I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".
It couldn't be because your news source is lying is it? I mean cartoons are very reliable.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Weird,, I dont see George Soros and his $196 million. Wtf?
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".
That's the thing.
None of the pea brains on this board can understand the play that Soros is making here.
It's too far into the future.
Nobody invests that type of coin on something unless it is going to give a massive ROI.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
It is very clear to me why Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, et. al. do not want this regulation added.
You are stoned, slow, or stupid if you think the other side has your best interest at heart.
It is possible I am too skeptical, however, no rich man ever did anything to benefit the middle and lower class unless it too benefited him and in a much better way.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
You're so right. The Internet has been void of innovation.
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
It is also demand.
It has only been recently that the demand for really fat pipes have been demanded by the public.
Think of it like this:
When HD TV was in it's infancy, you couldn't get a lot of programming. So there weren't a lot of TV's being sold at reasonable prices. Once HD became more and more in demand TV prices came down.
Same here.
Comcast hasn't had to invest in fat pipes, because the demand wasn't there. Now that the demand is picking up, Comcast won't be able to increase the size of their pipe because they can't charge Netflix (as an example) a proportionate rate for what is being used. Netflix (95% of pipe use, homemovietubes.com 5% ... who should pay more).
The end of the day, infrastructure will stagnate and the government will be forced to step in and develop the pipes, giving them control of the flow to the home ... or would be one thought.
As stated ... it is not easily understood, because no public debate was had.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
Praise be to Allah that Obama is providing us the most transparent administration in history. Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
"2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills."
Our costs are less so I'm going to charge you less. Said no company. Ever. However you can bet that Netflix would raise rates.
"2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills."
Our costs are less so I'm going to charge you less. Said no company. Ever. However you can bet that Netflix would raise rates.
Ok, and if that happens people will still pay for it because it's a great deal. If they stop paying for it than Netflix will lower the rates. The market will move on.
I'm with Race on this, I don't know enough about it to condemn or praise. I just know I should have the right to form an opinion after reading the document before it's voted on.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
1. Those companies have been stagnant for years. The technology already exists. They've been lobbying to block its implementation. Fucking liars.
2. They already held Netflix hostage. Netflix caved. Savings were not passed on to customers *shocker*
3. I'm surprised how little you fucks know about this. And believe it or not, I hold you all in slightly higher regard than the average American. Well maybe not PLSS. That poll question is loaded bullshit, and distracts from the actual issue.
4. Flat out lie. Neutrality prevents those with more resources from purchasing better services, effectively blocking smaller/individual voices. Imagine HH going up against the Fox owned Scout.com network if they were paying to stifle small competitors.
5. Welcome to the real world. The White House always makes their policy wishes known. Why is this even a point?
6. Literally the only valid poont on this list. Knowing the details would allow for informed discussion and critique.
7. CHRIST. They're already spying on us. This changes nothing. Please stay on topic.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".
It couldn't be because your news source [President] is lying is it?
Comments
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
None of the pea brains on this board can understand the play that Soros is making here.
It's too far into the future.
Nobody invests that type of coin on something unless it is going to give a massive ROI.
You are stoned, slow, or stupid if you think the other side has your best interest at heart.
It is possible I am too skeptical, however, no rich man ever did anything to benefit the middle and lower class unless it too benefited him and in a much better way.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
It has only been recently that the demand for really fat pipes have been demanded by the public.
Think of it like this:
When HD TV was in it's infancy, you couldn't get a lot of programming. So there weren't a lot of TV's being sold at reasonable prices. Once HD became more and more in demand TV prices came down.
Same here.
Comcast hasn't had to invest in fat pipes, because the demand wasn't there. Now that the demand is picking up, Comcast won't be able to increase the size of their pipe because they can't charge Netflix (as an example) a proportionate rate for what is being used. Netflix (95% of pipe use, homemovietubes.com 5% ... who should pay more).
The end of the day, infrastructure will stagnate and the government will be forced to step in and develop the pipes, giving them control of the flow to the home ... or would be one thought.
As stated ... it is not easily understood, because no public debate was had.
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
"2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills."
Our costs are less so I'm going to charge you less. Said no company. Ever. However you can bet that Netflix would raise rates.
I'm with Race on this, I don't know enough about it to condemn or praise. I just know I should have the right to form an opinion after reading the document before it's voted on.
2. They already held Netflix hostage. Netflix caved. Savings were not passed on to customers *shocker*
3. I'm surprised how little you fucks know about this. And believe it or not, I hold you all in slightly higher regard than the average American. Well maybe not PLSS. That poll question is loaded bullshit, and distracts from the actual issue.
4. Flat out lie. Neutrality prevents those with more resources from purchasing better services, effectively blocking smaller/individual voices. Imagine HH going up against the Fox owned Scout.com network if they were paying to stifle small competitors.
5. Welcome to the real world. The White House always makes their policy wishes known. Why is this even a point?
6. Literally the only valid poont on this list. Knowing the details would allow for informed discussion and critique.
7. CHRIST. They're already spying on us. This changes nothing. Please stay on topic.