Obama speaks for Net Neutrality

  1. AeroHil
    Gingerbread Nov 10, 2014

    AeroHil , Nov 10, 2014 :
    the statement you are making is only correct if someone is willing to build up faster infrastructure. and how do they get money to do that? by charging more from the people who is using the services. so yes they can make it faster, but it comes at a cost

    also the title of this thread is Obama Against Net Neutrality? correct if i am wrong but from this article, I think he is FOR Net Neutrality...

    ultimusrex likes this.
  2. toastytoast1234
    Marshmallow Nov 10, 2014

    toastytoast1234 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Flying. TSA - choose a large dose of backscatter radiation or a close-up groin rub for your 8-year old daughter.

    Free speech zones.

    No-knock SWAT raids.

    lordfredplus likes this.
  3. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Well, good luck. Net Neutrality is going to pass. I would like to be wrong, but you guys are going to see what will happen. The worst part will be when everyone starts complaining about the way the government starts to censor the Internet after it passes. No one will realize that it's their fault for believing all of the crap they hear on the news and buying into this utopian idea of all packets are created equal.

  4. ultimusrex
    Ice Cream Sandwich Nov 10, 2014

    ultimusrex , Nov 10, 2014 :
    If things get faster, that's called progression. And everyone should have access to the faster throughput hardware. Sure there's going to be slower hardware still out there that doesn't get "slowed-down", but you shouldn't have to pay extra to get access to the faster hardware. It's the natural progression of network technology, it will continue getting faster. And if you let everyone who pays extra use the faster stuff, while leaving everyone else on the slower legacy stuff, that's not right. And that is, by definition, creating a "slow lane".

  5. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 10, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 10, 2014 :
    But how does that limit free speech? You are still free to say what you want. Your ability to say what you want is protected.

  6. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Right, but if the cable companies can charge content providers for faster service, then they can build a faster infrastructure that way. Bandwidth is expensive. The extra money is going to come from someone's pocket. I guarantee that if Net Neutrality passes, no one is going to like the result.

  7. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 10, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Dude, your paranoia is a little misguided. Do you think that the government wouldn't still be monitoring you if Cox cable ran the internet? Too funny

  8. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    So getting arrested for saying what you want isn't limiting free speech? Like you're talking about the literal ability for the words to come out of my mouth?

  9. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    No, I'm saying that this is the government that you want to hand over the Internet to

  10. toastytoast1234
    Marshmallow Nov 10, 2014

    toastytoast1234 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    But your audience isn't. We're not in the days when you could stand on a soapbox and use your lungs to their maximum capacity.

  11. ultimusrex
    Ice Cream Sandwich Nov 10, 2014

    ultimusrex , Nov 10, 2014 :
    That is what the government has turned Net Neutrality into. The concept of Net Neutrality did not start in the halls of Congress or the Senate. It started on the internet, as an idea of free-speech and non-regulation, and the Government Co-opted it and has started calling their regulation plans Net Neutrality. We don't want the Government's net neutrality, we want actual Net Neutrality.

    AeroHil and toastytoast1234 like this.
  12. jimberkas
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    jimberkas , Nov 10, 2014 :
    I'm confused, your title is Obama Speaks Against Net Neutrality. then why are net neutrality supporters happy with his statement?

    "Net neutrality supporters welcomed Obama's strong statement of support."

    these are his proposed rules:
    • No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player—not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP—gets a fair shot at your business.
    • No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
    • Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
    • No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

    bustervic likes this.
  13. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    You realize that my paranoia about the government is equal to your paranoia about the cable companies, right? I'm actually backing up my mistrust of the government. It is very well documented that they have lied to us over and over and over again. You haven't quite backed up why we should trust the government over the cable companies.

  14. AeroHil
    Gingerbread Nov 10, 2014

    AeroHil , Nov 10, 2014 :
    then as an evolving society, smart people will emerge to make that work right? can't just stick with a model that benefits some people and leave the majority high and dry. I think that's the govt's job to work for the people (even though we all know they have spend trillions of dollars and fail most of the time) but i still believe in the next generation of tech savvy people to come around and change it for the better... be optimistic lol

    ultimusrex likes this.
  15. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Lol I screwed up the title. You can't edit a title once you use it

  16. bustervic
    Gingerbread Nov 10, 2014

    bustervic , Nov 10, 2014 :
    Easy there big gunner.
    1st, I am 42 so more than old enough to know about the last 20+yrs of gov't.
    2nd, I am Canadian who not only lived in the US for a short time but has family there.

    The "Chance" of another ISP popping up is next to none, not while the monopoly of the current providers are colluding to lock up the market for themselves. There is no "control" being gifted to the US Gov't in the NN talks. So until they show otherwise your suggestion that the gov't is going to magically filter with internet with NN is merely speculation based on distrust.

    AGAIN, the TPP has far more dangers in relations to content, access, etc. than anything else.

    I am quite aware of the present situation in Canada, and our Conservative gov't rammed through the latest laws even though 73% of Canadians disagree with it. (Well it hasn't passed 100% yet but seems likely it will). Hopefully they get booted next year and are replaced with a more sensible group.

    For now, letting companies know that they can't control our internet is the 1st priority. Then attacking the issue of the TPP to let the gov't and rights holders know that they can't bully and intimidate us is what we should really focus on.

    ultimusrex likes this.
  17. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 10, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 10, 2014 :
    I believe exactly what you believe, but if Net Neutrality passes, we lose that. We just gave control to the government. If it doesn't pass, then we still have that chance of tech savvy people changing it for the better.

  18. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 10, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 10, 2014 :
    But faster infrastructure would not allow the same access for everyone. Regardless of size, capacity will always be stripped by demand. As more and more devices gain access, as 4k video becomes more popular, the demand grows. Then the next wave of more internet intensive protocols are developed. The fast lane corporate access will sing, and the slow lane folks will be queued. Yeah, your VoIP calls will sound great, but that email to grandma will sit in queue for a while. Traffic prioritization is a great thing for closed networks, but that principal should not be applied to the public internet.

  19. hendrikmetz
    Froyo Nov 10, 2014

    hendrikmetz , Nov 10, 2014 :
    @rwoods716: first things first -
    -first: you really think we buy your crap about the friendly cable company's who have only the best for the consumer in mind? The only thing they want is your money. So to speak if they get the Chance they will screw you.
    -second: You mentioned "Obama Healthcare", but you really made a mess in your statement and you did it in a profane way that is not good. Just try to see all the Dirt and Lies which where poured over this topic
    -third: watch this
    and this

    I cannot understand how you let yourself get blinded like this.
    But regarding your way of "discussion" your unable to comprehend the position and arguments of other people
    So at last to say it in your words "you will see how less you get if profit-driven company rule over the internet".

  20. AeroHil
    Gingerbread Nov 10, 2014

    AeroHil , Nov 10, 2014 :