explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband

[98valk]

ovomits plan to control the internet


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

Ajit Pai’s description of “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet” sounds Orwellian. He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

Pai had previously observed that he was concerned about the plan would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country, and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

[Bighead]

Let them tax it all they want I just won't have it don't need it I still have a dumb phone and if they want to change that I will cancel it don't need it.

[cookiedough]

I can see 1-2 bucks more, but much more than that,  I'll gladly go back to the stone age and no home phone, no cell phone, no internet.  I will live just fine! Not so sure the kids will live, but too bad!   

[Robert]

I wish I could remember where I heard it but O said let me get this done on my presidency,  so in effect I am already screwed so let the next pres have a easier time in pushing through smaller controls. It made perfect sense in that this pres was chosen as the one who would fundamentally change the US, that like the presidents before making small changes this one would make the big changes so unpopular to the public. Once changed its hard to reverse, and it may get a plan on track. I did not realize that in Mexico there has been a confiscation of guns either. Also that the attorney generals of like 25 states are suing the O admin for stopping the peoples government oversight from investigating the White House. Its a peoples committee that regularly investigates expenditures and has been allowed and mandated in laws.

[hubcapsc]

Here's some technical people (they have opinions and flame wars too  ) talking about it
without invoking secret obama conspiracies...

http://lwn.net/Articles/598909/

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

talking about it
without invoking secret obama conspiracies...



-Mike

Sounds like heresy to me 

[G-Man]

It is/was only a matter of time before gov't got invloved.

And to all those saying, won't effect me, I don't use it............

Your healthcare is entwined in the internet. (How else will the Dr. in India diagnose you?)
New cars, the same.
Your taxes, the same.
Your TV and some radio.
All corporations, which will have to pass the costs on to the customer.
Gas pumps.
All your money in the bank and investments.
Schools
Police, Fire, and EMT
Electricity

All to become more expensive due to new taxes and gov't involvment.

[Serk]

Verizon just sold off their land line business (POTS and internet/FIOS) in Texas, California and Florida. The CEO listed one  of the main considerations as to why they're mostly getting out of the wired internet business is new government regulation.

[czuch]

THESE GUYS WORK FOR US!!!!!!!!
They forget that, if you forget it, you get what you deserve.
They were voted in to represent you and me. I dont see alot of representing going on.
I do see the coup is already in place and nastiness is in order.

[baldo]

I suppose we should just let Big Telecom just "self-regulate". I suppose it would be better to let them throttle internet connection to those who will pay more, thus shutting down any start ups or those without endlessly deep pockets.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer at times, but I know BS when I see it. And I certainly don't trust anything that slides out from Breitbart, known stretchers of the truth.

[G-Man]

I suppose we should just let Big Telecom just "self-regulate". I suppose it would be better to let them throttle internet connection to those who will pay more, thus shutting down any start ups or those without endlessly deep pockets.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer at times, but I know BS when I see it. And I certainly don't trust anything that slides out from Breitbart, known stretchers of the truth.

Please tell me of one, just one, business/entity that has not become more expensive after gov't involvement?

Healthcare costs skyrocketed once gov't got involved.
Education, more of the same.
Housing, yep.

None of these have gotten better due to gov't involvment, just more expensive. 

[baldo]

Let me ask you this. Do you trust corporations to work in the public's best interest? In this case, do you think Verizon and Comcast and AT&T would maintain free and equal access to all? They already tried pulling it off with Netflix, and they caved almost immediately.

As far as the government causing prices to rise. This proposed ruling would treat the internet and it's access just like other utilities.

So what this basically boils down to is this. The internet is completely intertwined with the vast majority of the population. This includes banking, healthcare, shopping, and information gathering, including this website. And let's not forget cat videos and pornography.

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

[..]

You can keep your internet

You can keep your provider

Costs will go down by $2500 a family.

Amazing that so many have an unshakeable belief that the Government knows best.

