Snippet

"Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities."

muslim communist jew, also he got no birth certificate.

I envision a future. A future where a can of oxygen will only cost $10 with a $3 CO2 tax

Yeah. Humanity will wring every drop of short-term profits out of itself until it's capitalized into extinction.

It's the American way!

Welcome to black history internet.
no more .com
a lot of .niggaz
free white slave with your Internet upgrade every February.
This will be the real Dark Net.

.kfc .420 .nba .yo.uk

.yolo
.kanye
.beyonce

.gov (free money, accomodation)

.ghetto

Rachel Ray.com...
9,000 ways to cook crack.

no more youtube....

Coontube

Said it a while ago, the "internet" is eventually going to consist of a handful of corporate run, government sponsored websites. Visiting any sites outside of those will quickly get you labeled a communist/terrorist/pedo/etc, whatever the latest buzzword is to rally the sheep around their cause.

You know too much. Sending euthanization squad.

I think I'm still ok. BRB, knock at the doooooo

WSJ is not a place to get a balanced opinion from. Unfortunately the US is being forced to make a policy decision on this front due to anti-competitive actions by major telecom companies like Comcast.

If one is going to support net neutrality, it cannot be only in words. There needs to be a degree of enforceable regulations. I'm not a fan of regulatory burden but the alternative is that Comcast and Time Warner will be the one's determining how the internet works. They will be picking the market's winners and losers because, at this point, there's hardly any other competition out there.

Edit: Basically, I think it's a catch-22.

So why is more legislation needed? Do we not already have laws regarding anti-competitive practices/monopolies?

Net neutrality really no longer exists already and cannot in the purest sense. I agree that bandwidth heavy internet services (like Hulu, Netflix, YouTube) probably need to help pay for their disproportionate share of bandwidth usage, but the rest of the internet shouldn't become a tiered system. It would mean that one of the key elements of what makes the internet a revolutionary tool - the ability to be used as a powerful platform by anyone to share information - will be degraded. For this reason alone we should want legislation to protect some degree of net neutrality. That being said, I dont think Clyburn's bill was perfect.

I'm not an anti-trust lawyer, but there's clearly issues with Comcast having a such a gigantic share of broadband customers but then sues municipalities who attempt to inject competition by laying more fiber. Part of it is a problem with infrastructure following the history of telecom anti-trust issues in this country.
But also cable TV is an industry in decline. The internet, streaming services, and a la carte programming is undermining the profitability of cable providers and so there's a real reason why the major telecoms have become significantly more anti-competitive.

Don't get me wrong, I'm largely a supporter of the market over gov't interference for a whole variety of reasons. But when you have Forbes magazine, not a bastion of anti-market ideology to say the least, publish op-eds in opposition to the TWC-Comcast merger, I think it's pretty clear there's the sense that the telecom sector needs fixing.

I agree that bandwidth heavy internet services (like Hulu, Netflix, YouTube) probably need to help pay for their disproportionate share of bandwidth usage, but the rest of the internet shouldn't become a tiered system.

They already do pay more, to the people who provide them with their connection.

When you pay your ISP for internet, you're already paying for the bandwidth you use to download a movie on Netflix, just as Netflix is already paying for the bandwidth they are using to send it to you from their ISP. Should you also have to pay Netflix's ISP for the excess usage using their service causes on their network?

Good! No, only Netflix should pay and pass along whatever costs to customer. What should be avoided is the rest of the country subsidizing Netflix's connection.

Also, I think we may need a "digital bill of rights" as our everyday lives are more and more integrated with the internet. People balk at the whole NSA/metadata controversy but if they knew the extent to which the private sector collects, stores, and shares our personal info, they'd probably forget NSA was even an issue. Not that the metadata stuff is right, but we as a society really need to determine these limits sooner rather than wait for a system that's irrevocably established.

A document over 300 pages that is kept secret getting passed into law this thursday unless congress says otherwise, is a good start? Handing over the whole internet telecommunications ownership over to another branch of government called the FCC is a good start?

Are you sure it has been kept secret and not a facetious joke by WSJ? 300 pages is nowhere near as bad as the ACA (which is like 30,000 pages) and as Pelosi famously said had to be passed before anyone could read it. But the FCC Chairman remarked on Clyburn's bill in detail so he's clearly read it.

