Topic: Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means - page 5. (Read 7122 times)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But what I don't see is where in the U.S. this is currently taking place or when any of the ISPs have ever stated that they want to control what its users have access to. The only real issue I have with ISPs here in the U.S. is the fact that they are charging so much for for a fraction of the bandwidth that many other countries are getting. I think if the conversations between the government and the ISPs were to focus more on that issue, then it would have my support. I still feel though that the ulterior motive here is for the government to have an open door, warrantless access to our private data.

One thing leads to another. This is just a foot in the door for the ultimate goal of the government controlling access to the internet. Here are two quotes from the following article:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

The cable and telcoms giants are particularly concerned by Obama’s call for FCC to reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Such a move would reclassify consumer internet as a “common carrier” service – like the telephone – and give the regulator greater power to control prices and services.

Obama’s endorsement “of 1930s era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the internet, and would hurt consumers and innovation,” said lobby group Broadband for America.

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you.

Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you.  

“We’re from the [plutocracy/oligarchy/aristocracy], and we’re here to help.”

“Controlling their access” is contrary to “net neutrality” (i.e., refraining from imposing content‐specific constraints upon internet navigation).

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

Showing today...

Obamacare for the Internet!

And next showing...

Obamacare for Bitcoin!

LOL its simple ppl will just setup servers outside of US... US will slowly decapitate itself.. real growth is linked to the internet.. next tech wave is probably blockchain related.

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

We can trust him with our Internet when he trusts us with our Guns, lol...

It seems like every other time they've tried to put a leash on the internet the people have always stood up to a certain extent and stopped them in their tracks. However, that was going through Congress but considering this guy thinks he's a king and can do whatever he wants, there's really no telling how much he'll get his way considering he's probably offended by how bad some Americans think of him and his ideology via the latest ballot box contests.

It means that he is just trying to get public on his side, as he has always done in the past by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Americans lost many privileges in this decade and never objected, I hope they will stand up at least for the Internet.

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

Senses a trap from Obama

If it's anything like Harpers China position the second they get full control they will do a 360 on the issue although its possible that Obama does have good intentions and would do it, we can't guarantee his successor would share the same mindset.

The prime minister acknowledged the Canada-China relationship has been tense at times. In 2006, Harper vowed not to sell out to what he called the "almighty dollar" in China.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-raises-human-rights-concerns-with-chinese-president-xi-jinping-1.2829146

“Once ratified, the Canada-China Investment Agreement will bind Canada, including future governments, for a minimum of 31 years. Unlike NAFTA, with an exit clause of 6 months’ notice, this agreement, also called a FIPA (Foreign Investor Protection Agreement) cannot be exited for the first 15 years. After 15 years, either country can exit on one year’s notice, but any existing investments are further protected for another 15 years. Despite some claims by other politicians that the treaty could be voided by a future government, that is not the case.”

“The only way to exit the treaty would be through negotiations with China in which the government in Beijing agrees. Unilateral withdrawal would trigger a multi-billion dollar claim by the Peoples Republic of China against Canada, with damages open to collection in one hundred countries around the world.

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/press-releases/2014/09/12/harper-sell-out-to-china-will-be-locked-in-elizabeth-may/

___
That said the threat of a specter for privacy and protection of the internet is a weapon that can be used against Obama if he wins
Since he will be held accountable by the people on these type of issues and to keep the Republicans in check currently
So its good news in my opinion that he made it a policy mandate.

On the other hand Irish

At least it's not a Ted Cruz XDDDD

(Kind of Afraid that if one party in the USA has full control of all the houses net neutrality is doomed)
When its in conflict they can't push a position through.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah-ted-cruz-you-silly-senator/
___

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz

A quote from Senator Ted Cruz

Obama calls on FCC to make "strongest possible rules" to protect net neutrality

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/obama-strongest-rules-protect-net-neutrality

<< President says "open internet is essential to way of life" and comes out against so-called "fast lanes" for higher-paying web users. >>

Cable companies "stunned" by Obama's "extreme" net neutrality proposals

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

<< Major telecoms, lobbyist groups and politicians sharply respond to president's call for greater regulation of internet as utility. >>

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/obama-net-neutrality-statement-meaning,news-19895.html

<< After years of general statements encouraging net neutrality - the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all Internet traffic equally - President Barack Obama today (Nov. 10) came out definitively in favor of the cause, in both written and video statements. Is this a toothless pronunciation by a second-term president whose party just lost control of the Senate? Or does he have solid legal rationale and authority to back up what he said? It may be a little of both. >>