And believe the members of this Federal Govt that have lied about many subjects.

[Serk]

I wonder if those on the left side will be so thrilled with government oversight of the internet when it's a Republican appointed FCC doing it...

[bvergeer]

Let me ask you this. Do you trust corporations to work in the public's best interest? In this case, do you think Verizon and Comcast and AT&T would maintain free and equal access to all? They already tried pulling it off with Netflix, and they caved almost immediately.

As far as the government causing prices to rise. This proposed ruling would treat the internet and it's access just like other utilities.

So what this basically boils down to is this. The internet is completely intertwined with the vast majority of the population. This includes banking, healthcare, shopping, and information gathering, including this website. And let's not forget cat videos and pornography.

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

From your first paragraph, sounds like the system worked......so private corps please.
Last paragraph......yep I'm with you, private corps win again.

[baldo]

That's funny. I guess it depends on your view as to how that oversight is handled.

How do you see it implemented under the two different parties?

[Willow]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

I would agree with this except in cases of companies buying up other companies and monopolizing the market.

[..]

We make choices EVERY DAY with the dollars in our pockets.

You would rather have a government FORCE you to purchase something as they just did with Obamacare? Really?

[Jess from VA]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

Agree wholeheartedly!!

Not only does the G cause everything it touches to double in expense, it seriously screws up everything it touches (after using it as an excuse to create yet another ever expanding bureaucracy full of self important, self-serving civil servants who put themselves and their bureaucracy before the people every time).

When was the last time ANY agency or department of our vast empire of a G ever found it had done so well it could afford to declare a dividend to it's stockholders (the people of the USA)?    

[..]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

Agree wholeheartedly!!

Not only does the G cause everything it touches to double in expense, it seriously screws up everything it touches (after using it as an excuse to create yet another ever expanding bureaucracy full of self important, self-serving civil servants who put themselves and their bureaucracy before the people every time).    

AND have to be paid from the taxes collected from the population. parasites.

[old2soon]

I can't trust ANY politician any further than I can throw him minus a trillion miles. ANYBODY that thinks/hopes/believes the gubmint can do better than a private corporation MIGHT want to take a really close look in the mirror. The gubmint WILL NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES have YOUR best interests at heart-EVER! RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

Agree wholeheartedly!!

Not only does the G cause everything it touches to double in expense, it seriously screws up everything it touches (after using it as an excuse to create yet another ever expanding bureaucracy full of self important, self-serving civil servants who put themselves and their bureaucracy before the people every time).

When was the last time ANY agency or department of our vast empire of a G ever found it had done so well it could afford to declare a dividend to it's stockholders (the people of the USA)?    

Evidently Colorado has done so well with marijuana legalization that they are giving money to citizens.

[RP#62]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

This is wonderfully illustrated in Neville Shute's book "Slide Rule".  It's the story of the R100 and R101 otherwise know as why the British government no longer builds dirigibles.

-RP

[Tailgate Tommy]

Who would you rather have controlling your access? The 'government' or a group of for-profit corporations? I know which one I'll go to.

It's an easily answered question.  For-profit organizations left alone are ruled by the natural laws of supply and demand.  Government, at least our own government, repeatedly attempts to synthetically set prices to reward some and punish others.

In my book for-profit corporations wins the selection every time.  

Agree wholeheartedly!!

Not only does the G cause everything it touches to double in expense, it seriously screws up everything it touches (after using it as an excuse to create yet another ever expanding bureaucracy full of self important, self-serving civil servants who put themselves and their bureaucracy before the people every time).

When was the last time ANY agency or department of our vast empire of a G ever found it had done so well it could afford to declare a dividend to it's stockholders (the people of the USA)?    

Evidently Colorado has done so well with marijuana legalization that they are giving money to citizens.

I have to say that I have not gotten my check yet...

[The emperor has no clothes]

It's in the mail

[..]

If they do give back it will be about $8 an adult.