Terry
Competition and an open market are the only things that will keep the internet affordable and advancing.
Lie, cheat and steal under the false assertion that they are doing it for "the people"....bullsh*t.
No thank you. That's the kind of stuff you expect to see in China. That little thing called the 1st Amendment should shut this down, but Democrats only protect their own free speech.
Remember, Scalia wrote the opinion in the flag burning case.
Dockhole's opinion is yet another cut and paste. We've had the internet for how long, and yet, we have not seen the problems he suggests. And even if we do, some other ISP would crop up in response. I use carrot2.org to get past the pay per click crapola. There will be others.
Leftists claim to be the champions of free speech, human rights, and free choice. They are in fact just the opposite. When people can hear all ideas and have open discussion, this becomes very evident. They choose the conservative option nearly every time.
It is only when leftists can control the conversations, the referencing point of view, and precepts of thought that they can survive in the political arena.
Control. An aching need to control all aspects of everyone's lives. If only they did what they were told, the world would be utopian, unicorns and all. For liberal leftists that is...
Liberal leftist freedom is indeed all about free choice. They themselves provide you the list you are allowed to choose from. To them that is freedom.
He plays one on the internet......
As much as most think it would be a good thing if he disappeared in reality we need 3-4 like him to keep things interesting.
Doc. Go get some friends or create faux handles and jump into the game. Liberals are supposed to be bad asses,,,,,whoa...... I meant asses. Nevertheless spice it up Dems!
Anony Mouse's Link
You are a PERFECT match for your affirmative action Liar-In Chief.
People like you and that lying SOB ObamacareTax author Gruber are cut from the exact same cloth.
Go spew your BS somewhere else.
White House Appears To Add Some Faux Delay To Its Title II Video Pitch
The White House appears to have put a fake "buffering" symbol and several-second delay before the President's video Monday announcing his desire to reclassify Internet access under Title II to prevent ISPs from slowing 'net traffic.
Check the "buffering" icon at the beginning, which is clearly part of the video production rather than an actual buff.
It is clearly an attempt to be clever, but instead leaves the impression of simulating a problem to justify having to fix it. Not sure that was the wisest idea. Where were the adults in the room?
My guess is I am not the only one who noticed. OK, I know I am not because someone called me to register their opinion that that was bush league. "Why? It seems so silly and fraudulent to falsely create that message," he said.
The White House press office had not responded to an e-mail for comment--their preferred medium of communications--at press time.
And what of the government? Can we trust it to ensure everyone is treated equally and fairly? I'm sure a political party would never try to use a government agency to quash other points of view... Oh. Wait, wasn't the IRS used for just that end??
The end purpose of this Obamunistic move is to create another "right" hidden somewhere in the Constitution which will be provided free by those who pay taxes...the Obamaphone will be followed by the O-Pod freebie.
Terry
"The end purpose of this Obamunistic move is to create another "right" hidden somewhere in the Constitution which will be provided free by those who pay taxes...the Obamaphone will be followed by the O-Pod freebie."
Closer to the truth then you might realize. Was listening to a Obama talking head on NPR this morning, he was mention that 25% of Americans do not own a computer or have internet access and this needs to be remedied. Why? Because it's unfair that some can afford computers and internet access and the less fortunate cannot. Makes me wanna find the nearest Obama supporter and punch 'em in the mouth. Twice.
Unless we get rid of the attitude that rewards should come without hard work, this country is doomed.
Unlike Dockhole, we actually exercise skepticism and thought when reviewing Obama administration proposals, rather than fawning admiration resulting in a puddle on the floor.
"Im glad we agree because I can show you examples of thousands and thousands that were unable to get and afford insurance and now CAN."
Listening to NPR on the way home from hunting yesterday, 50% those that signed up last year for Obamacare, are choosing nit to renew. Reason? Too expensive.
You honestly believe that the federal government would do a better job managing the 'net then the private sector?
While the original backbone of the net came from government funding, what it has become today has come from the individual non-government innovator and entrepreneur.
Heck, not one person who posts on this site would be doing so without Pat's involvement, creativity and investment.
But of course, that is simply above PEPOs comprehension.
From the link:
"...Moreover, there is clear evidence according to a Department of Homeland Security insider that the very communities where people get together to share ideas are being targeted en masse by paid disinformation agents whose sole purpose is to destroy the credibility of the message through targeted web site takedowns and direct attacks against their users.
