better than politicians do. (Except Ted Cruz, love that guy) Who better to define the laws than the businesses that that are to be subjected to them?

It's so adorable that lefties believe any "regulation" of the cable companies that the Democrats support wasn't already written by the cable companies.

 

[BoberFett]

That doesn't make it all bad, of course. There are definitely good things about regulating Internet access under Title II, such as banning throttling, banning fast lanes (except where it's deemed to be in the public interest), and preventing companies from charging outrageous rates where they have the infrastructure and the lobbying power to maintain that monopoly or duopoly. Almost nothing government does is wholly good or wholly bad.

Are you saying banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing?

You think it's a good thing to force the average user to pay more to support torrent users who choke bandwidth?

 

[Paul98]

Are you saying banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing?

You think it's a good thing to force the average user to pay more to support torrent users who choke bandwidth?

What are users paying for right now? Aren't they paying for that bandwidth?

 

[werepossum]

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the "right" to cheap broadband and the availability of competitively priced services (where no competition presently exists). If anything addressing the last mile monopoly enjoyed by many ISPs is even more important to competition/consumer cost than what the FCC has thus far proposed.

Agreed, but this is one piece of the puzzle, one way to attack the problem. It's easier to implement, and likely more attractive to Obama. Power to the federal government at little cost versus an expensive implementation to enable capitalism? Not even close. Doesn't mean this is the wrong thing to do, just means it's overall more attractive to Obama. Could be a net benefit, could be a net negative, depending on exactly what they do and the individual's circumstances.

Are you saying banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing?

You think it's a good thing to force the average user to pay more to support torrent users who choke bandwidth?

I would not say banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing, no. I would say that the cable companies are going to implement such policies for their benefit, not yours or the average user's. The two interests may well coincide, but they may also be polar opposites. Imagine Time-Warner/Comcast throttling content from Netflix to protect your interests while not throttling content directly from Time-Warner/Comcast. The net effect is that your cost goes up with their profits, even while you lose value (e.g. less access to content not available from Time-Warner/Comcast.)

To specifically address throttling or prioritizing traffic, I'm not fundamentally against either. But government regulation can possibly prevent them from being used for competitive advantage and/or without your knowledge.

 

[OverVolt]

BTW.....not a word. Regardless is what you meant. Irregardless is a negative of regardless. Imbecile.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

 

[dank69]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

nonstandard

 

[CitizenKain]

Are you saying banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing?

You think it's a good thing to force the average user to pay more to support torrent users who choke bandwidth?

The torrent users bought the same data package that someone who only checks their email does, why shouldn't they use it? Its not our fault that telcos have been sitting on the money instead of investing in their infrastructure to handle people actually using it.

 

[OverVolt]

nonstandard

You guys act like my name is overdolt and I came up with the word all on my own. Alot of people on here harbor ill will from other threads I have noticed like an 8 yr old would do. All it tells me is I've done an excellent job weeding through the people who post here. If I'm arguing with someone in another thread it doesn't spill over into a different thread. Real men don't let immature stuff like that bother them. There is a serious lack of real men on AT.

In reality using irregardless on a forum is nbd. I like the word personally.

 

[cliftonite]

Are you saying banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing?

You think it's a good thing to force the average user to pay more to support torrent users who choke bandwidth?

The new rules still allow ISPs to throttle torrent/psp traffic. What they can't do is throttle traffic from Facebook/Netflix/Amazon Prime, etc.

 

[BoberFett]

I would not say banning throttling or prioritizing traffic is unquestionably a good thing, no. I would say that the cable companies are going to implement such policies for their benefit, not yours or the average user's. The two interests may well coincide, but they may also be polar opposites. Imagine Time-Warner/Comcast throttling content from Netflix to protect your interests while not throttling content directly from Time-Warner/Comcast. The net effect is that your cost goes up with their profits, even while you lose value (e.g. less access to content not available from Time-Warner/Comcast.)

To specifically address throttling or prioritizing traffic, I'm not fundamentally against either. But government regulation can possibly prevent them from being used for competitive advantage and/or without your knowledge.

I understand that. The devil is always in the details. People scream "NET NEUTRALITY!!!" and other phrases they've heard before because Their Team used the phrase, so it must be a good thing even though they have no idea what it really means.

 

[HumblePie]

I've always assumed one day that regulation is coming and the internet isn't going to be what it used to be. Irregardless of the article, its something I expect to happen within say 10 years.

People that use that word make babies cry.

 

[boomerang]

I understand that. The devil is always in the details. People scream "NET NEUTRALITY!!!" and other phrases they've heard before because Their Team used the phrase, so it must be a good thing even though they have no idea what it really means.

Anything sprung from the same group of incompetents that forced Obamacare upon us should immediately raise red flags. The name "Net Neutrality" was dreamed up to create an emotional response. Too many are too trusting, too ignorant or both to take pause and think a little bit.

I'd like to say that I am amazed that anyone can blindly follow this regime and what it is they're doing but I'm not amazed anymore. Idiocracy is the new normal.

 

[First]

Yea but a direct counter to that is subscription based models. The new "word 365" or whatever is a subscription model. You don't own word, you pay a fee and have zero ownership.

You don't need to pay annual fees after the first year of Office 365 to keep your Word/Excel/Outlook 2013 apps. So for all intents and purposes, you own it.

Most things you buy online anymore are not outright ownership, but it is written into the EULA such that you are really borrowing the resource. See? Stupid. You go ahead and buy a ton of content without reading the fine print. Like I care.

The quality of information on wiki and such has declined. And most good resources are behind paywalls. Even the NYT and FT has a paywall. Yahoo celebrity and TMZ will probably be free until the end of time, of course.

Paying for information is as old as time itself, we're talking centuries/millennia. A NYT or WSJ paywall is pretty common sense given no other free news provider out there comes close to their quality, hence free market principles dictate their continued successful existence.

Your posts really do get shittier by the day.