Obama seeks government control of internet- updated

By 25 Comments 2,076 views

internet-control

Barack Obama has moved to have government take control of the internet:

President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve “a free and open Internet.”

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”

This is a canard. These things always are, especially from Obama. Above all, Obama is a liar.

Proponents argue that Title II regulation would ensure the free and fair flow of traffic across the Internet. Opponents, however, believe the reorientation would mean onerous rules that would limit investment in the infrastructure and in new services, and that toll roads of sorts would provide better service to companies that can support their higher traffic volumes. But that in turn has created widespread concern that ISPs could throttle service in some instances, intentionally slowing some content streams and speeding others.

Some of the major broadband providers have already spoken out against the plan. “Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation,” Verizon said in an e-mailed statement.

If government gets control of the internet, internet costs will go up for all taxpayers so that those who add nothing to society will get it for free. Illegals will demand free internet and devices to access it paid for by you. Internet content will be censored, there will be a tax on the flow of information and conservative websites will see traffic diverted and they will crash non-stop. All in time for the 2016 election.

John Lott, 2010:

But it doesn’t take much imagination to see where these regulations can lead. Take the power of the FCC to levy fines for obscene language. Might the FCC want to reclassify cable programming so that it can impose the same fines on HBO and Showtime that it now imposes on over-the-air broadcasts?

Surely, if the federal government can provide a “good reason” to reclassify broadband services as telecommunications, if can come up with a “good reason” to prevent such bad language.

Take the “fairness” doctrine, a rule created during the 1940s requiring that broadcast stations give equal time to both sides of controversial issues.

In 1987, Ronald Reagan got rid of this regulation. To silence right-wing criticism, the Obama administration is already trying to reimpose a version of the fairness doctrine on broadcast stations.

Before you hit any keys, remember that Obamacare is premised entirely on lies. Remember that Obama depended heavily on the stupidity of Americans and lack of transparency to get Obamacare passed.

Remember all this when Obama says “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet. If you like your current provider and plan, no one will take that away from you no matter what.”

Imagine Michelle Obama telling you where you can go and what you can say on the internet.

And never, ever forget that Barack Obama is, above all, a liar.

UPDATE

Forbes

To make their proposals palatable, network neutrality advocates suggest that the FCC might in its discretion “forbear” from various regulations. But FCC forbearance takes years with uncertain outcomes. And the FCC likely does not have the discretion to find that some interstate telecommunications services pay fees and others do not. Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.

It is easy to see government abuses of the Internet abroad. It is time we took a closer look at home as well.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

25 Responses to “Obama seeks government control of internet- updated”

  1. 1

    Indigo Red

    Ever wonder when people will understand that the magician doesn’t really saw the lady in half. After seeing the trick innumerable of times over the years, we still stand agape and agog.

    Now, Obama* isn’t sawing a lady in half, but we’ve heard this before —
    The war will be over in a few weeks;
    The troops will be home by Christmas;
    Read my lips, no new taxes;
    We had to destroy the village in order to save it;
    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor;
    I am not a crook;
    We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it;
    The Internet must be regulated so that it will remain regulation free.

    You’d think we would’ve learned by now. It’s like the old joke – Two blondes walk into a building. You’d think one of them would have seen it.

  2. 2

    Greg

    “Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

    Ted Cruz on Twitter, Nov. 10

    The man is a total nincompoop. Seriously. The comment makes no sense whatsoever. Yet 2.9 thousand people quickly shared it with everybody they know on Twitter.

    Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of internet freedom. To oppose it is to advocate surrendering that freedom to the benefit of special interests. Does anyone truly imagine that the monolithic telecom corporations are in need of even greater competitive advantages?

    One can only hope that most people are smarter, better informed, or more honest than Ted Cruz.

  3. 3

    Armond+Barboza-Ross

    Net Neutrality…open access for all…a public utility…not a service at the whim of the highest bidder…or those with the most dollars

    like a free public library…open to all…open and free access…with no paid special services giving better access only to those with extra money

    but then…if Obama supported sliced bread…you would be against…sandwiches

  4. 4

    Scott+in+Oklahoma

    So if the internet falls under the dense cloud of government regulation, what happens when the government decides to regulate content? Suddenly, the stories we have all read, about the government’s involvement in the different scandals (IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Burgdahl etc etc), regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on, disappear. And following the example of the anti-gun people, the first amendment doesn’t cover the internet because it didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. With the lawlessness this administration has displayed doesn’t inspire any of my confidence that he wouldn’t take control of the content of the internet if he got the chance.

