President Obama takes stand on net neutrality.....cable stocks dive

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/obama-calls-for-tougher-internet-regulation/ar-AA7uuqj

Good for the economy?

STUNNING SUCKINESS..!! Control is effective ownership... guess what ideology has govt setting product, price, wage... etc?

It is a complex issue. Pk is ok with large corporations controlling the pipeline, and I am suspicious of corporations or the government restricting the internet. Only about 5% of our backbone is being used with tremendous assets not being utilized as fewer and fewer control the internet and content in America. In the short term, I am less suspicious of the government keeping that pipeline open than I am of the few trying to monopolizing the same.

The govt wants to control pricing and product of private companies... what's so complex? The reason we are having fewer and fewer small businesses is also directly attributable to the govt nudge as well. No level playing field... it tilts to big biz.

It'll just wind up another fascist collusion between central govt and enormous corporations... squeezing out competition... reducing choices... increasing govt controls. Perhaps y'all think this sort of tactic is new? Lol... not even close.

Fdr used all forms of it with his federal industrial council. It was a major factor in the prohibition of hemp to favor the hearst timber and paper monopoly. Truman wanted to nationalize, in effect, the steel industry. The railroad history is interesting too.

It's as is we don't have any context to measure current events anymore. The govt recycles controls... and the crowd goes wild.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/technology/in-net-neutrality-debate-tech-giants-on-the-sidelines.html?_r=0&referrer=

Since January,when a federal appeals court threw out the Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality,broadband companies like Comcast,Verizon and AT&T have mounted a full-court public and legislative fight against any new round of regulations that would curb how they manage their networks. Their rival giants in the tech industry haven’t put up much of a fight.

Large Internet businesses have written a few letters to regulators in support of the issue and have participated in the back-channel lobbying effort,but they have not joined online protests,or otherwise moved to mobilize their users in favor of new rules.

Why not?They may be too big to bother with an issue that primarily affects the smallest Internet companies. And that is a shame.

Net neutrality rules would keep broadband lines neutral of the Internet providers’business interests. Say,for instance,you get high-speed Internet service from Comcast. Without strong rules,advocates say,Comcast could favor certain websites or videos on the lines coming into your home —perhaps those from TV networks it owns, or from outside companies from which it has exacted a fee for access to a special “fast lane” on the Internet.

If that were to happen,proponents of the rules say,it’s obvious which companies would suffer most: the Internet’s newest and least powerful businesses. The giants,meanwhile,would escape relatively unscathed.

“If you have bad rules,the ones who pay the price are the smallest companies,” said Julie Samuels,the executive director of Engine,an advocacy group that has been pushing for network neutrality rules. “Once you’re as large as Google or Facebook,you can afford to pay.”

Comcast and many other cable providers and local copper providers have trillions in infrastructure which if the full pipeline was made available to Americans there would be competition on how video is delivered to homes and business. Network tv would not be what it once was, and even cable would be superceded by thousands of choices in online delivery of video. Net neutrality is common sense, and if it takes government regulation to protect consumers, I have little objection at this juncture.

Who can be surprised that semi-retired President Obama sees ANYTHING and instantly wants it REGULATED. Then comes the taxes.

Who can be surprised that semi-retired President Obama sees ANYTHING and instantly wants it REGULATED. Then comes the taxes.


Maybe. This issue is complex, and if not carefully monitored, the remedy will be worse than the illness. Right now net neutral is good.

http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomhistory/

PkrBum wrote:It'll just wind up another fascist collusion between central govt and enormous corporations... squeezing out competition... reducing choices... increasing govt controls. Perhaps y'all think this sort of tactic is new? Lol... not even close.

PkrBum wrote:The govt wants to control pricing and product of private companies... what's so complex? The reason we are having fewer and fewer small businesses is also directly attributable to the govt nudge as well. No level playing field... it tilts to big biz.

You realize you're posting this in a thread about net neutrality, right?  I hope you were trying for satire here.  I really hope you were trying to paint regular citizens who oppose net neutrality out of ignorance as useful idiots being played by ISP monopolies.  That was your intent here, right?

All the president has proposed is that the internet remain open as it essentially has since its inception.  All data is treated equally.  Seems to have worked out quite well for society thus far.  The vast vast majority of americans agree with this.  Even many conservatives agree with this.  The only entities that don't agree with this are ISPs and useful idiots - the latter which we apparently have in abundance on this forum.

Here you are ridiculing this idea.  The alternative is that ISPs can begin to price content that they incur no marginal cost in producing.  Gigantic companies like Netflix for example will have no problem paying for the "internet fast lanes".  The small start-up on the other hand, will have problems paying for such access.  Somehow from this, you arrive at the exact opposite conclusion.  You feel that an open internet blocks out small business and equates to "government collusion with big biz".  

I am being 100% honest when I say the following:  Your comments above are easily - easily - the dumbest thing I have ever read on this website.  Look around.  TEO posts here.  We have PACEDOG.  And yet you are king and sit alone atop Stupid Hill.  You are the definition of the village idiot.

And about these "internet fast lanes", let's not kid ourselves.  It's not as if ISPs are chomping at the bit to invest in research into new technologies that are going to boost speed and therefore command higher price.  What they really mean is "let's just slow down everything for those who do not play along with our extortion."  Nothing is going to speed up for anyone.  Those who pay for the "fast lane" will see their content delivered at the same speed that it is today.  Those who don't pay up will be throttled. Imagine how incredibly stupid of an idea it would be if some entity came out and said "Hey, guys! We're going to make it so that your cars can only travel at 20 mph unless you pay us a monthly subscription fee!" You're essentially arguing in favor for that.

Think of all of the companies that consistently top lists such as "Worst companies of the year" and the like...Dish Network, Comcast, Direct TV, AT&T.  You are in an incredibly small - razor thin - minority that would like to see these entities get bigger and wield even more power.  

We are in the midst of the information age.  Now we have these massive ISPs that want to control and price that information, even though they neither produce nor incur any costs in the creation of that information.  You seriously have to be incredibly dense not to understand what net neutrality is, and what is really on the table here.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

61 percent are against net neutrality