Then, you will see the internet being regulated in a manner that will serve only the agenda of this administration. Either right before or during these events, so-called citizen journalists will be particularly vulnerable. Watch for a serious crackdown of bloggers, online news publications and websites, but not in the way that will be immediately obvious.
The ‘plumbers team’ have coordinated their efforts with Internet Service Providers to identify the people like you and others who publish their information on web sites.
At first they will cite violations of terms of service. Then, they will select a few ‘troublemakers’ and identify them for criminal prosecution. Others will experience hacking and other electronic attacks. And during all of that, there will be the Obama team flooding the internet with misinformation and disinformation. In fact, that is already taking place.
The attacks are coming from all sides – this is asymmetric warfare against the American people.
Much of the essay is related to Bill Whittle's Afterburner: WEAPONIZING THE GOVERNMENT
"Obama team flooding the internet with misinformation and disinformation."
That has been going on here for months, as evidenced by the Tag Team Troll Squad......
Seapig's Link
The comment is hardly out of his mouth when it is shown to be true, "AT&T will stop investing in high-speed fiber internet until net neutrality rules decided".
Well timed Mouse!
When the government demands free, you get what you pay for.
Healthcare insurance costs are now 30% higher, so how can they now "afford" obamacare? Govt subsidies you idiot.
I heard o was going to appoint Lois Lerner as our new internet czar.
Anony Mouse's Link
Leftists, stop pretending your are serving your neighbor by throwing them in the gristmill.
To hell with that. Net nincompoopery is what the so called net neutrality will be.
That is key, smart hard working people allowed to do what they do best because they get to reap the rewards of that innovation and hard work. THAT is what BUILT it. "You didn't build that" my azz.... flippin elitist parasites....
Now that it has become this powerhouse and relevant (oh, and profitable of course) part of nearly all that goes on in most day to day lives.... what will go down in history as an "age"to itself, now the government thinks the best thing to do is control it.... kind of like healthcare.... energy.... monetary policy.... free speech, religion....
And some folks think that's a wonderful idea.....
Coming to the point where when the government jams their foot in your door the best thing to do is blow it off..... and slam the door.....
I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
itshot's Link
The FCC is not capable of assuring anything, IMO
To hell with that. Net nincompoopery is what the so called net neutrality will be.
brilliant post docheater
That switch to digital went well...now storms and clouds cause pixilation or complete loss of signal. Further, the digital signals are not receivable at a distance, causing many to loose viewing opportunities. (I can no longer receive any NBC station, and I lost being able to watch Hockey Night from Canada...which I was able to receive with rabbit ear antenna). Choice of either purchasing a converter box or new TV was also not an option.
Of course, on the bright side, the stations I now receive can broadcast multiple channels allowing such great programming as B&W re-runs of the Andy Griffith show, Hogan's Heros and shopping/how-to programming.
The alternative of cable or satellite has some problems with government mandated regulations. By FCC rule, "local" is defined by the Nielson rating system and not location. Rather than have Lansing as my local programming (15 miles to campus), regulations put me into the Detroit local providers...news, weather and local programming. Weather a real problem as storms come from the west and by the time there are any alerts and warnings from government mandated local stations, the storms have hit and gone by.
Are you stupid?
itshot's Link
loks like everybody, including stupid people, is behind this wave
I may not have as many options as some because of where I live but hey, this works. I can get to NRA just as quickly as I can to Huff Post. If the internet is gov. ran it will turn out like everything else the Gov. does. Epic fail.
-Kathi adroitly hit the nerve center of this issue. If the government regulates the Net, it will not improve upon corporate abuses. They will merely co-op them and couple them with the power to tax, fine, confiscate, intrude and,ultimately, kill.
The MSM is already on-board with statism. The only respite for alternative views and logic is the Net and talk radio. If we lose that, we will have a tacit state run media. Like China.
FCC official warns Obama-backed net neutrality plan would bring 'immediate' Internet tax
Internet users would be forced to pay a new federal tax on their monthly bills if the government approves regulations recently endorsed by President Obama, a member of the Federal Communications Commission predicts.
Commissioner Mike O'Reilly addressed what's known as "net neutrality" at a Washington seminar on Friday. He spoke after Obama backed stricter rules by calling for preventing service providers from charging more for speedier service and for regulating them like telecommunications companies under a decades-old law.
That law requires telecommunications companies to pay into the FCC’s “Universal Service Fund” -- and would likely require the same of Internet companies. But O'Reilly says history clearly shows that the fees would quickly be “passed off” to customers, just like they are now on monthly phone bills.