I'm not unequivocally saying it's a good bill. I'm only saying something needs to be done. Saying "don't fix what isn't broken" is mistaken because the internet is changing one way or another and the market today is very non-competitive and has little ability to self regulate in a way that's in everyone's interest. Comcast/TWC have very little incentive to keep things as neutral as they have been in the past. Saying nothing should be done is a mistake.

Personally I'd rather see positive incremental change rather than massive, "comprehensive" reform. Pick small things both parties agree on and do those rather than pack a bill which necessitates all the pork add ons.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-sh...le/2560702

Why keep linking biased websites? WE is a far right commentary site.

Also, consider how much money Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc., all spent lobbying against the proposed FCC changes. Giving/spending money is the status quo for American politics.

Show me evidence because so far all I see is politics and corporations in bed and getting their way every step that is taken. Everything the Fed has done has turned out to equal less freedom. Sure they'll find an excuse and play it off that they represent the little guy but when it comes down to it, the little guy still gets assaulted and pushed out.

CEO of Comcast and Obama golfing. http://s3.amazonaws.com/newscloud-production/...1387236456

Btw, Tom wheeler, head of FCC was previously a lobbyist for the cable companies. Let's see his reaction.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjkQ-wCZ5A

Gee, if I had to guess, which at this point it's obviously not a guess, I'd say these huge companies are entirely for net neutrality. Why? Because it is the perfect disguise and excuse to allow them to squash any other alternative isps, any other alternative media. End of story.

Enjoy your sanitized internet us citizens.

I can't tell if trolling or not. Of course there's lobbying going on. That's no surprise. Most for-profits AND non-profits worth their salt have registered lobbyists at state and federal levels. Even many universities and colleges do to! If you think this is a revelation, I can recommend some good books that may help illuminate the topic for you.

It's not unequivocally a bad thing. There's an ecology of give/take between policy makers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. Sometimes lobbying does have a negative impact and sometimes, honestly, not enough influence in the end results. You have different players with different perspectives doing what they can to influence the results for their interests or agenda. You have Comcast on one side and EFF on the other, both throwing money around and trying to influence the outcome.

Being a lobbyist says nothing other than you make money trying to influence politics directly. You could be a lobbyist trying to get more grants for some non-profit trying to stop Ebola in East Africa or some oil company trying to drill on public land.

Comcast and many others have no interest in net neutrality. I think you may be confused by either what net neutrality means or you're being misinformed by the agenda propaganda you're reading from biased sources.

Hitlery Cliton, is for net neutering too. See, she doesn't like alternative media opposing her imperial masters agenda.

Ok, clearly trolling. Shame on me. :-/

.ebola

White house can't even keep a BJ in the white house secret, I think I'll be trolling well after my cock stops working and who wants to live then anyway...

When was the last time you got laid?

Does anal count?

I want to kill myself now.

What for? So he can have more anals?

Sure, we're an inclusive community.

How was he?

Not if you were receiving, no

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Log In

Just pull the plug and restore social interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Shut up OP, where's Jonesy to explain the situation and give a statement on contemporary mindset?

.

All out of jonesy. Heres a johnsy tho.

Google have been doing that shit for years with their SEO stuff.
(Organic vs PPC)
I.E. you can get top of the keyword ranks if you're prepared to spend money on adwords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GdVJ2beQIA

If you have a business model or skillset which is not geotargeted look out!

It seems to me that the proposal on the table is a step in the right direction (of net neutrality). Seeing conservatives and telecom companies complain about it only serves to reinforce my impression.

edit: there you go - sounds like good news to me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/net-...61702.html

lol@net neutrality idiots. nothing further. the world is just unbearably stupid. you people are posting about politics on a video gaming forum for 15 year old autistic kids.

Look at me, im cool i promise..........

not right now.

Good site to talk about. Esreality is subject to censorship since 2009. Some of the perpetrators -admins who enforce the rules one is Demiurge -he combines autoirony and irony in his posts in order to hide his abusive actions behind smart thinking like if he is composing smart replies than he would somehow be legitimized to brutalize users. Things tend to be kind of tricky when someone decides to let a handful of people dictate what should or should not be subject to censorship -constant evidence shows that the administrators tend to persecute first people who are revolting against the authority (against them).
The owner of the site is one called Sujoy Roy, a product of multiculturalism himself -don't keep your breath for him allowing unregulated free speech, especially since the West is getting strangulated with the presence of millions of immigrants.

Someone posted a nice video regarding the whole affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XPHIfgFwsY

This post is so fit for that forum category