So who here wants the government to rule the internet

Again on this morning news there was a piece about the fact the Obama wants to control the internet. So who here is for that?

IMO that will totally ruin the internet.

 

I no of no such effort. The Adminstration has taken a position in favor of net neutrality, and the FCC has propsed regulations to that effect.

If you were smart, you'd be supporting that.

Instead, you're peddling some scare fantasy taht Obama is going to take over the internet, when, in fact, he's trying to keep Comcast, Cox, Time Warner etc from doing what they want to do to it, which is make it into cable TV.

 

Since I'm an IT manager with a wide and deep knowledge of the net, I'm sincerely curious which rules will be implemented and how they will be endorsed by US administration.

The idea that internet providers could become "public utilities" is at least curious. Internet is a service and it has offered on the service market. The obsession that internet has to become a kind of second life is simply absurd [and this gives a great advantage to the enemies of our societies ... terrorists included ... who avoid to use the net for their "activities" and "hobbies" !!].

I will wait for more detailed information, but I think the administration is making a mistake which will reduce the economical business generated by the net.

 

Why don't you use the internet and read something. It's been in the news for over a week now.

I am not sure why you would find viewing the internet as a public utility as curious. In most countries, that's exactly how it is treated, and it is viewed as critical infrastructure just about everywhere.

So the idea of regulating it as a utility is hardly foreign at all, considering that it has many of the same characteristics as things that are regulated as "common carriers"

The internet is not a "service", it is a necessity for most business and commerce today. It is already regulated, although a lot of conservatives don't seem to be aware of that.

 

Bingo!

 

The censorship I've seen on dot com inspires me to oppose any more private control and HOPE that government control increases potential for free speech.

One thing is for sure, this internet, the way it is, is useless for impelling what is needed for change. Unity is very unlikely with fearful confused Americans inundated with covert agents keeping trivia important.

The best would be a return of the usenet on university servers, which an amendment revising the 1st amendment with an Article V convention in preparation for proposing more amendments, could effect very well.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

If that happened, FCC control over the internet probably would not be needed because the people would be enabled to control corporate influence over the web in other ways.

 

tomf

Inform yourself on the action the head of the FCC is comptemplating.

 

Net neutrality is the openness of content. Wonderful... but what I want is SPEED. Thruput speed should be standard. I should not have to pay for a higher tier to be able to view a YouTube video without the ****** cartwheel spinning every 30 seconds.

God knows what might happen if we spiral into ObamaNet. get cable or pay a tax??

 

And surely government control of the internet will be beneficial, right? "Net Neutrality". Keep things out of the hands of those greedy corporations, right? Power to the people!

Why, the government would NEVER EVER impose controls on speech or who can use the internet, right? Why there would be free speech just like on all those college campuses, Right? Well, except for, of course the "speech codes" that make sure no one is ever, EVER offended at any speech or concept they don't like. And I'm sure the FCC wouldn't be cracking down on political opponents of the President like the IRS did.

And all the innovative services and infrastructure would just keep growing and growing under government control, right? Why whenever government regulates anything, the costs go way, way down and all kinds of entrepreneurs jump into the marketplace to spend more and more money because they realize that they can make money more quickly in a regulated environment, right?

Oh, and unlike the electric and phone utilities which are regulated by the government, the government would NEVER, EVER use it as a vehicle for imposing more taxes on us, like, for instance to insure "fairness" and "equal access" for all, right?. And once those funds were collected they would only be used for the designated purpose and never, EVER go to political cronies of the party in charge for boondoggle projects, right?

And Obama and his followers would NEVER, EVER lie to us about what the true purpose of their actions are and the effects they will have will they? I mean, look at how everybody was able to keep his plan under Obamacare, because Obama PROMISED. Say, did you see those Jonathan Gruber videos? No? Well like I said, they would never EVER lie to us about how beneficial the effects of government regulating the internet would be, would they?

Wow! I feel better already.

 

Tell me what and how he plans to control.

And how that will ruin the internet.

Is your internet ruined as of this moment?

 

I've spent over thirty years in the phone and cable tv business and you guys have no idea how much the government regulates both. We can't even ADD FREE SERVICES without getting approval from the cities and counties that hold the franchise agreements. And, of course, they want their cut.

 

It seems to me like the Internet is a great place where commerce, news, and social interactions between people all over the world is taking place and expanding, and it is a hotbed for entrepreneurs and never ending innovation. So why would we ever be so stupid as to allow incompetent, corrupt, politically partisan bureaucrats in the US federal government get their hands on it????