“Consumers of these services would face an immediate increase in their Internet bills,” O'Reilly said Friday during the seminar held by the non-partisan Free State Foundation. “Let’s accept a truism: Consumers pay [the fund], not companies.”
O'Reilly, a Republican on the five-member commission, also quoted scholar and net neutrality guru Tim Wu in saying, “Ultimately, consumers always pay for everything, no matter what we say otherwise.”
Not only will computer users see this tax increase, but all cell phone customers who have data plans will also see an increase... 
doc lives in the same fantasy land where Obama's "you can keep your..." frolics with balloons and unicorns.
We've been beating up on doc for his lack of being able to put his arguments in a clear and concise manner to show the benefits of the Obama vision of Internet control. In doc's defense, I offer the following (Thanks to the good people at People's Cube, doc's POV is more clearly defined):
Net neutrality: Throttling innovation, for the greater good
How do you make something more free and accessible? Why, more government regulation, of course. When government says they will regulate something, it always ends up being more accessible to all, with more freedom resulting, not less.
Net neutrality is one way to accomplish mandatory fairness, but on the internet. This topic has been on the back burner for years, but now President Obama is resurrecting the issue to confuse and divide conservatives (which we fully support.)
It's not fair when someone has more money to contribute to anything in life. The rich should not use more than their fair share of anything, including the internet. The Progressive Dictionary defines the "Rich" as:
[rich] n. 1. Anyone with a job. 2. Anyone with enough disposable income to pay more for a premium good or service i.e., almost every American.
President Obama believes that websites with large budgets (obviously republican-owned) should not have more of an advantage over high-schooler blogs (obviously liberal-owned.) By giving the liberal high-schooler blog free advertising that the republican-owned mega-website pays for, just as many people will see the liberal blog and vote Democrat (or so the theory goes.)
We at the People's Cube would like to discuss one major roadblock on the way to net neutrality. In the past, when liberal and conservative entities have been on equal footing, the liberal one usually loses out. For example:
1. When people have the choice of multiple news channels, they usually choose Fox News over CNN.
2. When people had the choice to tune into liberal radio channel Air America, they chose instead to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Air America went bankrupt.
3. When Colorado voters had the opportunity to vote Democrat with mail-in ballots, they chose to vote republican.
While the purpose behind net neutrality is integral to the progressive movement (control and redistribution of internet), it may backfire on the liberals. We just want to make them aware of this possibility.
To prevent the conservatives winning yet another consumer battle, we suggest that the government pro-actively throttle conservative websites more but charge them the same (use Chinese government as a model.)
Why should any company charge more for using more? Everyone should pay the same equal price, no matter how much they use. If you eat less food you should pay the same amount as someone who eats more food. If you use less internet you should pay the same amount as someone who uses more internet. It's only fair.
Surprisingly, many conservatives and liberals are in a rare agreement over net neutrality, but for different reasons. Here are two opposing viewpoints from proponents of net neutrality:
1. A citizen net neutrality advocate: "Without net neutrality, ISPs can charge us more money to visit Gmail or Facebook. We need to be protected from predatory ISPs."
2. A Democrat politician: "Without net neutrality, the government can't force ISPs to restrict access to hate websites (like the Drudge Report.) We need to protect you from predatory information."
The position we progressives closest identify with is that of the Democrat politician who wants to stifle access to information.
There is debate whether net neutrality means government regulation of access or content. The truth is, nobody knows. We have to pass net neutrality to find out what's in it.
Allowing the government to control the internet to prevent companies from charging for Facebook seems about as overboard as blowtorching your house to kill a spider. Comcast hasn't yet charged extra for Facebook, so it could be argued that they probably won't. But we have to use scare tactics with years-old issues in order to convince people of the benefits of government control.
When government controls entire industries, great things happen. 
In a free-market system, when a corporation does something that customers don't like, the customers find another seller or innovate with a new product. In our progressive closed-market system, there is no need for innovation.
Why should fast internet even exist if only the rich can get it? This is why we support slow internet for all, and internet innovation resources to be directed elsewhere (such as entitlement programs.)
We also support government regulation of content, so that there are less (if any) conservative hate websites. In our system, there is only one opinion.
Support net neutrality. Throttle innovation - for the greater good!
Anony Mouse's Link
Do you really think these people can be bought by the amounts covered in this article?
I'm not for goverment regulation but without that....what keeps the rich from doing what I relate in my story? What keeps the rich guys from shooting all the ducks...er..I mean bandwidth?
1......2......3.......