  5. 5

    Greg

    “A dense cloud of regulation” is not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about nothing more than requiring that Internet Service Providers charge everyone the same fees to move identical volumes of digital data at the same speed, regardless of what the content of that data might be. It prevents the companies that “own the pipes” from raising delivery prices on other companies that are providing competing content and products. If you let them do that, you essentially allow them to kill off all competition and set their own content prices however they wish. You also allow them to kill off innovative new products and services that might compete with their own existing products and services.

  6. 6

    Scott+in+Oklahoma

    The Patriot Act wasn’t about harvesting all the information possible from every resident of the US either… but that’s kinda where it ended up under this regime.

  7. 7

    Smorgasbord

    Why shouldn’t we let the government regulate the Internet? Look how well it has done regulating:
    (1) The IRS
    (2) The United States Postal Service
    (3) Social Security
    (4) Welfare
    (5) Foreign aid
    (6) Illegal immigration
    (7) The Veterans Administration
    (8) Earmarks

    I trust my government to do as good a job regulating the Internet as it does with these.

  8. 8

    Greg

    I would trust the federal government to look out for the public’s best interests more than I would trust Time Warner, Comcast, or Verizon.

    I’d also be interested in knowing whether anyone’s cable TV or internet services have gotten less expensive owing to deregulation. That certainly hasn’t been my own experience. According to this article, it hasn’t been anybody’s experience.

    Since enactment of the 1996 Act that deregulated cable rates, consumer cable prices have been rising at three times the rate of inflation and even faster for basic and expanded basic service, which is the choice of the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers.

  9. 9

    Mully

    @Greg:
    It is no surprise to me you are pining for the days of pre-divestiture. To the good old days of Ma Bell. A fully regulated environment. You prefer a federal master, I get it. Many of us don’t.

  10. 10

    FMB42

    0Muslim urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to turn it into yet another tightly controlled liberal propaganda outlet.

  11. 11

    Aqua

    @Greg:

    The man is a total nincompoop.

    No he’s not.

    Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of internet freedom.

    No it isn’t. At least not the way the FCC views Net Neutrality, and especially Tom Wheeler. A lobbyist for the wireless and cable industry, he’s the one that first started pushing for ISPs to allow certain companies to pay for play.
    What people are complaining about right now is “Internet Fast Lanes.” That is not the same as net neutrality. These “Fast Lanes” are known as ISP peering. The big boys do it, companies like Google, Facebook, NetFlix, Amazon. They connect straight into an ISP bypassing the Internet backbone. Does this give them an advantage? Yes. Do they pay fees for it? Yes. But anyone can do it and the ISPs allow anyone to do so. Building the fiber network for ISP peering, or renting glass for ISP peering is not cheap.
    I think the government does have a role, just not making it a utility. Congress needs to look at anti-trust laws. In my area, we have ComCast and ComCast for high speed Internet. U-Verse has a small footprint, but they suck anyway. We need more competition, not government control.

  12. 12

    Greg

    @Aqua, #11:

    I have Comcast, which has speed tiers. I have no problem with consumers having the option of purchasing varying service levels at varying prices. One thing about it, though, is that all data is theoretically treated equally. I’m paying a certain amount for a certain bandwidth, regardless of how I utilize it. If Comcast were allowed to charge the companies providing the services or content that I’m interested in more because Comcast provides competing services or content themselves, it wouldn’t really matter that my own speed hasn’t been throttled back.

    I use a MagicJack connected to a PC USB port for long-distance phone service. I have dependable national long-distance service, which includes Puerto Rico, at a cost of only $35 per year. That’s been the case for 5 years now. Comcast also provides VoIP long distance telephone service. Comcast long distance service begins at $29.99 per month. They like to package it with their cable and internet services.

    What would Comcast be likely to do if they could charge YMax (the corporation providing MagicJack phone services) a higher rate for the same volume of data, or arbitrarily narrow their bandwidth allocation for telephone traffic? I’ve dealt with Comcast for a couple of decades. I’m pretty sure I can guess. The same logic applies to all manner of content.

