Obama Backs Net Neutrality (was Obama Backs Government-Run Internet)

a reply to: TsukiLunar

I think- and can prove- the government has built many infrastructure that we use to function literally everyday.

That's not what I asked is it? Oh and by the way said infrastructure is in such sorry shape because the gov't does things inefficiently, the money that will be "earmarked" to pay for the maintenance will be used for some other idea. Just like lots of states highway funds.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
Oh so screw the minority to pay for the majority so they can facebook, and tweet, and watch kitties on youtube for a fraction of the cost.

You're lying.

Net Neutrality is not such thing.

Your statement is purposefully deceptive, and reeks of someone paid to obfuscate discussions of the subject.

Excuse me ?

That topic had nothing to do with 'net neutrality'.

Laws in 19 states—some specifically written by special interests trying to stifle new competitors—have held back broadband access and, with it, economic opportunity," the White House wrote in a fact sheet. "Today, President Obama is announcing a new effort to support local choice in broadband, formally opposing measures that limit the range of options available to communities to spur expanded local broadband infrastructure, including ownership of networks."

That is the EXACT premise of the ACA.

And to pay for the ACA 'affordability' was a TAX declared constitutional by the SCOTUS. That redistributes the wealth from the 'richer' folks to pay for those who 'can't afford health insurance.

Where as they were ALREADY covered under medicaid.

I don't appreciate being called a liar.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Still not sure what you mean by "out of reach", but if you use government run internet then you aren't using the other ones. That is assuming that there is some other values I'm not aware of.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

What I mean is quite simple, that government run internet is internet controlled by the oligopoly!

originally posted by: neo96
That topic had nothing to do with 'net neutrality'.

It's a significant attribute of the common carrier reclassification.

That is the EXACT premise of the ACA.

No. It's the distorted perception of those trying to obfuscate the Net Neutrality discussion.

I don't appreciate being called a liar.

What eles should I call purposeful deception? Perhaps you're not doing it on purpose -- okay accept my apology. But I'm still going to say you are spreading lies.

originally posted by: neo96
That topic had nothing to do with 'net neutrality'.

I'm not surprised you don't understand that this is about Net Neutrality, considering you seem to think it's analogous to the ACA in some fashion that I still haven't quite worked out yet.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
What I mean is quite simple, that government run internet is internet controlled by the oligopoly!

The proposed multi-tier system once suggested by the FCC, and backed by the mega-corporations like Comcast, TimeWarner, COX, AT&T, etc. is government run Internet. Because it requires new laws, new oversight, potentially new taxes, and policies to put in place and manage.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: TsukiLunar

What I mean is quite simple, that government run internet is internet controlled by the oligopoly!

This one sentence is contadictory. Please rephrase the question and add more information.

a reply to: TheArrow

That's what primarily conservative opponents are doing. Before Obama, most conservatives conceded that we'd probably need to reclassify broad band as a common carrier. After Obama, they hate it and are fighting against it.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So how is forcing people to buy insurance a 'fair' trade practice ?

Now the same people want to do to the internet what they have done to healthcare.

Through legislation,taxation,regulation INCREASED the cost of healthcare.

What do people think is going to happen with the internet ?

SAME THING.

To me 'net neutrality' is the government keeping it hands off.

It's not doing that.

And anything 'government' ran ends up costing us more money in the end.

Even when it's sold as 'not' costing a dime.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: TheArrow

That's what primarily conservative opponents are doing. Before Obama, most conservatives conceded that we'd probably need to reclassify broad band as a common carrier. After Obama, they hate it and are fighting against it.

The only reason I voted for Al Franken was his position on Net Neutrality. The first Democrat or GOP candidate I have voted for in 20 years. The net isn't something we can afford to lose.

originally posted by: neo96
What do people think is going to happen with the internet ?

In Minneapolis, I can get city run wifi for under $150 a year.

In St Paul, where I cant get city run wifi, Comcast is charging me $95 dollars a month for service that isn't as good as the city wifi in Minneapolis.

originally posted by: neo96
Now the same people want to do to the internet what they have done to healthcare.

You're spreading lies again.

What do people think is going to happen with the internet ?

Common Carrier reclassification ensures all content is treated equally.

To me 'net neutrality' is the government keeping it hands off.

This one you have correct. Because the proposed alternatives to Net Neutrality are most-certain government, and big-corporate-influeced-government, hands-on in a very significant way.

It's not doing that.

You're spreading lies again.

And anything 'government' ran ends up costing us more money in the end..

You're spreading lies again. Net Neutrality as a common carrier reclassification is not being run by the government.



But oh… let's take a look at why the ACA is such a horrible mess…

Because massive corporate interests (health care conglomerates) were allowed to not just have a say in the process, but heavily influence it. That's the primary reason it sucks so bad.

So, by your misplaced rhetoric parroted from conservative astro-turf sources, you're in favor of doing the same thing to the Internet. If it's not reclassified as a common carrier, the FCC will be working with major telecom companies to great thousands of pages of new laws to define the multi-Tier alternative.

That is the ACA all over again.

a reply to: TheArrow

See under the privater sector CHOICE exists.

Government run anything take CHOICE out of the equation.

There is nothing saying a person has to use comcast,TWC or any other.

And to repeat once again cable companies are the new MA Bells.

Their days are numbered.

WIRELESS is where it's at.

a reply to: TheArrow

And that's the big problem with the system. We are paying out the ass for something everyone else gets relatively cheaply. The company that runs your internet doesn't care what you think because you have no choice and you can't do anything about it.

I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity in this thread. Allowing more local competition will drive down prices, just like it did for long distance when the government made the big carriers allow other companies to access their infrastructure.

It's not "government run" it's the government opening up markets for new businesses, which is nothing like Obamacare.

Hopefully this passes so I don't have to keep paying $45 a month for slow internet.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You're spreading lies again.

So Obama didn't give us the ACA ?

President Obama will travel to Cedar Falls, Iowa, on Wednesday to tout the ability of local governments to provide high-speed Internet to their residents.

Same guy there.

]And he will urge the Federal Communications Commission to strike down state laws around the country that restrict the ability of cities to build their own broadband networks. The move is likely to draw fire from Republicans, who argue that states should be free to set their own policies—including restrictions on local governments

So much for STATE 'rights'.

I am missing the neutrality part there.

Also missing where the lies are.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TheArrow

See under the privater sector CHOICE exists.

Government run anything take CHOICE out of the equation.

There is nothing saying a person has to use comcast,TWC or any other.

And to repeat once again cable companies are the new MA Bells.

Their days are number.

WIRELESS is where it's at.

You're simply incorrect, not only that, you know your incorrect, because the post you are replying to is at odds with what you are saying. I don't understand how you are able to post, when posting things that you know to be false is against the T&C.

The City Wifi is cheaper than Comcast, the only other available option for internet in some parts of Minneapolis.

Without the City Wifi, Comcast would have no competition. The people would have no choice.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: TheArrow

And that's the big problem with the system. We are paying out the ass for something everyone else gets relatively cheaply. The company that runs your internet doesn't care what you think because you have no choice and you can't do anything about it.

I can't do anything about it yet. Hopefully this proposed local government internet initiative takes off so we can get this show on the road.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

mesh internet where people's computers connect to other people's computers.

That would be an NSA playground right there.