 

The state has no business being in the telecommunication business.

 

More like they will regulate all of our bandwidth, and allocate a limit on the bytes of data businesses and residential customers can use per month. If you want HD quality streaming video from iReel, IceFilmsTube, VUDU, Netflix or HBOGO etc...whenever you feel like it, well... that just might not be fair and balanced. We may need bandwidth redistribution.

 

It's the same group that votes against their own best interests that are slamming Net Neutrality. The very title expresses the democratic fairness of how the Internet should be made available to all. WTH is wrong with some people???

 

I know you are not asking for my response, but my internet AND nation have been ruined since 1994 when the usenet was taken from the people and replaced by dot com.

 

I do not know who you refer to, but some people are ALSO covert agents here to manipulate opinion. What they support never makes sense in the larger picture.

I wish the American people would catch on, but the agents do not want them to.

 

Amen!!

Amazing the 'mindset' of those who are SO damned anti-Obama... that they'd rather cut off their own noses, despite their faces.

 

Well, since Al Gore apparently invented the internet I suppose it belongs to the democrats so they can do whatever they want with it, right?

I mean, the democrats do support Al Gore's claim don't they?

 

It's hilarious to me, that you have to explain that to ANYONE in this forum.

Folks, please Google this sh__, and choose your side. I'm with the President on this one.

 

Sorry I don't understand your problem. I only started using the internet around 1997~1998 and have been pretty happy with the way it is...well except I would like to see faster speed and lower price.

 

Honestly I'm not sure how to handle the situation. As is corporations want to run the internet how they want, as in force people to pay on both sides of the gateway they provide. They want you to pay for their service and they want to force site on the internet to pay because apparently providers think they own the internet. Having the government step in and stop this is good because it's a clear abuse of power which you can do when you essentially have a monopoly. Pretty much every city in the US has one reasonable internet option; whatever cable company owns the town. The downside with getting government involved is that you have a lot of busy bodies that scream about how everything under the sun needs to be regulated and if you disagree with them then you want child rapists to be set loose in kindergartens around the nation.

So it comes down to how we want the internet to be ruined; corporate greed where they charge content providers who provide the content that causes people to pay for their services to begin with or do we let the government whittle internet freedom away until it is no longer open but rather heavily regulated. I say the latter. As awful as it is the government is going to regulate the internet whether it regards it as a service, a utility, or a mystical elf. We are likely to keep the internet free longer without both government and corporations trying to destroy it, so if we can remove one of the two entities, I don't see the problem. It sucks but in the end greed and power destroy everything that is free and open.

 

That internet is not a "service" is a Communist myth ...

You buy it as any other service and there is a market. If US administration wants internet to become a "public utility" for real it has to nationalize providers; that is to say laws should state that only public corporations can run internet providers [like in a Socialist state]. Otherwise, internet is a service in a free market [with good peace of Obama and his buddies].

And don't mind about conservatives and regulations: internet is free until it's regulated ... but "regulated" is not "controlled" [note this little difference].

 

apparently you aren't aware that in the US utilities are not government owned.
The idea of making the internet a utility places it in a different regulatory category, not a government provided service.

Net neutrality is a singular method of keeping costs of use down. It means that providers cannot tier access and cost, and that every kind of user pays the same for the same basic broadband services. Never mind providers want to additionally charge by download amount, but they also want to charge for speed of service.

As for the idea that some espouse that the government shouldn't be involved in the telecommunications industry, I guess I'd agree if it wasn't for the fact that it is in the vital national interests of all governments. Regulation is a necessary REQUIREMENT.

 

Wait, you're talking with an Italian ... I dream about a free internet since here a good part of the telecommunication structures are still public and a great percentage of internet traffic still passes through public [owned by the state] lines and networks.

Here also public [for real] providers exist [and it happens that internet is a "public benefit" in the sense that municipalities offer internet connections free ...].

Anyway, I would underline that while base internet is a matter of national security, the common internet is a mundane service which should follow market rules.

If you are not suggesting that the government should give a computer as free gift to any poor family, you should keep also in mind that only who can afford the purchase of a device with internet connection can enjoy internet services [it's not like to read and write ... you need also to be able to use a computer].

So it's a service. In Italy we have privatized telecommunications and we don't see why internet should remain a "state matter" [today Italian telecommunications are overall in the hands of Egyptian and Dutch investors ... Italian giant of telecommunication has lost the majority of the market].