    I agree that we need genuine competition. I believe that Net Neutrality—which is essentially what we’ve had in the past by default—is what levels the playing field to make real competition possible.

  13. 13

    Aqua

    @Greg:

    If Comcast were allowed to charge the companies providing the services or content that I’m interested in more because Comcast provides competing services or content themselves, it wouldn’t really matter that my own speed hasn’t been throttled back.

    This is an example of true neutrality and I agree with it. I don’t believe we need the feds in the start throwing up new regulations. The only thing I think the feds can offer right now is the threat of anti-trust hearings if the major ISPs start doing anything that resembles throttling data.

  14. 14

    Armond Barboza-Ross

    how well does the government regulate…red lights

    how well does the government regulate…water quality and delivery

    how well does the government regulate…electrical safety and delivery

    you can complain a lot…or you can study the issues and vote in ways…that builds governments ability to manage well

    or we can vote in ways and support policies…that make it impossible for government…to do anything right

    just think…if government long ago had not committed to clean air…LA today…would look just like the capital of China

    we won’t speak to the National Highway and the meaning to our economy

    or the Hoover Dam

    remember the day when we first spoke of mandatory seatbelts…one wonders if you would be here today…to complain about the failures of government…had they not…thought it best…to regulate driving safety

    but then…our government is we the people…so failures and successes…are all on us

    wonder what we might be today as a Nation…if we had failed to regulate money…as so many demanded at the start of our Nation

    kind of like those…who demand the right to do their own thing…even if it means another…Love Canal

    just think what we as a Nation would have been today…if NASA had been considered…beyond governments capabilities…maybe if you really look…you would find the founding basis…of our entire current technology based economy

  15. 15

    Armond+Barboza-Ross

    if you had been concerned enough…and read the Patriot Act when first proposed…the mining of all telecommunications…was at the core of the act

    in fact special software…is cued by key words used in any conversation

    the fact that it is now Obama…enforcing rules…developed and passed by congress under Bush…is your real problem

    and that is your personal pathology…that has nothing to do…with Obama enforcing our Nation’s laws

  16. 17

    Armond+Barboza-Ross

    go look at how water is regulated in India…then look at the US

    tell me which model…protects the service…for all of the people

    or do you believe…income inequality…should have a kissing cousin…on the internet

    but then the option is…to really think…before you pontificate

  17. 18

    Armond+Barboza-Ross

    @Greg: Greg you make way to much sense…by telling the truth…fully and straight forward

    yet those with other and maybe twisted agendas…think they have found…the next Salem Witch Trial

  18. 19

    Armond+Barboza-Ross

    @Indigo Red: there was a day in America…when if your home or business caught fire…that the responding fire company…had to be one that you personally had a contract with…or the responding company would just let…your building burn

    seems you are in that group…longing for those good old days

    must be like public roads…where some pay for special access

    wonder what you might think…if you were not deemed…special

  19. 20

    Smorgasbord

    @Greg: #12
    I have been using MagicJack for years. Did you know that they have a free app for smartphones that let you make free calls from the phone. I tried it 1-2 years ago on my iPhone, but the quality wasn’t very good. If you haven’t tried it, I suggest you do. Maybe they have the quality issue taken care of. I don’t have a smartphone any more, so I don’t know.

  20. 21

    Greg

    @Smorgasbord, #20:

    I didn’t know that, but it probably wouldn’t do me much good. My cell phone is anything but smart. I carry around a cheapo Tracfone. It doesn’t even have GPS. Kids would probably make fun of it. I just remind myself that when I was a kid it would have seemed like a miracle gizmo straight out of a science fiction story. One nice thing about being older is getting some perspective.

  21. 22

    Smorgasbord

    @Greg: #21
    Except for the iPhone I had for two years, all I have ever wanted is just a CELL PHONE. I don’t need to text, email, or get on the Internet from a phone when I have a home computer. I can wait until I am home. I don’t like to be around things or people who are smarter than I am, so I don’t like to be around many things or people.

  22. 24

    Armond Barboza-Ross

    @Mully: ….and all of those southern democrats who supported segregation…become republicans in response to calls from Nixon and Reagan

    and in the days of the internet…where information is free for those…who want an education…seems funny…that you believe you can tell half truths…and still be a moral person and a good citizen

    even Albert Einstein…called those behaviors…an illness of the white man

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *